peter krey's web site

scholarship, sermons, songs, poems, weblog writing on Wordpress.com

“Getting into the Zone: Correlating Timothy Gallwey’s Inner Game with Martin Luther’s Theology,” A Luther Lecture for Reformation Day, 2009

leave a comment »

Correlating Timothy Gallwey’s Inner Game with Martin Luther’s Theology

October 31, 2009 by Dr. Peter D.S. Krey

Since writing the post, “Time Slows Down in the Zone” on July 26th 2008, I have wanted to deal with W. Timothy Gallwey’s Inner Game of Tennis[1] again, because many of his insights can be correlated with Luther’s theology. I will present those insights and Luther’s correlations, which are also basically features of the Christian faith, the way it is experienced and lived. Then it will be important to answer the question, why do all these correlations exist?

In my dissertation, Sword of the Spirit, Sword of Iron, I argue that Martin Luther (1486-1546) championed spontaneity. Medieval times were characterized by mediation, that priests mediated the faith to the other estates, the princes, peasants, and burghers, for example. Luther championed immediacy. All, everyone was part of the Christian estate and they were the priesthood of all believers, who had immediate access to God and a specialized priestly estate was not necessary to mediate their relationship with the sacred.

My emphasis on spontaneity in my dissertation is well placed. Timothy Gallwey speaks of a deeper sense of confidence, while Luther emphasizes a deeper intensity of faith, which he also refers to as trust and confidence. For Luther faith is an overarching confidence in God, while Gallwey places trust in a second self. From Luther’s point of view, which is basically the Christian one, Gallwey’s Self 1 and Self 2 can be considered the old and new self in Christ. In the fourth article on Baptism in Luther’s “Small Catechism,” he writes

that the old Adam in us, together with all sins and evil lusts should be drowned by daily sorrow and repentance and be put to death, and that a new man should come forth daily and rise up, cleansed and righteous, to live forever in God’s presence.

Gallwey focuses on getting to Self 2 for the sake of peak performance at a game, but his disparagement of Self 1 is much like the Christian conception of an old self as opposed to the new self in Christ.

Gallwey’s ego-mind or Self 1 corresponds with Luther’s old self that lives out of a righteousness of works and the law. Gallwey writes of the judgmental Self 1 that interferes with Self 2, which from Luther’s theological point of view, is the self sustained by grace, already saved. Getting into this self is, however, very difficult to sustain. In Gallwey’s words, “Grab for it, and it will squirt away like a slippery bar of soap” (page 100).

In Luther’s words:

Justification is hard to hold (lubrica est, that is, it is slippery), not indeed in itself – for in itself it is sure and certain – but [in] so far as our relation to it is concerned. I often experience this myself, for I know the hours of darkness in which I sometimes wrestle. I know how often I lose the roots of the Gospel and grace, as if it were suddenly hidden from me by dense clouds. I know how slippery is the footing of even those who are experienced in this matter and can step out most firmly….[2]

Gallwey writes much the same way about getting into and slipping out of Self 2. Listen to Luther again:

Dear brother, do not be proud, or sure and certain that you know Christ well. You now hear me confessing and professing what the devil was able to do against this man Luther, who, after all, was a doctor in this art. He has preached, thought, written, spoken, sung, and read so much about this matter and yet must remain a pupil in it and at times is neither a pupil nor master. Therefore be advised, and do not shout hurrah. Now you are standing, but see to it that you do not fall[3]

For Gallwey’s suspension of judgment, we can correlate the Christian tenet that when the self has already died in baptism, judgment is irrelevant. There is no more earthly jurisdiction. Gallwey’s inner game makes the other-worldly produce the this-worldly or conversely, it makes the this-worldly reflect the other-worldly tenets of justification through faith by grace.

It is easy to change a few words of some of Gallwey statements and you have Luther’s sense of the spontaneous new life come to the fore. For example,

The first skill to learn is the art of letting go of the human inclination to judge ourselves and our performance as either good or bad. Letting go of the judging process is a basic key to the Inner Game, when we unlearn how to be judgmental, it is possible to (and here I substitute my words) “live the spontaneous, focused, Christian life” (page 17).

