Yesterday was Martin Luther’s 531st birthday, and today is the Feast Day of St. Martin. It seems like a fitting time to give an honest assessment of some of the darker parts of Luther’s legacy, and consider their implications.
There’s a popular Luther narrative that plays out a little like Star Wars. A humble son of the Church rises up to overthrow the Dark Side, the Evil Empire, the Roman Catholic Church, all while cominfg to see his true identity. We love an underdog story, so it’s easy to root for Luther. And this narrative is an important one, both for Protestants (to show why the Reformation was “necessary”) and atheists (to show why Catholicism/Christianity/fundamentalism/religion is dangerous and evil).
But no matter how attractive it may be, this Luther narrative is a fundamentally false one. It relies on two sets of falsehoods: (1) distortions and exaggerations of the evils done on the Catholic side; and (2) a whitewashing of the real history of Luther and the early Protestants. I’ve addressed (1) before, and I’d like to address (2) head-on today.
The real-life Luther was a man passionately convicted of his own rightness, so convinced that he thought anyone who disagreed with him was either ignorant, stupid, or evil. It was this overconfidence that I would suggest is the root behind some of the shockingly evil things he advocated. I’m going to lay them out here, letting them speak for themselves, before considering the implications of these facts.
A few years after Luther’s break from the Catholic Church, the revolutionary momentum that he had helped to unleash culminated in a massive popular (and bloody) uprising called the German Peasants’ War. I’ll let James Stayer, a historian of the German Reformation, paint the scene:
 |
| Rudolf Schiestl, Peasant Warrior and Death, 1525 (20th c.) |
When the Roman court stumbled into condemning Luther in 1520, many of the younger generation of German-speaking theologians and biblical scholars turned against it [Rome / the papacy]. Certainly there were elements here of German cultural rebellion against the Latinate clerical caste that had dominated northern Europe throughout the Middle Ages. […] Now the revolt of German against Latin merged with a revolt of the commonrs against the clergy and aristocracy. Such a revolt was climaxed in wide areas of South Germany by the German Peasants’ War of 1525-26. This so-called war united the unprivileged in towns and rural districts, and it was the high-water mark of the Reformation as a spontaneous popular movement.
Having accidentally sparked a bloody revolution, Luther was in an unpleasant position. He was quickly associated with the revolutionary peasants both by the peasants themselves (to expand their popularity) and by his Catholic opponents (to show the danger of his ideas). This lead him to respond to the revolution in two very different ways.
Luther’s initial response was to criticize both sides of the feud in his Admonition to Peace. To the Christian princes and lords, he wrote:
We have no one on earth to thank for this disastrous rebellion, except you princes and lords, and especially you blind bishops and mad priests and monks, whose hearts are hardened, even to the present day. You do not cease to rant and rave against the holy gospel; even though you know that it is true and that you cannot refute it. In addition, as temporal rulers you do nothing but cheat and rob the people so that you may lead a life of luxury and extravagance. The poor common people cannot bear it any longer. The sword is already at your throats, but you think that you sit so firm in the saddle that no one can unhorse you. This false security and stubborn perversity will break your necks, as you will discover.
(As an aside, notice how Luther is convinced that his opponents know that he is right, and just refuse to accept it: it can’t be an honest difference of opinion or Biblical interpretation.)
But Luther also addressed the revolting peasants, admitting the validity of some of their arguments, but calling them to moderation:
Nevertheless, you, too, must be careful that you take up your cause justly and with a good conscience. If you have a good conscience, you have the comforting advantage that God will be with you, and will help you. Even though you did not succeed for a while, or even suffered death, you would win in the end, and you would preserve your souls eternally with all the saints. But if you act unjustly and have a bad conscience, you will be defeated. And even though you might win for a while and even kill all the princes, you would suffer the eternal loss of your body and soul in the end.
Luther’s Admonition to Peace was published in early 1525. Shortly after this, Luther toured the war-torn area, seeing both the severity of the peasants’ actions, and the ineffectiveness of his own preaching. His admonition to peace having failed, Luther’s new position can fairly be characterized as an admonition to massacre.
In May of 1525, he published a work originally titled Against the Rioting Peasants, the title of which was quickly changed to Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants, in which he called on everyone to kill the peasants, en masse:
Besides, any man against whom it can be proved that he is a maker of sedition is outside the law of God and Empire, so that the first who can slay him is doing right and well. For if a man is an open rebel every man is his judge and executioner, just as when a fire starts, the first to put it out is the best man. For rebellion is not simple murder, but is like a great fire, which attacks and lays waste a whole land. Thus rebellion brings with it a land full of murder and bloodshed, makes widows and orphans, and turns everything upside down, like the greatest disaster. Therefore let everyone who can, smite, slay and stab, secretly or openly, remembering that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful or devilish than a rebel. It is just as when one must kill a mad dog; if you do not strike him, he will strike you, and a whole land with you.
His new message was to offer the prospect of martyrdom to those fighting for the aristocracy, but only hellfire for all the slain peasants:
Thus it may be that one who is killed fighting on the ruler’s side may be a true martyr in the eyes of God, if he fights with such a conscience as I have just described, for he is in God’s Word and is obedient to him. On the other hand, one who perishes on the peasants’ side is an eternal brand of hell, for he bears the sword against God’s Word and is disobedient to him, and is a member of the devil. […] Strange times, these, when a prince can win heaven with bloodshed, better than other men with prayer!
As Dr. Mark U. Edwards, Jr. notes, “Luther had his way” and the “peasants were brutally suppressed.” Estimates of those slaughtered range from 100,000 to 300,000.
Another major problem in the world of Martin Luther was widespread Catholic suspicion and hatred of the Jews. This was a problem that Luther could hardly be ignorant of: his own church in Wittenberg had a Judensau: on the outside of the church, there was (and still is) an obscene carving of a group of Jews and pigs suckling at the teat of a pig, while a rabbi looks under the pig’s tail.
In 1523, Luther published That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew, an eloquent denunciation of anti-Judaism. Luther lambasted the Catholic Jew-haters who he accused of both treating the Jews in a subhuman manner, and in driving them from the Gospel:
The Judensau at Wittenberg. Our fools, the popes, bishops, sophists, and monks-the crude asses’ heads-have hitherto so treated the Jews that anyone who wished to be a good Christian would almost have had to become a Jew. If I had been a Jew and had seen such dolts and blockheads govern and teach the Christian faith, I would sooner have become a hog than a Christian.
They have dealt with the Jews as if they were dogs rather than human beings; they have done little else than deride them and seize their property. When they baptize them they show them nothing of Christian doctrine or life, but only subject them to popishness and monkery. When the Jews then see that Judaism has such strong support in Scripture, and that Christianity has become a mere babble without reliance on Scripture, how can they possibly compose themselves and become right good Christians? I have myself heard from pious baptized Jews that if they had not in our day heard the gospel they would have remained Jews under the cloak of Christianity for the rest of their days. For they acknowledge that they have never yet heard anything about Christ from those who baptized and taught them.
I hope that if one deals in a kindly way with the Jews and instructs them carefully from Holy Scripture, many of them will become genuine Christians and turn again to the faith of their fathers, the prophets and patriarchs. They will only be frightened further away from it if their Judaism is so utterly rejected that nothing is allowed to remain, and they are treated only with arrogance and scorn. If the apostles, who also were Jews, had dealt with us Gentiles as we Gentiles deal with the Jews, there would never have been a Christian among the Gentiles. Since they dealt with us Gentiles in such brotherly fashion, we in our turn ought to treat the Jews in a brotherly manner in order that we might convert some of them. For even we ourselves are not yet all very far along, not to speak of having arrived.
I suspect that most people today would agree with Luther completely on these points: treating the Jews in such a vile way was both unchristian and counter-productive (at least, if one is actually concerned about their eternal salvation). As the Reformation was still young at this point, Luther is also visibly hopeful at the prospect that the Jews will respond positively to his reformulation of the Gospel.
As with the German peasants, Luther was quickly disappointed. The Jews didn’t en masse convert to Lutheranism. So Luther turned against them, becoming increasingly antagonistic towards the Jews throughout his life. One of the last works Luther ever wrote was his 1543 book On the Jews and Their Lies, published just three years before his dead. The book is chock full of the standard anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and black legends about all the evil things the Jews allegedly do when Christians aren’t around. This leads Luther, in Chapter 11 of the book, to present his Jewish problem:
What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming. If we do, we become sharers in their lies, cursing and blasphemy. Thus we cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of divine wrath, of which the prophets speak, nor can we convert the Jews.
Luther offered a seven-fold solution to his Jewish problem:
 |
| Johann Michael Voltz, Hep-Hep Riots (1819) |
- “First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians.”
- “Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them the fact that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.”
- “Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them.”
- “Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb.”
- “Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let them stay at home.”
- “Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. The reason for such a measure is that, as said above, they have no other means of earning a livelihood than usury, and by it they have stolen and robbed from us an they possess. […] Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred florins, as personal circumstances may suggest. With this he could set himself up in some occupation for the support of his poor wife and children, and the maintenance of the old or feeble.”
- “Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen. 3 [:19]). For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting., and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants.”