Thus Luther threw the canon law into the fire on December 10th 1520, shocking the Church. Justification by faith meant no judgment. It is law-free unless you slip back into the old self. In his work, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, Luther claims that to call the Christ of the new life a law-giver like Moses, is blasphemy. The Reformation gave the jurisdiction of the law to civil courts and closed the Archdeaconal and Episcopal church courts. (This is roughly speaking, because Protestant churches still had to deal with marriage and divorce.)

The legal dimension stands at the edge of personal relationships and in the courts is where social forces intersect and impact personal relations. We have individual freedom, but when we transgress a law, then we are prosecuted by the society in court, where we have to accept penalties that range from small fines even to capital punishment. Our society erases our ideology of individualism in the court of law.

Gallwey says, “It is interesting how the judgmental mind extends itself” (19). It can contaminate the whole personal individual self and also extend into a social self, where laws can interfere with a spontaneous creative life that has internalized the law, even the inner purpose of the law, also even the love of the law to its positive reaches, where a point comes that the law fails, becomes it has come into a place where it does not belong. In Luther’s terms, the freedom of the Gospel leaves the law behind.

Gallwey uses words like “fluidity” (21), “flowing like a river,” that “our actions flow,” for spontaneity. Gallwey says that the art of letting go of Self 1 control, gives Self 2 the chance to play spontaneously (82). Spontaneity is obstructed by self-judging, thinking too much, trying too hard — all forms of overcontrol (82).

Gallwey argues that observations must be made clearly in terms of doing something correctly or in error, without making a judgment about it. Just make the observation. An error is a learning experience.

He calls Self 1 the ego-mind and Self 2 the body. Perhaps he should call it the body-mind. He discovers the fact that we can not take credit for the accomplishments of the second self. That correlates with our not being saved by works, but only by grace, that is, by the merit of Christ – in whom we are our second self, which is a pure and unearned gift, and not our merit or deserving. Here Gallwey’s insight and Luther’s, which is of course derived from the Pauline Letters, correlate rather well.

Gallwey says that Self 2 has an inner intelligence which is staggering. Here Luther’s respect for creation and the body correlate well. Luther does not relegate sin to the body and superiority and sinlessness to the intellect, the reasoning mind. Gallwey’s ego-mind is like Luther’s Dame Reason and for Luther reason in the pejorative sense interferes with our relationship to God as much as the ego-mind interferes with Self 2, when it should be trusted to play spontaneously, far exceeding the capacity of Self One’s ego-mind.

Luther’s awareness also observes the inner and outer person, in his “Freedom of the Christian.” He also concentrates on the Inner Game, because his first 19 points concern the inner person, the next 6, the outer person, and the last four, concern their social and economic relations.[4]

Trying too hard is like Luther’s works-righteousness. The old self steps in and interferes with the new self, instead of trusting the new self. That is the meaning of “Trust Thyself!” (36) It is like a parent doing something for a child instead of allowing the child to learn it.

Then Gallwey starts emphasizing that we have to let it happen, rather than Self 1 doing it. Let it happen correlates with Luther’s, “Let God be God!” The emphasis is on trust rather than control and the constant control that Self 1 wants. Allow the natural learning process to take place and forget about stroke by stroke instructions. A Luther correlate would be sin versus sins. Forget about each thing you do wrong and concentrate, focus on your trust in God. When your trusting relationship with God breaks, which is sin, then all your sins take place. Thus your sins are merely symptoms of your sin, which is a breakdown of your trust in God.

Gallwey says it is watching, getting the feel, and then letting the body do it…effortlessly. It has to happen without effort and control. Luther states in the Small Catechism’s explanation of the Third Article of the Creed: “I believe that I cannot by my own understanding or effort believe in Jesus Christ my Lord, or come to him. But the Holy Spirit has called me through the Gospel, enlightened me with his gifts, and sanctified and kept me in the true faith.”

Thus the new life in Christ is also effortless. The spontaneity entails Christ working through you. Gallwey says that you have to become passive the way Luther emphasizes passive righteousness in justification. “Letting it happen,” according to Gallwey, “does not mean that you go limp, but it means letting Self 2 [takes over]” (79). It is interesting how Gallwey argues that for trusting and respecting the body, we need a change of attitude (41). Becoming a new self in Christ requires a metanoia, a change of mind, for the transformation to take place. A critical attitude and wanting control are symptoms of mistrust (41).

Gallwey touches the problem of dogmatism (53):

When the verbal instruction is passed on to another person who does not have in his bank of experience the action being described in memory, it lives in the mind totally disconnected from experience. The chances are now even greater that there will be a split between memory of theory and memory of action (53).

Putting this in my words: Verbal instruction or teaching passed on to someone who does not have a bank of experience of the life being described in memory, can live in a world totally disconnected from that experience. Another helpful Gallwey insight: They are relying on formula rather than the feel (56). Perhaps these instructions all come from the ego-mind of a dogmatic person. Thus a Christian life can not at all be there in experience, but merely in dogmatic instructions. A person can have the feel for a Christian life or have lost the feel for it, the way a person may not have the feel for a language. Gallwey cites a dictum: “No teacher is greater than one’s own experience” (54). Perhaps Schleiermacher had good reason for connecting our theology with experience. What do we make of a theology that is adverse to experience? A dogmatic theology that does not shape a life lived alien to Christian experience is worthless. But a theology can also be performative, bringing the experience it espouses into existence.

I wonder if the word “experience” was distilled from the word “suffering,” like the word “thanksgiving” was from the word “praise”? I am very interested in the historical career of words. Reading the Bible and other old texts, I often feel that the word suffering also includes the concept of experience, before that word became coined.

Gallwey continues that valid instruction from experience can help me if it guides me in my own experiential discovery. He also emphasizes remembering the inner feel. Gallwey is, of course, instructing tennis players. He says it is necessary to have a clear picture of a right stroke of the racket and the inner feel of it. With both, one can have natural learning. For Gallwey relying on formula rather than the feel is a mistake (56). Again that reminds me of a dogmatic person. We need theology from good experience to help others learn from experience and the inner feel [the Holy Spirit] in the experience. “Natural learning is from the inside out.” according to Gallwey (68).

In my seminary days, Granger Westberg made a point about learning from the outside in. He suggested that we should behave our way into a new state of mind, rather than going from a new state of mind into new ways of acting or a change of behavior.

There are probably many missing components involved in these complex relations of the inner states and outward actions. Gallwey also emphasizes how a clear visual picture of a result needs to be complemented by the inner feel of that action. The “doing” of Westberg might relate to the external observance of an action, while Gallwey relates to the inner feel and the internal authority of one’s own experience in learning a game. The idea is learning how to learn and then discovering what is worth learning (71). Gallwey notes that the child is the greatest learner. “Learning does not mean the collection of information, but the realization of something that actually changes one’s behavior, such as a tennis stroke, [or taking regular exercise or changing one’s diet] or internal behavior, such as a pattern of thought” (72). Trying to break a habit strengthens it. Use the strategy of starting a new habit. Starting a new pattern is easy when done with childlike disregard for the difficulties (76).

Gallwey’s emphasis on letting it happen by trusting Self 2 reminds so much of Luther’s conviction that it is not by our own effort but by the working of the Holy Spirit. Gallwey says that you have to trust Self 2, your body, with the effort and all the trying and making of

Self 1 is to no avail. It has to allow Self 2 to do it. “But letting it happen does not mean going limp, it means letting Self 2 use the muscles necessary for the job” (79). For my purposes, I would say, letting the new self take over. I would then add, we are thus not passive, but active out of an inner force.

This correlates with the passive righteousness that Luther speaks of in his experience of having been justified by faith. In relation to God, passive righteousness is not the active righteousness through which one is judged and found wanting, but a righteousness that imbues the believer with righteousness, making the sinner righteous. The believer also has to be passive before God in this exchange, that is, on the vertical axis. The believer has to let it happen to him or her. But before others on the horizontal axis, the initiative for being active is brought out of the person. We could say the person is passive before God, coram deo, and thus very active among others, coram hominibus.

Gallwey continues: When self 1 does it, a certain ego satisfaction is attained. But when Self 2 does it, it doesn’t feel as if it was you who did it (81). And you do not feel that you can take the credit for what transpired. That applies to doing things out of the Holy Spirit, out of the grace of God. Then as Isaiah says, all our works are thy doing, O Lord (26:12). So if they are done by our Christ-self, then we cannot take credit for what Christ has done. As St. Paul says, “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me” (Gal. 2:20). That saying can easily be extended to “It is no longer I who work, but Christ who works through me.”

Luther also knows that fighting the mind does not work, as Gallwey notes (82). Luther somehow identifies what Gallwey calls the ego-mind or Self 1 with the devil and advises wiles to use against the devil’s invoked temptation to surrender to depression, for example.