In other words, burn down all the synagogues, burn down the houses of the Jews, deprive the Jews of their employment (and take all their money for “safekeeping”), and kill their rabbis and any Jews who leave home. Since the Jews weren’t going to simply stop practicing their religion, Luther’s proposal would require murdering an endless series of rabbis and their successors.
Synagoge of Siegen, Germany, burning during Kristallnacht in Nazi Germany (November 9, 1938) It is difficult to understand the behavior of most German Protestants in the first Nazi years unless one is aware of two things: their history and the influence of Martin Luther. The great founder of Protestantism was both a passionate anti-Semite and a ferocious believer in absolute obedience to political authority. He wanted Germany rid of the Jew and when they were sent away he advised that they be deprived of “all their cash and jewels and silver and gold” and furthermore, “that their synagogues or schools be set on fire, that their houses be broken up and destroyed… and they be put under a roof or stable, like the gypsies… in misery and captivity as they incessantly lament and complain to God about us” – advice that was literally followed four centuries later by Hitler, Goering and Himmler.
In what was perhaps the only popular revolt in German history, the peasant uprising of 1525, Luther advised the princes to adopt the most ruthless measures against the “mad dogs,” as he called the desperate, downtrodden peasants. Here, as in his utterances about the Jews, Luther employed a coarseness and brutality of language unequaled in German history until the Nazi time. The influence of this towering figure extended down the generations in Germany, especially among the Protestants. Among other results was the ease with which German Protestantism became the instrument of royal and princely absolutism from the sixteenth century until the kings and princes were overthrown in 1918. The hereditary monarchs and petty rulers became the supreme bishops of the Protestant Church in their lands. Thus in Prussia the Hohenzollern King was the head of the Church. In no country with the exception of Czarist Russia did the clergy become by tradition so completely servile to the political authority of the State. Its members, with few exceptions, stood solidly behind the King, the Junkers and the Army, and during the nineteenth century they dutifully opposed the rising liberal and democratic movements. Even the Weimar Republic was anathema to most Protestant pastors, not only because it had deposed the kings and princes but because it drew its main support from the Catholics and the Socialists. During the Reichstag elections one could not help but notice that the Protestant clergy – Niemoeller was typical – quite openly supported the Nationalist and even the Nazi enemies of the Republic. Like Niemoller, most of the pastors welcomed the advent of Adolf Hitler to the chancellorship in 1933.
The idea that the Nazis were initially successful because of the groundwork that Luther laid is an intriguing hypothesis, and Shirer presents several strong arguments for it. But it’s worth noting in Luther’s defense that the situation is more complex than this. First, Luther hated Jews on account of their religion, rather than their race: he was willing to let the Jews live off of a tiny allowance if they would sincerely convert to Christianity. Hitler’s opposition to the Jews was based more on racial lines, and so even a great many Hebrew Christians died in the Holocaust. Second, as alluded to above, anti-Judaism predates Luther. That said, it is undeniable that Luther recognized the dangers of this hatred of the Jews, and yet fueled the fires nonetheless.
The question of how much Luther is to blame for the Holocaust is an intriguing one, but I want to go a few different directions, instead.
I mentioned before that Luther was so passionately convinced of his own rightness that he thought his opponents must necessarily be ignorant, stupid, or evil. This is the spirit consistently animating Luther’s writings. When he’s writing to someone who agrees with him, or who he thinks will agree with him, we get Dr. Jekyll. When he realizes that the other person actually thinks he’s wrong, Mr. Hyde appears. We see it from the first with his writings to the papacy, sweetly promising to obey whatever the pope should decide, and then denouncing him as the Antichrist when the pope doesn’t decide in his favor.
We see that play out time and again in the above passages: he’s convinced that the Christian rulers who disagree with him secretly know the truth about the “Gospel,” but just refuse to acknowledge it. He’s gentle to the peasants until he realizes that they’re not listening to them; then he calls for their mass slaughter. Likewise, he defends the Jews, when he thinks that they’re open to hearing his version of the Gospel; when he fails, he calls for their destruction, as well.
 |
| Martin Luther at the time of his death. |
When Catholics point out that several of Luther’s early writings sound pretty Catholic, the standard Protestant response (and a quite reasonable one, I might add), is that Luther wasn’t completely reformed yet. Even after he went into schism, he spent another quarter-century slowly divesting himself of his Catholic beliefs. But what’s remarkable is that, as Luther became less and less Catholic, he became less and less Christian.
Compare the before-and-after you see above to see what I mean. There are countless other examples that point in the same direction, too. For example, Hosanna Lutheran Church notes that Luther’s language in Against the Papacy at Rome Founded by the Devil, written in 1545 (a year before his death), was “the most vehement and vulgar Luther ever wrote. To accompany it Luther commissioned a series of political cartoons by Lucas Cranach defaming the pope and Rome.”
The man praised for taking a bold stand for freedom of conscience was positively bloodthirsty towards those whose consciences disagreed with his own. And he became crueler and more bloodthirsty, the longer he spent away from the Church.
Rev Dark Hans, please pick up the white courtesy phone, Rev Hans.
Daniel, behave…
After reading the life and achievement of Martin Luther, I was drawn to some things he did wrong. For example, the killing of the peasants and a harsh address to the Jews, even to the extent of killing them. That’s unfair on Luther’s part. However, Roman Catholic didn’t do well at all during the medieval periods and even before that period. Yes, things were wrong in the Church and thanks to God for bringing Luther to address those erroneous doctrines. Roman Catholic killed many for their faith. When I also consider the teachings of Bro Luther, was he saying one cannot be free from sin and that there are no works? This view may make one to continue in sin saying we cannot be free from sin. Jesus told us to be perfect! Yes, we are not saved by works but after salvation, we are to keep our salvation by engaging in good works which include godliness, righteousness, and fruits of the spirit. Work before salvation doesn’t earn us salvation, but after being saved by grace and faith, we continue to run away from sin intentionally and by God helping us and working what pleases Him in us.
Hi Sir. You mentioned that “Roman Catholic killed many for their faith”. I would like to ask you for the evidences that proves this thesis. If you mean the “Holy inquisition” please note that this institution brings to death in total considerable small number of executions (around 5000 in total history in Spain, during 500 years. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition) which is way smaller in contrast to one simple episode of peasant wars in Germany inspired by Luther where 100 000 peasants have been killed (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Peasants%27_War). This dishonesty and double standard when blaming the Catholic Church is ridiculous. Catholic church is blamed for many things and it’s faults are in many cases exaggerated while the True is simple different. So why is so? Please always remember that Catholic Church was very powerful and influencial around history. There were many parties interested to destroy Church and grab it’s properties or reduce it’s power on culture and law. There is also a conflict between other denominations ans Catholicism and between Atheist and Catholics so whoever is writing the history is actually acting in political way. In 17-18th century called the Age of Enlightenment politicians and influencual people tried to get rid off the Church. This is the reason why many of the Lies have been created. This is called propaganda and we should be aquintant with what it means. No surprises if Catholicism is being associated with Inquisition (as a tool for extreme oppression) or collaboration with Hitler etc. If we study deeply such cases the True is quite different.
Going back to main discussion. There are no official documents in entire history which Church calls to persecution anyone. And this is enormous difference. Catholic Church made some mistakes. True. But never was preaching or in it’s official teaching was calling anyone to persecute anyone (even the crusades were only defensive character against Turkish (Muslim) invasion there). Luther in contrast. He was teaching to fight brutally against his enemies and slaughter them (peasants, Church). This was his official statement. I am sure that if all of you having a chance to study deeply Luther’s life and his letters would get the conviction that God is never acting in such way. It is rather inspiration from Satana.
Closing me comment’s. There is in Poland one professor Fr Taduesz Guz who has been studying all Luther teaching for 20 years now. Many letters from Luther have been not published as they are so evidently showing that Luther was saying heresies as ie attributing to God (who is only Good) evil aspects (blaming God that he must be also Evil as works is evil as well). Protestants schism server as basement of new philosophical current which was leading to Hegel then Marx, then Schopenhauer, etc At the end we had Nazism in Germany where in consequences many millions have been killed as spirit of history is proceeding on the way of self-consciousness (Hegel, supremacy of the state over individual). This is the fruit of Luther’s schism unfortunately.
Your points of view are absolutely right. Besides, no denomination holds the entire reveled truth. I would dare to say: God’s church or rather group of believers are INVISIBLE….
Thank you for sharing.
I’m an Utah , USA resident.
[email protected]
Ha ha! Daniel, I am not sure if that is a “shout-out” or you calling me out. Either way, I will take the challenge. Thank you, Restless Pilgrim for calling for decency and decorum.
Many Lutherans wrestle with this problem. Luther gets more angry, vulgar, and anti-Semitic as he gets older. The way I explain this is that Luther is like Elvis. Lutherans love the young Luther, just as Americans love and remember the young Elvis. We forget the older, bloated, and drugged up Elvis. (If you see that image of Luther above, then the comparison hits at the truth in many ways) Lutherans do not want to think about the older and angry Luther. His writings force us to remember the man for who he was and the place he came from (Luther is a product of his time and also shaped his time). That is not to justify him or let him off the hook, but we need to remember people in their actual historical locations. If there is hope for the Holy Spirit to work through a vulgar man like Luther, then there is hope that the Holy Spirit can work through me.