The devil is conquered by mocking and despising him, not by resisting and arguing with him. Therefore, my Jerome [the student Luther is counseling] join in jokes and games with my wife and the rest, and in this way you will cheat those diabolical thoughts and take good courage.[5]

Like Gallwey says old habits cannot be broken directly, they have to be replaced by new habits, Luther advises, play the piano or play a flute, avoid being alone. Luther is trying to get someone out of depression, however, which is somewhat different from unlearning a bad habit in the skill of playing a game. But the diabolical ideas that plague the depressed students that Luther is counseling resemble the self-judgment and heavy self-criticism that Gallwey is dealing with.

The best way to quiet this mind, is not by telling it to shut up, or by arguing with it, or criticizing it for criticizing you. Fighting the mind does not work. What works best is learning to focus it. (82)

That is not a Luther insight.

There is a better correlation of Luther pejorative sense of reason, which he calls Dame Reason, with Gallwey’s ego-mind and Self 1. Gallwey says, “the problem of letting go of Self 1 and its interfering activities is not found to come easy” (82). We already included citations where Luther says the same about living out of justification by faith or knowing Christ and living in the second self in the Gospel through grace. He could become impressed by himself and want credit or he could condemn himself and doubt everything he said and stood for, as if in the whole world only Luther was right. The first case he called falling off a log on the right and the second one was falling off on the left.[6]

Gallwey says that relaxed concentration with a quiet and focused mind is the supreme act (83), while Luther would say justification by faith was the supreme act, but ascribe the act to God and not to ourselves. Luther also relates to faith in a similar way. He first calls it the captain of all our works and then progresses to saying, faith is God’s work in us, with which we can have nothing to do. He moves this way from his “Sermon on Good Works” to his Babylonian Captivity of the Church, where faith has become the action of God completely beyond our competence.

Gallwey says, “Not assuming that you already know [something] is a powerful principle of focus” (85). Luther does not tire of emphasizing this same point. When he speaks about the Epistle to the Romans, for example, he writes:

It is worthy and valuable for a Christian not only to know it word for word by heart but also to indulge in it daily as the soul’s daily bread. It can never be read or pondered too often. The more one indulges in it, the more valuable it becomes….[7]

Again Luther speaks of working with a Psalm in Scripture:

You should meditate, not only in your heart but externally, aloud, so that, in constantly repeating the words, you can compare your oral words with the ones written literally, contrasting them, as it were, reading and rereading them, with diligent attention and reflection in order to understand what the Holy Spirit means by them. And be on guard that you do not become satisfied and start to think that, after reading it once or twice, you have read, heard, and spoken it enough and have gotten to the bottom of it and understood it.[8]

Another example: For Luther the Lord’s Prayer has to be thought, read, rethought, reread again and again, because its depth cannot be exhausted.

Gallwey is attempting to keep the mind focused.

The question arises how to keep the mind focused for an extended period of time. The best way is to allow yourself to get interested in the ball. How do you do this? By not thinking you already know all about it, no matter how many thousands of balls you have seen in your life. Not assuming you already know is a powerful principle of focus (85).

Gallwey writes about consciousness very beautifully.

Consciousness is that which makes all things and events knowable. Without consciousness eyes could not see, ears could not hear, and mind could not think. Consciousness is like a pure light energy, whose power is to make events knowable, just as electric light makes objects visible. Consciousness could be called the light of lights because it is by its light that all other lights become visible (91).

That passage reminds very much of the Psalms, especially “For with you is the fountain of life and in your light we see light” (Psalm 36:9). The Psalm speaks of divine consciousness that lights up our consciousness and our lives deriving from the divine fountain of life.

Gallwey continues: “Attention is focused consciousness and consciousness is the power of knowing” (92). “Our minds project what is about to happen or dwell on what has already happened” (93). This distracting mind is what Luther calls Dame Reason, which makes him furious because it interferes with his trust in God, like the ego-mind interferes with Self 2 in Gallwey. The ego-mind of Self 1 wants to do what Self 2 could do with spontaneous inspiration. Dame Reason is convinced that she created God and thus interferes with faith in God, and in the same way as Self 1 is a small light obliterating the great light, like a street light erases the stars in the sky.

At this point Gallwey gets into his discussion of getting into the zone. I have already dealt extensively with being in the zone.[9] Here I will first record more of how Gallwey describes this athletic experience and then compare it with a more universalizable religious experience like Luther’s justification by faith. A course in the Sociology of Religion, taught by Prof. Robert Bellah was helpful here.

When athletes have gotten into the zone, to start with Gallwey, they say: “I wasn’t there. Something else took over. I didn’t do it, it just happened” (98). St. Paul would say, “It was not me, but Christ in me.” The Holy Spirit took over. Gallwey continues by describing the zone further: “It comes as a gift. The secret is not thinking: the mind gets in the way” (99). That sounds very much like Dame Reason getting between Luther and God again.

Gallwey continues that as much as Self 1 would love to get into the zone, it can only be entered when Self 1 is left behind (99). “As trust increases Self 1 quiets, Self 2 becomes more conscious and more present, enjoyment increases and gifts are being given” (100). “If you are willing to give credit where credit is due, and not think you ‘know’ how to do it, the gifts are apt to be more frequent and sustainable” (100). In a passage like Luther’s Gallwey continues:

I’ve been courting Self 2 for a long time now, over 25 years consciously, and it comes at its own timing, when I am ready for it – humble, respectful, not expecting it, somehow placing myself lower than it, not above it. Then when the moment is right, it comes, and I enjoy the absence of Self 1 thought and the presence of joy. I like it a lot. Grab for it, and it will squirt away like a slippery bar of soap. Take it for granted, and you will be distracted and lose it. I used to think that whatever was present was ephemeral. Now I know that it is always there and it is only I who leave. When I look at a young child, I realize it is there all the time” (100).

In writing this book and wanting to transcend the game of tennis by seeing the Inner Game applying to all of life, Gallwey almost becomes theological about getting into the zone. Gallwey also tells a story about his car breaking down on a freezing night far away from any help. He experiences a kind of death of his frightened self that was so afraid of dying and starts running and runs for forty-five minutes until he reaches a house and finds help. Really he felt he was running toward life (132).

It is letting go of the concerns of Self 1 and letting in the natural concerns of a deeper and truer self. It is caring, yet not caring; it is effort, but effortless at the same time” (132).

Prof. Robert Bellah of the University of California at Berkeley compared being in the zone with Abraham Maslow’s peak experiences.[10] He said that when they occurred in athletic feats they could rival contemplative graces. Joe Montana reports entering a “zone” and no longer hearing the crowd – everything becoming one. The difference between player and game, dance and dancer disappears. The minute you worry what will happen next it is gone and you are out of the zone. Bellah confirms the discovery of Gallwey here, too. Bellah continues that it is an experience of the felt whole. The feeling proceeds through participation.

While an athlete remains an athlete, a religious experience contains life-entailments, according to Bellah. Gallwey becomes somewhat theological by also applying his insights to life beyond the game of tennis. A mystic or a saint, however, is not in a game, according to Bellah, but transcends all categories in a higher experience. One has to have had this experience it to understand it. Timothy Gallwey’s athletic experience of the zone is strong and his witness is therefore helpful as he transcends the game of tennis and begins to universalize his experience and insights in an almost religious way; he is not merely an athlete reporting about having been in a zone like Montana. According to Bellah, however, a religious experience is a felt whole, related to the ultimate, the transcendent, thus opening the possibility for a more radical set of implications. The experience of the saint is superior to that of an athlete. The religious experience is a challenge to the total self, (Bellah mentions Luther, as an example). The athlete’s experiences are partial.

Thus the religious experience is over-arching and the athletic experience is one individual this-worldly reflection of the other-worldly reality.

Thus I believe the many correlations between Luther’s life and theology and Gallwey’s Inner Game come about, because Gallwey is also dealing with a religious experience. He uses his game of tennis for a way to understand his life before the ultimate, although he is careful to remain secular. I also think that Luther sometimes experienced such a feeling and focused oneness when praying, studying, and writing. Being in a zone, might partially explain his phenomenal productivity. I know my late mentor, Prof. Robert Goeser, would just deny that explanation, the way he denied so many other explanations I attempted. Luther’s productivity according to Goeser could not be explained. But something like the zone is involved in being in the new self in Christ. Our body and mind, our whole self, caught up in the Holy Spirit, can be like a leaf blowing in the wind. But the wind is at the outer edges of physicality, while the Holy Spirit is the breath of pure life, thought, and love. There is also an emergence of the body, physicality, and creation in Luther’s theology, because he favors the Hebrew sense of religion over the Greek sense of philosophy, and marriage over virginity. Gallwey is also very much dealing with physical performance and the inner capacity involved in attaining peak bodily performance.