My branch of Lutheranism (ELCA) will acknowledge this ugly truth and state that he was wrong in being so vulgar and hateful toward Jews. There are some branches of Lutheranism that embrace this hate and embrace the Anti-Roman ideas as well, which brings a bad name to all Christians. The Vatican and the Lutheran World Federation have come together on these topics to express regret over words and polemics used in the 16th century.
We want to take an honest look at Luther, the late medieval world, and the church of that day. We do not want to whitewash history to make ourselves look better! Lutherans are the first people to step up and state the wrongs that our ancestors did, and we will be the first ones today to fight against oppression and abuse in our own church and in our culture. Matthew 7:3-5 Just Sayin’!
Luther as Elvis! You made my night!
Thanks with your insight and agreeing with your commentaries Rev Dark Hans. I surmised that during the Reformation Period in the Roman Catholic Church and the rise of Protestant Churches in Europe, Dr. Martin Luther was as zealous as Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, in their new found faith. Before Paul became a believer in the LORDship and Gospel of JESUS CHRIST he persecuted and murdered those who followed JESUS CHRIST. Dr. Martin Luther when he became a Believer to JESUS CHRIST massacred those who do not want to be CHRISTians. Both of them figured out prominently during their Times….Precious Vessels in the Kingdom of GOD. About the Jews, with their unrighteousness, GOD dispersed them and prophecied their destructions in the Book of Lamentations. Too bad that Dr. Martin Luther meant to destroy the Religious Jews or Judaism but Hitler, who hates the Jewish race, also included the CHRISTian Jews in his Holocaust. But some CHRISTian Jews like Corrie Ten Boom survived to tell the horror of Holocaust. Anyway, whatever History tells about Dr. Martin Luther and his treateses, the Great Catholic Reformist and Father of Protestantism, had done an undaunting moral and spiritual Job which led to a spiritual revival in Europe and publication of Bible in German Language from Latin Vulgate. All glory and honor belongs to GOD for the life of Dr. Martin Luther.
He may have published the Bible into German but there were 1,400 errors in the Bible because of Martin Luther. He splintered the cross of Christ. History proves it was the Catholic Church Christ founded. If he is God he does not make mistakes though men do and have from the beginning. Martin Luther did not show he loved the Lord by his life. God would not want his Church to be torn asunder.
You are absolutely correct. He was a hypocrite.You can’t hate the Jewish people and call yourself a Christian!
You are correct and if Catholics honestly took a look at the history of all their evil Popes and actually compared their lives to the only true apostles, they would know they were never led by God at all. It’s disturbing that so many Catholics use Luther and Protestantism to cover for the Catholic Churches pagan practices. True Christians don’t follow Luther or any other men, we follow Christ the Word of God only. It matters not if they attack Luther since he wasn’t the first to go against the false teachings of Catholicism. Others in the same ranks did so.
Many were tortured and killed, had their property take from them and the horrors of the Inquisitions by a church filled with wicked men fueled by greed and lust for power rather than true Christian men of God. They were actually quite ungodly!
Actually going this way, I mean using this argumentation (rather rethorical figure) is not leading us to the true. Let’s leave apart the history of Catholic church and the shameful life of some popes and go back to the main topic.
Main question is
1) Whether Luther was a saint?
2) And whether his deeds were inspired by Holy Ghost (by God himself)?
1) Mt 7.15-20 (“A Tree and Its Fruit
1) In my opinion he wasn’t. I can imagine saint mother Teresa how she lived. I can recall the life of some other saints like saint Teresa the great or saint Ignatius. The latter were living in the same century as Luther. I see huge contrast in their integrity. Catholic saints – heroes in virtues, spiritual writings showing true love of God and hope to Him and personal development in the path of saintness. In contrast Dr Luther looks like political leader who uses instrumentally the religion to defend his ego or pride. We need to remember that the Catholic church to recognize someone as a saint must open a case. Entire life must be scanned. And if there is any flaw in their biography after conversion to CHRISTianity the person cannot be acknowledge as a saint. “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are kravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them lby their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, mevery healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 nEvery tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them lby their fruits. ”
2). If the person is not a saint can GOD gives him/her the mission to do sth important? My experience is that even the huge sinners can realize the God’s will, He does not ask sinner for any important mission. Let’s remember the history of king David. He has been chosen by God because no-one had so big heart as him (his brother better looking etc have been refused). David also committed sins but we need to remember that he manage to kill Goliat and escape from Saul because God was blessing him and David on that time was having heart similar to God (full of trust to God, full of humbleness, he had a chance to kill king Saul and he refused to do this because he observed the God’s law!!!!. This is the way how God realized the promise toward him. “. In contrast – i am giving just one example – Dr Luther not long from starting the Reformation was calling for massacre of peasants what is totally in contrast to God’s law. Samuel Anoints David.16 The Lord said to Samuel, “How long will you mourn for Saul, since I have rejected him as king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil and be on your way; I am sending you to Jesse of Bethlehem. I have chosen one of his sons to be king.” 2 But Samuel said, “How can I go? If Saul hears about it, he will kill me.”
The Lord said, “Take a heifer with you and say, ‘I have come to sacrifice to the Lord.’ 3 Invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show you what to do. You are to anoint for me the one I indicate.” 4 Samuel did what the Lord said. When he arrived at Bethlehem, the elders of the town trembled when they met him. They asked, “Do you come in peace?” 5 Samuel replied, “Yes, in peace; I have come to sacrifice to the Lord. Consecrate yourselves and come to the sacrifice with me.” Then he consecrated Jesse and his sons and invited them to the sacrifice. 6 When they arrived, Samuel saw Eliab and thought, “Surely the Lord’s anointed stands here before the Lord.” 7 But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The Lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” 8 Then Jesse called Abinadab and had him pass in front of Samuel. But Samuel said, “The Lord has not chosen this one either.” 9 Jesse then had Shammah pass by, but Samuel said, “Nor has the Lord chosen this one.” 10 Jesse had seven of his sons pass before Samuel, but Samuel said to him, “The Lord has not chosen these.” 11 So he asked Jesse, “Are these all the sons you have?” “There is still the youngest,” Jesse answered. “He is tending the sheep.” Samuel said, “Send for him; we will not sit down until he arrives.” 12 So he sent for him and had him brought in. He was glowing with health and had a fine appearance and handsome features. Then the Lord said, “Rise and anoint him; this is the one.” 13 So Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the presence of his brothers, and from that day on the Spirit of the Lord came powerfully upon David. Samuel then went to Ramah.
Look again on the history of why the Inquisitions.
The Christians being killed in that area. The men sent to defend those pilgrims.
Hi again. I cannot agree with you on what you said about God’s never leading the Catholic Church because of some immoral Popes. I am a catholic. I am not proud of any not saint pope in the history. Neither the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) is giving them any praise. This is one of the reason why we use the figure of canonical saint or blessed person if their virtu’ has been proved. We know that not all pope were good like not all people were good. This is fact. We agreed also that Luther was not good. So what is the difference between them? What is also the difference between Roman Catholic Church and Protestant Church? Let’s discuss this topic.
If some popes were evil does it mean that the whole Church was not led by God? Good question. What does the Bible say? Let’s look at the Old Testament to check some comparisons. If some of the Israel’s kings were unfaithful was it meant that the Israel has stopped to be the chosen nation by God? Not at all. God still was sending prophets trying to convert his people to the Right Faith. Also always the consequence of unfaithfulness was lost of blessing over the Israel including the lost of power or independence. But till Jesus rejection and new Offer settlement Israel was favored by God. We need also to remember that through the entire history of Israel the main care was about keeping the right Faith in God among people and of course Kings (Israel’s ruling caste). All prophets who were incidentally saints were calling people to preserve the Faith and the tradition. (Israel faithfulness was crucial to God’s plan of God’s revelation and then human redemption. Do you remember also that Jesus was on the first place sent to Jews and predicting Gospel to sons of David?)
Could Luther be consider to be a Prophet who calls Church believers to come to the the Right Faith? This is the good question too. We know that at that time the Church has suffered bad period as was deeply influenced by Renaissance with very low rigor towards obeying the commandments and tending to luxury. So Luther’s some intention may have been justified. But he did not limited himself to do the reformation of the Church (by introducing focus on life in poverty, stopping the abuses of indulgences, inspiring the Church to have holier live, etc). Reform means to change something what was previously existing. In case of Luther he destroyed the RCC in Germany and created his own church. It looks like he has stolen part of the Church (Body of Christ) and become his head, giving it new rules on Faith, new liturgy, new personal structure. Could you imagine that you as a international company owner hires a manager to reform your organization to make it more efficient or less costly. And at the end you realize that that person has made a split of the company into two bodies which now start competing against each other? Would you be happy? Was this your intention? I do not think so. Can you imagine that God having one Church as we said very far away from perfection was inspiring Luther to make such a break instead to lead to real reformation? I doubt. What the Bible say again: Matthew 12, 25: “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand”. Do you still think that Luther has been driven by Holy Spirit? Again Bible can be helpful. Look at the Old Testament’s prophets? Who from them was evil? No-one? Again let’s study Bible. What St Paul says in Galatians 5:19-21: “19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, >>>>>dissensions<<<<>>>>>>factions<<<<<<>>>>>>they may all be one<<<<<<, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me."
Are really Catholic and Protestants one? Really? Are we a sign of Jesus Son of God for the World? ? ?
God is not contradictory to what He is saying and what He is. Thanks to Luther Christians are not anymore living in unity.
The last question remains unanswered. So if now we have 2 churches (Catholic and Lutheran Church, or Protestant Churches) which one is the Truer one? If Catholic Church was bad maybe God has created new one through Luther? But this is really how God is heaving? We, human being can betray, but God is always loyal. Look at other example.
We know that Christ has been crossified in 33 AD (33-36). Luther has published his thesis in 1517 but officially made split from the RCC in 1521. So we have almost 15 centuries time distance from these two events when one Christian Church was working (Break with Orthodox happened in 1054 due to human weaknesses on both sides. But there is rather tiny difference between the Churches. Both recognize their sacraments. Main differences are only regarding few dogmas, liturgy, primacy. Orthodox Church recognizes only first 7 Councils. Last one was in 787 AD). Really the God lost his patience and decided to create a new Church? Does it sound like God's behavior? After 15 centuries the Church has been completely deformed that the only renew it is to create new Church? What about this Bible part: Matthew 16:18: "And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[b] will not overcome it." Has been the Catholic Church after 15 centuries finally destroyed by Devil? Does not God have the power to refresh whatever hew wants to be refreshed like in the Ezekiel's book (37:1-14)?
During these 15 centuries the RCC has been ruled by 217 popes.The impression is that most of them were completely sinful but usually there are cited the ones who treated Papacy as a state to be ruled or ones who committed even crimes (ie. Pope Alexander VI · Pope Stephen VI · Pope Boniface VIII · Pope Urban VI · Pope Leo X · Pope John XII · Pope Benedict IX · Pope Sergius III). However the reality is different. Majority of them were rather leading moral life. It is enough to focus on the popes from XIX and XX centuries. All of them very emblematic. The really most important thing is that no single Dogma in RCC has been ever changed in the history or revoked since its proclamation by Pope. And Dogmas were usually elaborated by Councils and then only proclaimed by Popes. As per today RCC has 255 dogmas. So even though there have been in the history some evil Popes the official teaching (Dogmas) has been not impacted. If we compare this with Protestant Churches the teaching has been constantly changing from Luther's time till today and there is division between many denominations. As we all know, God is always supporting unity between people. He is never contradictory. He is always constant. Contradiction, disagreement, division always come from the flesh acts. This is the so called bad fruit. Similarly Bible says:
Mt 7, 15 – 20: “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them". So in conclusion, reformation initiated by Luther did not bring good fruits to the Church, to people. Apart from division, it let to human suffering (civil wars and religious wars) including the conflicts in other centuries as well (holocaust). If we say thank you to Luther for the reformation it seems like saying thank you to Nietsche for inventing the idea of "ubermensch" (overman). And the problem is not that it’s disturbing because so many Catholics use Luther and Protestantism to cover for the Catholic Churches […], but the Protestant do not recognize simply the fact that they have been cheated by false prophets and follow up leaving outside the real Body of Christ – Catholic Church.
So I’ve learned to search out commentaries on new test. ONLY… Galatians by Luther by far my most prized. After starting with Hebrews n Romans. This 1 has set me free from all struggles of works related to fleshly efforts. We cannot ever disqualify a sect or even sm.perc.of ppl.This is why 100% Grace is the mess. for blevrz. Yet not preached ever from pulpit. Main reason for abandonment of organ. religion. Ppl are tired of not hearing the great Liberty CHRISTs has delivered. Ther is no rest or peace telling me I have to cont. to rid sin from my flesh.IMPOSSIBLE The flesh will die with sin in it. Basically,once forgiven and having rec. CHRISTs rightousness, free gift. There are NO MORE WORKS INVOLVED but a complete rest!!
So it’s OKAY TO BE ME. No one preaches this. They always say smthg is still wrong with you. Crap for the ppl of the Lord
Rev,
I still have a hard time understanding his angry writings in his early life as well. And most astonishing is his adding and subtracting from the bible. He added the word alone to God’s word. That was early in his life. Then he doubled down about adding to God’s word, and like a petulant child claims he has a right to do so. That totally corrupts the bible. A”reformation” that corrupts the word of God which was supposedly so important to the “reformers” is ironic and sad.
Hi, could you please give me reference to what you wrote? I’d like to study it in more detail. Especially what and where Luther added something.
Thank you
Agreed. I also read he had a problem with lust and has a relationship with a nun. As Jesus said, by their fruits you will know them.
Tom, please see my comment on your post below. To claim that Luther “Corrupted” the word of God is intellectually dishonest. Luther translated the Bible from the original languages. Most Catholic church historians would not agree with your statements.
Rev Dark Hans, I totally disagree with both you and Tom. Luther indeed changed the Scripture, he modified it and did what only God and His enlightened and inspired Christian Councils can do; to add or take books from the Bible Canon. Honestly, as a loyal Catholic apologist, I’ve been arguing always the position and stand of the Catholic Church on the issue. Well, he did removed the Deuterocanocical books, which were partof the original Greek and Roman Christian Canon, and almost removed the Letter of James, because these books contain proofs on crucial doctrines like Purgatory, Anointing of the Sick and Faith with Works and Grace to Salvation. He was a vulgar, mad man with inconsistent teachings, and he never reformed or chnaged anything with the Church. He just made his own revolutionary religion, massacred Jews and peasants who were on his side, promoted Adolf Hitler’s Holocaust, and mocked the Catholic Church as always. He did benefitted the Church though, for opening the eyes of corrupt priests, religious and the aristocrats and wealthy leaders, pointing the errors of the Church, and promoting a translation of Scripture for all. He did put an end to the sacrilegious selling of indulgences (he was instrumental), and he gave inspiration for therise of true Reformists within the Church like St. Philip Nerri, St. Ignatius or Pope Paul IV. It is a shame that he brought only unrest and massacre in the Religious and Political World of Europe during the Renaissance. As for Tom, I believe however that Luther translated the Latin Bible to German. he just translated it. But, turns out he has other motives too!
Well Luther actually considered James canon, though he believed there was not much Gospel in it compared to other epistles, and for that reason called it an “epistle or straw,” but he still considered it canon and translated it into German. The Deuterocanonical books were not part of the original canon. You should know full well they’re called “Deuterocanonical” because they weren’t officially canon until the Council of Trent, after the Reformation had started. They were considered neither Scripture nor Apocrypha, but were often kept in Bibles in a separate section. Luther didn’t want them in his Bible translation because people might think they were Scripture. As a response, the Pope just declared them to be Scripture though they were not yet within the Canon.
The Papists were building doctrine on books not considered canon, Luther called them out, then they declared those books to be canonical. Everything I’ve side is historical fact. You can’t tear something out of the Canon that is not part of the Canon. If that’s the case, then I guess old Saint Athanasius was tearing the Deuterocanonical books out when he made his list of books of Scripture and didn’t include them.
Uhh you wanna talk about corrupted text…..look no further than the prophecy of your man god…You rely on some fantasy Septuagint translation of the Hebrew scripture….hey rev, was the book of Isaiah part of the five books of the Torah that IS THE SEPTUAGINT? Yup, didn’t think so. You Christians truly are some slippery fish relying on a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures when you could just pick up a real Hebrew Bible and clearly see the true words of god written as plain as day. Oh if your to scared of scales and veils and the synagogue of satan(hahahaha can’t help but laugh at you sick baby Christians who lash out at anyone and everyone) you can open up your own cute little Bible to Romans 10:6-8 and then open up Deuteronomy 30:11-14 and behold your copy cut edit and paste….oh you forgot the last line in Deuteronomy “SO THAT YOU CAN DO IT” you Christians are the biggest bunch of liars thieves and stone cold killers the world has ever known. Don’t even think for a second these are the only passages in the Bible you corrupt peace out
Isaiah 7:14 which clearly states Almah which means young woman. If god wanted Isaiah to use the word virgin HE WOULD HAVE USED THE WORD BETULAH. Hello Christians wake up and realize you’ve been duped. Now open up Mathew 1:22-23 and just try and say Jesus was born of a virgin…..cheap Septuagint Greek Roman translation of gods holy book over the real deal Hebrew Bible hahahahahahahnahaa I don’t think so
checked the Hebrew bible Isa 7:14 הָעַלְמָ֗ה
hā-‘al-māh,= which means the virgen. (https://biblehub.com/text/isaiah/7-14.htm)
Btw, if you are a Jew how you can continue to be untouched by this facts based on history. History of Jews shows evidently how faithfulness to God and his laws was always leading to prosperity and strenght of the country. In contrary disloyalty to God always ended in lost of sovereignthy and enslavement. Shortly speaking Jews were supposed to do the Passover in Jerusalem every year. First temple was built by king Samolon. Then because Jews betrayed God the temple was destroyed by Babilonians. Repented Jews were allowed to come back to Jerusalem and rebuilt the temple and regained some soverignity. Again betrayal to God was accompanied with lost of independence. Since Messaiah has been not recognized and Jews did not believed in Him, the temple has been definitely destroyed in 70 AD (The second temple) and nation dispersed. What is very significant is the fact that for almost 2000 the offer has been not presented to God. This can not be ignored as the offer has been requested by some God Himself and now for such long period was not practiced. We believe that nothing can happen if it is against God will. We know that demolishment of Jerusalem happened as the consequnce and punishment for rejection and massacre of Jesus. But why the temple has been not rebuilt thorugh so many years. There is only one answer. If God allows to stop such offering it only must mean that sth very important must have happened. And this important thing is a NEW OFFER being set up by Jesus. This offer is not the blood and flesh of animals but of son of God, GOD HIMSELF – JESUS CHRIST.
We can discuss/argue obviously about many stuff like some canonical books or not, or translations etc. But the main point is the faith as being alive which means we believe that God is acting all the time. We need Bible to learn about HIM and live as he wants us to live and have faith in HIM. And HE is acting all the time. If there is Fatima event in 1917 and miracle of a sun this is message from God. If we receive the book from Saint Faustina about his mercy (Diary of Mercy) this is another gift from God to better understand how God is merciful. If there is person called Giovanni Bosco who receives the call from God to help children and then apparently his deed spread all over the world, this is another gift from God and evidence how God acts.
Jews for their bad sakes stopped their history 2000 years ago. The temple has been destroyed and country demolished by Romans. Also the religion has been redefined as being the answer to fresh and spreading Catholic church so become less orthodox but first of all anticatholical. And nothing has been developed through 19 centuries. And nothing really happened with Diaspora. Only last centuries brought 2 events. The Holocaust and recreation of the Israel as a country. Still the temple has been not rebuilt however there are some attemptions to do this (Some even says that this deed refers to Antichrist or Beast which will mean rather end of time or New Babilon). Anyway, 2000 years without the temple is not just an accident. It is the God clear message that Jews faith is not more being blessed by God. There is new religion – new more complete revelation about God and new lithurgy. Has become Israel again saint and faithfull to God and obedient to his Laws as when David was ruling or priest Ezdra was reading to people the book of Nehemias? I rather doubt. So whatever is happening in Israel I really doubt it has inspiration from God. Jews must acknowledge Jesus as true Mesaiah and son of God. And treat the complete revelation about God and his true love to every single human being (without dividing the people to 1st category Jews and 2nd category goys) very seriously.
How do you know that? Martin Luther did corrupt the word of God. There are 1,400 errors in the Bible he translated. Please read the book, The Tragedy of the Reformation by Bob and Penny Lord.
He misinterpreted the Bible from the original languages. He explicitly and openly defended adding “alone” to the passage “the just shall live by faith” on the grounds that Dr. Martin Luther would have it so, and Catholics are donkey.s
It is intellectually dishonest to say that this is anything other than corruption.
Everyone appears to have an opinion. My opinions are that the Ten commandments are the only map needed. Please read them and if you can find anything ungodly in them. It will be your free will to reject them but as for me and my house we will follow the Lord Jesus and his Fathers teachings.
Follower of Jesus it’s time to leave opinions out. Just open your bible to Romans 10:6-8 read it the last sentence reads (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim) Now open up Deuteronomy 30:11-14 and read the last sentence “so that you can do it”
You Christians didn’t clean up the crime scene even after all your revisions. You are guilty of changing the word of god and this is NOT an opinion. Jesus says so in Mathew 5:17-18………
There are so so so many scriptural problems with the Christian Bible so many. Dig deeper
You have no ground to “instruct” pig-dog. Get back to your secularism.
Do you follow where in Genesis 38:8-10 where God shows the evil of spilling the man’s seed? Protestants think it is ok to use artificial birth control which destroys the seed or makes a woman infertile. God in this Scripture verse calls it evil.
Amen!
“This is one of the most important questions that I think we can take away from this: do we have any reason to conclude from the evidence that Martin Luther was a Saint?”
He certainly seems to be quite different from all of the Christian Saints before him, people such as St. Francis of Assisi, St. Benedict, St. Dominic, St. Bernard of Clairveaux, all of the Desert Fathers, St. Patrick, St. Anselm, St. Bede, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, not to mention all of the early fathers and martyrs. All of these have their lives, virtues and writings easily available for scrutiny and study.
I can’t even imagine how anybody could compare Martin Luther to any one of these truly Christian saints?
AWLMS, you list many great saints of our shared church history. I do take issue with Bernard of Clairvaux, who instigated and supported the Crusades. He is more polished than Luther in writing, but both men lived in violent times and supported violence. Luther was much more honest and real than Bernard. Luther expressed his sins, but he knew that he was a saint by the grace of God and not by his own works. You may also want to spell Clairvaux correctly next time.
Awlms, I totally agree with you. Rev. Dark Hans, let me get this thing straight; Martin Luther was not a saint, he is not a saint, and he will never be a saint. Why? Yes, he may have been saved by God through His Grace and Luther’s faith, he may have opened the door for True Catholic Reformation, but we cannot disregard his evil deeds and inconsistent character! Given that God “does” judges and saves us via our faith and His grace, then all of us can be saved! Even the most evil of people! If an evil man who kills and steals, goes to confession, worships God, and reads the Bible, then develops faith and trust in Him, then goes on with his activities and vices, and never asks God’s Mercy till his death, then he can be, by any chance saved!? God is Merciful and Loving, but He can never exert His Supremacy and Will to dictate our free will; He gave us the freedom to have our own ways and go to the path that we desire for ourselves! That is why, if they want the narrow way, God leads them, and if they want tje crooked path, God continually calls them back, but never forces them to Him.
Going back to Luther, it is biblically Unchristian to state that God’s Grace and our faith alone can save us and assure us seats with The Elect in Paradise. True, our human efforts are futile. God alone can save us! But our faith and grace is a frre gift; accepting it and living by it is good works already! That is Why St. Paul used to say in his epistle that wjen we confess in our lips that Jesus is Lord, and that believe in our hearts that the Father has risen Him up, we will be saved! Oir works are not necessary, he says, because God will Provide! He is a Loving Father anyway, we can just sit down, relax, and call His name to assure us we will be in Heaven soon. St. Paul, hiwever, is often misunderstood. Why then did he said in his exhortations that faith and grace can save? Indeed, faith and grace are our ways of salvation, but NOT ALONE. St. Paul says this because of the human sinfulness and pride we each have. If he directly says that all our efforts and works will guarantee us salvation, then we’ll all be gods of others, ourselves, abd even God! We’ll grow proud of our abilities to be good and do good, saving ourselves in the process! We’ll stop believing in God and His Grace then! But that does nit mean we will do no good works. St. Paul simply wants us to grow in God’s Amazing Grace and have faith and love in Him. Because that is necessary. However, as St. James in his letter (which, interestingly, was “doubted” by Luther to be “Apocrypha”) said, we are justified by our faith and works. Our fathers before us, the patriarchs, prophets, clerics, religious and other laymen were all justified by their authentic faith acted out by their actions. Abraham, father of all nations and the father of our faith, was a friend of God and believed in every Word he says! That is why when God told him to leave his homeland, or offer his son Isaac to him, or be assured that He will save Lot and his family from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, he believed and loved God all the more! He worshipped God! But, but! His faith did not end there. And it won’t end there. His faith inspired Him to do works, to maake his Faith alive! Why then did we call Him father of us all? Because He set the first example of having an authentic faith! And so as all men afyer Him; Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, the Judges, Ruth, Samuel, David, Solomon, the Levites, priests and the Prophets, and up to the Apostles and friend of Jesus Christ, and Jesus Himself! They did what is good and pleasing to God. Because our faith in God is dead without works. We are like the seed that fell on the road, or the rocky soil, or the thorns. Our Faith and God’s Grace transforms us, beyond what we are and what we can do, despite all our limits and faults and weakness, and makes us into something new! It inspires us and moves us to do good works. But, rest assured, this good works are directed not to us and not for us, but for God’s Glory and the Triumph of the Kingdom of God! Mary, for example, listened to the angel’s Word and pondered upon it, believing in God and trusting Him all the more. But that does not end there! Her faith must not end with just saying “Yes” and agreeing to all of God’s terms, but on visiting Elizabeth, marrying Joseph, presenting him to the Temple, raising Him up as a good child, standing by His side on His Public Ministry, and even looking up at Him, on the Cross, like all mothers do when they see their suffering child. She was justified because of her acts and doing God’s Will. But was she glorified? No! God is glorified because of her works! And God is also glorified everytime we do good! All the men and women mentioned earlier did good works IN ACCORDANCE with God’s Will and did this UNDER INSPIRATION OF THEIR FAITH AND GOD’S GRACE, ALL FOR HIS GLORY AND MAJESTY! They remained humble and holy servants of God, His loving children, becauseof their good works, because they did it all for God and our neighbors. We love God if we also love our neighbors as St. John says! The main point i this; our Faith and Grace of God saves us, our belief in Jesus and that He can save us will surely save us! This moves us to do good works; just as a body is dead without a soul, so is faith dead without works. Jesus Himself said that not everyone who calls on Lord, Lord” will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but all those who do God’s Will! This good works makes us as humble and hily servants of God, because all that we do we must DIRECT to God! This is what justifies us in His eyes, making Him pleased and glorified!
Again, coming back to Luther, he never did this. He claimed to believe, He claimed to be Christian. But his actions are otherwise. He murdered Jews and peasants whom he once had exulted, he instigated political wars and rebel mutinies all over Europe, and he spread lies and wickedness, making the evils and all the wrongful deeds and scandalous abuses of the Church an excuse of his agenda! He may be a good man, but he never let Himself be one. He never let God touch Him and transform Him, make Him as what he was before or better, a new man! But no! He nevercooperated with His Faith nor with God’s Grace. He let his insecurities and desires for vengeance and hatred to overcome Him. And worse, making the faith and God’s Name a propaganda, a tool to use.No wonder many were fooled! Even you, Rev. Dark Hans. And all of the cursed Protestants and other denominations. He may not be damned in the fires of Hell for eternity, ut He is no saint! Saints are simple human being, who lived a life of holiness, an exemplary life of service and love, of strong devotion to God, the Church and the Gospel, worshipping Him through their lives. They transform our lives and lead us to God. Luther is not this kind of guy otherwise. He ruined lives, leading us to himself and his paltry religion, where they claim to praise and worship a god that is not like our Christian God. He never is a saint, and will never be. I just dont know why you claim he is one. Justlook at the guy! True, saints are humans,and sinful and frail in nature. But they are nit Luther, they are not unrepentant heretics who completely turned away from God! Even the Prodigal Son is greater than Him in Heaven! Even all those criminals who changed their lives for the better.
Ephesians 2:8-9 For by GRACE you have been saved through FAITH. And this is not your own doing;it is the GIFT of GOD. Not a result of works, so that no one may BOAST. GOD is not only a Loving GOD but a GOD of Justice….Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death but the FREE gift of GOD is eternal life in CHRIST JESUS our LORD. Dr. Martin Luther was and is a Saint.
Rev,
Can you please explain why liberating Christians from persecution and slavery is wrong? Especially in a feudal time where the glue of the various societies was the Church? Therefore, the only people able to rescue the persecuted were their fellow Christians.
Also, how was St Bernard dishonest?
Rev. Hans, you did not answer the question. How was St. Bernard dishonest, and how was Luther honest otherwise? St. Bernard may have been condemned or questioned even within the Catholic Church because of his actions and his preachings promoting the start of the Crusades, but many simply said it is necessary. St. Bernard may have promoted the war and was influenced of the violence of his days, but he is still worthy of sainthood. He has reconciled with the Church, and has acknowledged the faith and grace of God that will assure him salvation. And besides, the Crusades are a series of divine conquests, religious expeditions that the Church promulgates to protect their faithful Christians all over the Holy Land, alongside all their churches, shrines, relics and holy spots, such as the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, housing the birthplace of Christ. He was saved after all because of acknowleging God’s Mercy and Grace that can transform Him, and because He did what is pleasing in His eyes. Luther was different however. He was honest, literally. He revealed all his dark sides, reasoning it is a counter measure againstvthe Church. An evil
deed for another evil deed? Nice.
Also, if we are to be as honest as Luther, we can do what we want! Besides, that is our true nature and character! If I want to smoke, or commit adulterous affairs, or murder someone, I can do it all, no one can stop me because I am just being “honest”. That is how honest Martin Luther is in truth.
The prophets in the Old Testament also promoted the participation of the people of Israel in wars and violence, and nobody criticize them or their sanctity for this.
So why criticize the church? Even though Crusades were a response not an attack it’s been accused. Yet, Martin Luther a Saint?
My whole point is that it is easy to trash Luther with 500 years separating us. It is just as easy (if not easier) to trash the Roman church for atrocities or things written in the past. I do not write blog posts trashing the Roman church because of the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, or any other number of things. If we were all honest about the past of the church, then we can find many faults with our ancestors. We need to be aware of these mistakes and sins of the past, but we should not trash our brothers or sisters in Christ or whole faith traditions today because of what happened in the past. I have told Joe in the past that these kinds of posts are not as beneficial for defending the Roman faith as positive posts about the strengths of the Roman church, which I find interesting and encouraging. The strength of your faith should come by lifting up the gospel as the church lives it out and not by trashing others.
The crusades were defensive also have you studied the inquisitions and ho they were often merciful and necessary
Rev.Dark Hans,
Just because Bernard of Clairvaux promoted the Crusades does not mean he wasn’t a great Saint and Doctor of the Church. And my admiration of him actually derives mostly from this very support that he gave to the crusades, and particularly by his small written work titled “In Praise of the New Knighthood”. What a beautiful and informative writing regarding the nature of just war this work is, and it’s especially useful in modern times for any who are members of the armed forces.
When we review the history of Western Civilization, we cannot ignore the impact that Islam had on this history. And without great Catholic saints, and hero’s, all of Europe would have succumbed to the power of the various Islamic caliphates even as far back 732 AD when Charles Martel saved all of western Christianity from Moslem domination at the Battle of Tours. And it didn’t stop there. Joe just wrote a few weeks ago on the Battle of Lapanto (1571), and it’s importance for all of western Christianity. He also noted the many Protestant nations who not only did not help fight this great battle, but who were actually supporting the Islamic enemies of our Christian culture and civilization. So, by admiring these former saints and hero’s who saved Christianity many times over by the use of military means, we can easily understand how St. Bernard of Clairvaux’s writings on ‘just war’ could have had great value, not only for those very knights, soldiers and mariner’s who have defended Christian civilization throughout so many centuries, but moreover still have great value for our own soldiers still fighting similar battles against Islamic forces today.
For those interested “In Praise of the New Knighthood” is available for reading on-line here:
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~amtower/bernard.html
I ask again, why are you accusing St. Bernard of being dishonest? You should have a reason before doing that.
Dr.Martin Luther was a saint by GOD’s standard not as a Roman Catholic’s standard. Saint as the Bible says is one who puts his faith to the SON of GOD (JESUS CHRIST) Alone. JESUS supreme sacrifice on the Cross at Calvary is enough propitiation and cleanses the believer’s frailties and unworthiness making one a saint. Dr. Martin Luther’s Treatise SALVATION BY FAITH ALONE is Theologically and Canonicaly Sound and Correct. This is the Major Doctrine of our CHRISTianity.
The ‘Catholic standard’ is ‘God’s standard’. The Catholic Church was the one historically founded by Christ with His promise to remain with her to the end of the world. The original Church of Christ (Catholic) preached and lived the Gospel of her divine founder, wrote the New Testament and compiled the Holy Bible more than a thousand years before Luther’s rebelion. Luther opposed and intended to destroy the very roots of christendom and catholicity according to the Revelation and Will of God expressed by Christ himself and His Apostles. Luther manipulated the Bible and the christian faith to make it fit to his theories, he proudly impossed his faulty opinions on the majority of topics he adressed, not to mention his evident lack of humility and charity. Luther a saint? Then Judas Iscariot, Herod and the like can be hopeful to be saints either.
Joe, thank you for this post. Wow. I am in shock. I knew that Luther said things against the Jews and peasants; but, reading what he actually wrote makes me cringe.
Apparently, there is a statue of Adolf Hitler in a German Lutheran parish: https://sites.google.com/site/apostolicapologetics/editorials/nazi-lutheranism
It is easy to trash Luther with 500 years separating us. It is just as easy (if not easier) to trash the Roman church for atrocities or things written in the past. I do not write blog posts trashing the Roman church because of the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, or any other number of things. If we were all honest about the past of the church, then we can find many faults with our ancestors. We need to be aware of these mistakes and sins of the past, but we should not trash our brothers or sisters in Christ or whole faith traditions today because of what happened in the past. I have told Joe in the past that these kinds of posts are not as beneficial for defending the Roman faith as positive posts about the strengths of the Roman church, which I find interesting and encouraging. The strength of your faith should come by lifting up the gospel as the church lives it out and not by trashing others.
Please tell me how you can allow Martin Luther to be a saint and contrast what he says to red letter Jesus? Ummm Mathew 5:39 you know sermon on the mount kind of stuff…..”but I say to you, do not resist the one who is evil, but if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha is all I can do laugh otherwise I’d cry. Ya get out your 3 parts of a scrambled egg theory phd bullish to say what Martin Luther stood for is what the Almah born rabbi Jesus preached hahahahahahhahahahah
Luther’s writings may be 500 years old, but the consequences of promulgating such ideas as public policy are only 70 years old. It is very difficult to read Luther’s writings without the lens of the Holocaust.
Sean Davids,
The pictures on that site are rather dubious. I realize that you used the word “apparently,” but you should be absolutely sure before making such accusations.
The photo claiming to be of a statue of Hitler has some resemblance, but is not clear. Why is there only on picture from an obscure angle?
Also, the photo claiming to be of Christ with a Nazi soldier is false. The person who published these pictures doesn’t know much about history. Or, is trying to deceive people.
God Bless!
I have always wondered why anyone would ever associate with this hateful person. He said miserable things about Catholics as well. He incited hate and violence. Another aspect about Luther is his breaking of his vows. Ideology aside, he still made vows, which even St Paul and Jesus praised….celibacy. Furthermore, he added and subtracted to the bible, and then doubled down on his adding the word “alone”, as if he had some right to do so. If you read his writings he comes off as severely narcissistic. How anyone could claim that he is some founder of new christian truth is beyond me. Yet there is an entire Christian denomination bearing his name.
Tom, you are waaaaayyyy off! First, Catholics have said some very horrible things too, but that does not stop you from associating with them. Do not think that you or your faith tradition are perfect. Thankfully, the Vatican and the Lutheran World Federation (LWF) have come together to renounce the hateful language of the Reformation days.
Second, yes Luther broke his vows of celibacy. Remember that Jesus told us to never make vows! Matthew 5:33-37
Third, Luther never added or subtracted from the Bible. Luther moved the Apocrypha (Deuterocannon as some would like to call it) to an appendix, just as St. Jerome did. Do you hate on St. Jerome? I doubt it because he is one of “your guys.” It was not until the King James translation (almost 100 years after the 95 Theses) that these works were completely cut out of the Bible.
Fourth, you are blaming Luther for narcissism? In your post, you sit in the seat of judgment and look down up others for associating with Luther. This is “beyond” you because you are so righteous, brilliant, or amazing? Hey narcism pot, this is the kettle!
Fifth, there are several Christian denominations that bear his name (not just one). Yet he personally fought against his name being used. The early “Lutherans” were called “Evangelical” because they would boldly proclaim the gospel in lands that had not heard it, and they should have kept that name. Luther did not want his name on it, but rather, he wanted the name of Christ.
Jerome later changed his mind, and everyone considered them canonical until Luther changed them he also took out some New Testament books.
I’m sorry, Rev. Dark Hans, I suppose you also got way off! Firstly, you had misunderstood Jesus claiming to not make vows. That implies that when you cant keep your promises, it is bettet not to make a vow then. Jesus never said not to make vows, but instead to keep them, and be straight forward on saying either “yes” or “no”. Other than that, is from the Devil (He refers to false testimony and perverse oath here). Luther broke the Second Commandment (or Third, in your revised protistunt Ten Commandments), by not keeping his vows of celibacy. Also, St. Jerome in his Latin Vulgate included the so-called Aporofcryohag (to clarify, Apocrypha refers to books that are dubios and never in any canon) or, the Deuterocanoniclas. He inserted them there, and was officially included in the CHRISTIAN BIBLE (non-denominational, Apostolic Catholic Church) by the ECUMENICAL CHRISTIAN COUNCILS some hundred years ago. The Deuterocanon (Second Canon) was not included in any Hebrew Canons of the Bible, but was in the Greek versions. St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate folliws through the Alexandrian or Greek Canon, which includes the Deuterocanonicals. Even before Martin Luther, the good guy, came around, the Deuterocanonicals were an OFFICIAL Canon.
Luckily, the Letter of St. James survived the Luther Bible Purge, if not, we would be arguing by now its authenticity!
Rev. Your claims about vows are preposterous. Lutherans have no marriage vows?
Catena Aurea
3. Again you have heard that it has been said by them of old time, You shall not forswear yourself, but shall perform to the Lord your oaths;
34. But I say to you, Swear not at all, neither by Heaven, for it is God’s throne;
35. Nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.
36. Neither shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black.
37. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than these comes of evil.
GLOSS.The Lord has taught to abstain from injuring our neighbor, forbidding anger with murder, lust with adultery, and the putting away a wife with a bill of divorce. He now proceeds to teach to abstain from injury to God, forbidding not only perjury as an evil in itself but even all oaths as the cause of evil, saying, You have heard it said by them of old, You shall not forswear yourself it is written in Leviticus, You shall not forswear yourself in My name (Lev 19:12); and that they should not make gods of the creature, they are commanded to render to God their oaths, and not to swear by any creature, Render to the Lord your oaths; that is, if you shall have occasion to swear, you shall swear by the Creator and not by the creature. As it is written in Deuteronomy, You shall fear the Lord your God, and shall swear by His name
(Deut 6:13).
JEROME; This was allowed under the Law, as to children; as they offered sacrifice to God, that they might not do it to idols, so they were permitted to swear by God; not that the thing was right, but that it were better done to God than to demons.
AUG. Inasmuch as the sin of perjury is a grievous sin, he must be further removed from it who uses no oath, than he who is ready to swear on every occasion, and the Lord would rather that we should not swear and keep close to the truth, than that swearing we should come near to perjury.
ID. This precept also confirms the righteousness of the Pharisees, not to forswear; inasmuch as he who swears not at all cannot forswear himself. But as to call God to witness is to swear, does not the Apostle break this commandment when he says several times to the Galatians, The things which I write to you, behold, before God, I lie not (Gal 1:20). So the Romans, God is my witness, whom I serve in my spirit (Rom 1:9). Unless perhaps someone may say, it is no oath unless I use the form of swearing by some object; and that the Apostle did not swear in saying, God is my witness. It is ridiculous to make such a distinction; yet the Apostle has used even this form, I die daily, by your boasting. That this does not mean, ‘your boasting has caused my dying daily,’ but is an oath, is clear from the Greek.
I figured someone would quickly bring this up. We need to understand that our modern “marriage vows” are not the same thing as the wedding practices of the first century world. Joe has posted about this before on the topic of Mary being “betrothed” or engaged to Joseph and what that means for a Jewish family in the first century. The Bible calls us to fidelity in marriage, of course! But we need to separate our culture from what the Bible actually calls us to, which is one of the hardest things to do when studying the Bible.
Thank you Mighty Joe Young for actually reading what I wrote and thinking if it is right or not!
Actually I am not waaaaayyyy off. Also, can we dispense with the drama please? I am not even off. I have never said anything that claims people in the Catholic Church are perfect. The difference is that the name of your church is Lutheran. Whether he wanted the name or not, and you still call yourself Lutheran. Think of it this way, if someone said racist things today, one wouldn’t associate with them. In Luther’s case, he said far worse by suggesting outright murder and mayhem, and instead of disassociating with him, there is a denomination named for him, and as you said yourself some people even revel in his anger. Now I realize that you and the LWF have renounced this, but that doesn’t mean that I cannot draw attention to the fact that a religious org, the Lutheran Church, which is in charge of helping people navigate their lives in faith, hope, and charity, bears the name of a hateful, anti Semitic, vow breaking, schismatic, and bible changing person.
You say….
Second, yes Luther broke his vows of celibacy. Remember that Jesus told us to never make vows! Matthew 5:33-37
Um, you have yet to reveal how we shouldn’t make vows….did you make vows?
You say…..
Third, Luther never added or subtracted from the Bible. Luther moved the Apocrypha (Deuterocannon as some would like to call it) to an appendix, just as St. Jerome did. Do you hate on St. Jerome? I doubt it because he is one of “your guys.” It was not until the King James translation (almost 100 years after the 95 Theses) that these works were completely cut out of the Bible.
Luther most certainly added and subtracted to the Holy Bible. That fact will never go away. Think of it this way, if I take the Gospel of John and remove it from the New Testament and put it in an appendix, I am toying with the way the Bible behaves and reads….bad stuff. This is from Jimmy Akin:
The deuterocanonicals teach Catholic doctrine, and for this reason they were taken out of the Old Testament by Martin Luther and placed in an appendix without page numbers. Luther also took out four New Testament books—Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation—and put them in an appendix without page numbers as well. These were later put back into the New Testament by other Protestants, but the seven books of the Old Testament were left out. Following Luther they had been left in an appendix to the Old Testament, and eventually the appendix itself was dropped (in 1827 by the British and Foreign Bible Society), which is why these books are not found at all in most contemporary Protestant Bibles, though they were appendicized in classic Protestant translations such as the King James Version.
Now, here you assume what I think about St. Jerome, the difference bw him and Martin Luther is that St. Jerome changed his opinion because it was in the minority, and said the opinion of the the Catholic Church is the truth. Luther had his opinion and everyone else was wrong, stupid or evil. Here is an article Joe wrote about this…..
http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2010/06/st-jerome-on-deuterocanon.html
Next, you have yet to address the fact that Luther added to the bible. Are you aware that he did this? He added the word “alone” in his bible translation in Romans 3:28. He admits it in his letter on translating. And my comment about how he comes off as narcisistic is based on his comments in that letter. I recommend reading it. Notice I didn’t say he is narcisistic? So that addresses your fourth point. You did call me narcisistic….Reverend. So now you know why I said he added to the bible.
Point five I already addressed.
Tom, he’s planning to remove Deuterocanonicals? I suppose the guy must be too desperate to get rid of Catholic doctrines in the Bible. The Revelations made mentions of Hell and Eternal Damnation (which denominations like JW do not believe) and of the vision of a woman and a dragon, which talks about Mary’s Queenship and Assumption.
I mean to put this paragraph at the front….
Rev,
I don’t understand why you seem angry at me, but I certainly don’t appreciate you accusing me of narcissism (I am a bad speller). You don’t know me. It is ironic that you are actually doing the exact same thing that you accuse me of. And yes, I will absolutely call out the evil things that Luther said, as I would hope you do with Catholics if they say evil things. And if that means that I think people should openly distance themselves from him because of those evil things that only makes sense. So please calm down with the sarcasm, Reverend (righteous, brilliant, amazing). I don’t claim any of these things. It is also ironic that you have many times shamed people for putting words in your mouth on this blog, yet essentially do the same thing to me. Everything I said was in good faith, and quite frankly is true.
“Second, yes Luther broke his vows of celibacy. Remember that Jesus told us to never make vows! “
Then why does Paul tell Timothy to make sure the enrolled widows are old? Because the younger ones will want to marry “and will incur condemnation for breaking their first pledge. “
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rev Hans.
http://taylormarshall.com/2011/09/did-st-jerome-reject-deuterocanoical.html
Luther was not even a Christian in his theology. He was a gnostic who thought that Jesus was not so much a Divine person but, rather, a composition of divinity and devil
http://imanamateurbrainsurgeon.blogspot.com
Your statement about Luther “thought that Jesus was not so much a Divine person but, rather, a composition of divinity and devil.” is not based upon fact. Luther was completely orthodox in his believe in the trinity and the incarnation. You may be confusing what Luther said about humanity, that we are simultaneously saint and sinner.
It is easy to trash Luther with 500 years separating us. It is just as easy (if not easier) to trash the Roman church for atrocities or things written in the past. I do not write blog posts trashing the Roman church because of the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, or any other number of things. If we were all honest about the past of the church, then we can find many faults with our ancestors. We need to be aware of these mistakes and sins of the past, but we should not trash our brothers or sisters in Christ or whole faith traditions today because of what happened in the past. I have told Joe in the past that these kinds of posts are not as beneficial for defending the Roman faith as positive posts about the strengths of the Roman church, which I find interesting and encouraging. The strength of your faith should come by lifting up the gospel as the church lives it out and not by trashing others.
You have cut and pasted the same paragraph 3 or 4 times in you’re argument about “trashing Luther with 500 years separating us”. I have have learned alot tonight about Martin Luther here and elsewhere. He was no saint. Thank you all for your views on this. Dark hans, try not to cut and paste your opinion over and over. It makes it harder to follow the comments.
You have no idea about Luther’s theology but the expert on him has revealed his gnosis and the evidence can be read at the link I posted
As regards The Inquisition, we Catholics were aught but walking in the footpath of Moses:
Moses, the 1st inquisitor killed 23 thousand one day (Exodus 32)
Moses, the 1st Inquisitor, Killed 24 thousand one day (Numbers 25) including all of the women and children
Forty Seven Thousand killed by The First Inquisitor, Moses, in two days.
Non-Catholic historian Edward Peters:, in his work, Inquisition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989, p. 87),
The Spanish Inquisition, in spite of wildly inflated estimates of the numbers of its victims, acted with considerable restraint in inflicting the death penalty, far more restraint than was demonstrated in secular tribunals elsewhere in Europe that dealtwith the same kinds of offenses. The best estimate is that around 3000 death sentences were carried out in Spain by Inquisitorial verdict between 1550 and 1800, a far smaller number than that in comparable secular courts.
250 years of The Inquisition – roughly 3000 bumped-off vs Moses who bumped-off 47,000 including children.
I thought it opportune to parade a few facts by. I doubt one in one hundred million Christian Catholics, say nothing about Jews and Protestants and atheists, know the facts about Moses as the first Inquisitor and how his record compares unfavorable to Frey Tomas De Tourquemada, about whom the vast majority of Catholics are ignorant and so they consider it funny to hear his name and reputation continually blackened
A William Thomas Walsh notes, “Moses put to death, in the name of religion, a far greater number of human beings than Torquemada did. Yet his name has been venerated by orthodox Jews and Roman Catholic alike, and alwys will be, while that of the Dominican monk has become a stench in the nostrils of the modern world, and a symbol of something indefensible.”
(“Characters of the Inquisition.”)
Far too many Christian Catholics internalise the prejudices of their enemies, then end-up reflexively echoing them when a “trigger” is experienced, and then end-up boasting it is all in good fun.
Not me, when I read about , “Temple Police,” I think, Holy Moses!!!
We need to understand that our modern “marriage vows” are not the same thing as the wedding practices of the first century world
Rev. You’ve changed the matter under discussion. You’ve gone from claiming a prohibition against vows to a discussion of different marriage practices; that is, you are trying to sneak away from your claim concerning vows.
Can’t say that I blame ya 🙂
I suspect that most people today would agree with Luther completely on these points: treating the Jews in such a vile way was both unchristian and counter-productive (at least, if one is actually concerned about their eternal salvation)
M.J disagrees. What the Popes did vis a vis the Jews was fair and just.
M.J fails to see how unjustly condemning the approach of the Popes to the Jews benefits any man
Are you speaking in the third person for some reason? (Or, why is M.J. speaking about himself in third person?)
And the papal record on Jews is mixed, but generally-good. But that doesn’t deny the fact that there was a lot of Catholic Jew-hating, and that Luther was right to call us out on it.
You should have written ” … the Feast Day of St. Martin of Tours…”
2 Thess 2 anticipated men like Luther:
10 And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish: because they receive not the love of the truth that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe a lie.
11 That all may be judged, who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.
Any chance you will be doing a “dark side of Calvin” post?
More on the foibles of Martin Luther:
“a young woman can do without a man as little as she can do without eating, drinking, sleeping, or other natural requirements. Nor can a man do without a woman”
(Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops falsely so called; 163 http://pastebin.com/mnCfxcpT )
.
Here, therefore, Martin Luther posits that it is impossible for a man or woman to do without the sex act.
What arrogance; and what insult to the many who have faithfully offered a life of prayerful and chaste celibacy to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus!
What insult to Prophet Elijah!
What insult to Prophet Elisha!
What insult to Prophet Jeremiah!
What insult to John the Baptist!
What insult to the widow Anna!
What insult to the daughters of Phillip the Evangelist!
What insults to so many holy servants of God!
What about Agnes, Lucy, Agatha, Margaret Mary, Mary Frances, Gertrude, Catherine, Theresa, Francis Assisi, Dominic Guzman, Aquinas, to mention but a few.
What arrogance from the man with the 95 theses! And what heavy burden is carried by all who follow in the footsteps of this rebel!
Read more:
http://popeleo13.com/pope/2014/11/03/category-archive-message-board-165-errors-of-martin-luther-1/
http://popeleo13.com/pope/2014/11/04/category-archive-message-board-166-errors-of-martin-luther-2/
http://popeleo13.com/pope/2014/11/06/category-archive-message-board-168-errors-of-martin-luther-3/
Luther’s behavior has been studied by many scholars, and nearly all of them came to the conclusion that the man suffered from bipolar disorder. One only has to read his writings over a period of time to see the wild mood swings he exhibits. He also had a life long obsession with excrement. This man, like Mohammed, was a mental case. And to think that millions of people in the West believe and follow the teaching of a lunatic like this!
I KNOW A STEVE HE LIVE IN PROVIDENCE!
Rev. Dark Hans,
True, Catholic have committed horrible sins. But the Catholic Church doe not teach that it is okay to commit horrible sins. You can separate the Church from the sin.
It is different with Luther. He taught horrible things. He said Christ committed adultery. He said the Bible was good with a man having two wives. You cannot separate him from his doctrine. He taught against good works and he lived according to his teaching. He didn’t do any good works. He broke his vows and he taught others to do so. Unlike the Catholic hypocrite, Luther practiced what he preached.
We know that the Koran contains Satanic Verses but few know the Satanic Verses of Lutheran Theology. Luther recalled how the devil visited him at night and convinced Luther that his celebrating of Mass was idolatry..
Catholics adhere to Divine Revelation, Luthernas to Demonic interventions
Most Catholics who belong to holy societies, or religious orders, have been drawn towards these societies largely through the writings, virtues and charisms exhibited in the lives of their founders. Friars Minor follow the rule and charism of St. Francis, Friars Preachers, the rule and charism of St. Dominic, Benedictines, the rule and charism of St. Benedict, etc… And, always, the sayings and examples of the founders are an essential, and unifying, guide for those belonging to these societies and orders. And so, every detail both of action and word are scrutinized by the members and followers so as to draw close to these founding saints and fathers. In many ways these followers are like those who heard and followed St. Paul when he was preaching to them, and to whom he said: “Be imitators of me as I am of Christ.” Important here, is that they not only ‘listened’ to St. Paul, but were admonished to ‘imitate’ him, and for the reason that they might then also imitate and draw closer to the Lord Jesus Christ.
What beautiful examples do we find in these holy Saints and founders of the multitudes of religious orders throughout the centuries! How many volumes of writings did they leave for all future ages to read and learn by! What charity, modesty and humility they portrayed in their devout actions, written prayers and sacrifices! And how easily can they be recognized for what they really are…that is ‘Saints’ and great Servants of God!
So it is actions and virtuous deeds, and not just words, that are important in the Christian life, and this is especially true for those who would presume to take on the role of teacher, or shepherd, in the Lord’s Church.
Now, compare the examples of these