Let me conclude with Luther’s experience, which we call justification by grace. Luther was struggling mightily to interpret the scripture passage found in Romans 1:17:

Though I lived as a monk without reproach, I felt that I was a sinner before God with an extremely disturbed conscience. I could not believe that God was placated by my satisfaction. I did not love, yes, I hated the righteous God who punished sinners, and secretly, if not blasphemously, certainly murmuring greatly, I was angry with God and said, “As if, indeed, it is not enough, that miserable sinners, eternally lost through original sin, are crushed by every kind of calamity by the law of the Decalogue, without having God add pain to pain by the gospel and also by the gospel threatening us with God’s righteousness and wrath!” Thus I raged with a fierce and troubled conscience. Nevertheless I beat importunately upon Paul at this place, most ardently desiring to know what St. Paul wanted.

At Last, by the mercy of God, meditating day and night, I gave heed to the context of the words, namely, “In it the righteousness of God is revealed, as it is written, ‘One who through faith is righteous shall live.’” There I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that by which the righteous live, by a gift of God, namely by faith. And this is the meaning: the righteousness of God is revealed by the gospel, the passive righteousness by which the merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written, “One who through faith is righteous shall live.” Here I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates. There a totally other face of the entire scripture showed itself to me. Thereupon I ran through the scripture from memory. I also found in other terms an analogy, as the work of God, that is, what God does in us, the power of God, with which he makes us strong, the wisdom of God, with which he makes us wise, the strength of God, the salvation of God, the glory of God.

And I extolled my sweetest word with a love as great as the hatred with which I had before hated the word, “righteousness of God.” Thus that place in Paul was truly the gate to paradise.[11]

Here Luther’s struggle with the interpretation of a text (central to an angry issue he has with God) resolves and overflows into a complete renewal of his life and thought, which overflows again into a renewal of the church.

We could go on and tell of St. Augustine and his mother, Monica, being taken up as they talked at a window sill overlooking a garden[12] or even the transfiguration of Jesus, between Moses, and Elijah in the presence of Peter, James, and John.[13] Here the physical bodies on that high mountain and the whole creation become involved. But it was Reformation Day and for our purposes the correlation of Luther’s theology and Timothy Gallwey’s Inner Game, was what I wanted to bring into better focus.


[1] W. Timothy Gallwey, The Inner Game of Tennis: the Classic Guide to the Mental Side of Peak Performance, (New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks, 1974-2008). Throughout this study, the numbers in parentheses are the pages of his book.

 

[2] (D. Martin Luthers Werke, Kritische Gesamtausgabe Vol. 40.I, (Weimar: Hermann Boehlaus Nachfolger, 1883-), page 129.

[3] Ibid., Vol. 31.I, pages 255ff.

[4] See Philip and Peter Krey, Luther’s Spirituality, (New York: Paulist Press, 2007), pages 69-90.

[5] Ibid., page 8-9.

[6] Ibid., page 61 and 63. On page 61 Luther has the image of someone like a lumberjack perched on a log floating in water and trying to get a footing. I combine that with page 63 and falling off the log on either the right or the left side.

[7] Ibid., page 105.

[8] Ibid., page 122.

[9] See my post of July 26th 2008, “Time Slows Down in the Zone” where I have already dealt with some of Gallwey’s important insights in this matter.

[10] Abraham H. Maslow, Toward a Psychology of Being, (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1968).

The words of Robert Bellah, Professor of Sociology, are my notes from a lecture held on January 25th 1996 in his course on the Sociology of Religion, the Spring Semester, at the University of California in Berkeley.

[11] Walter von Loewenich, Martin Luther: the Man and his Work, Translated by Lawrence W. Denef, (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1982), Page 84.

[12] “The Vision at Ostia,” The Confessions of St. Augustine, book 9, Chapter 10. In John K. Ryan’s translation, (New York: an Image Book, Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1960), page 221.

[13] See Mark 9:2-8; Matthew 17:1-8; Luke 9:28-36; and also see 2 Peter 1: 17-18.

Advertisements

Written by peterkrey

November 5, 2009 at 9:59 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: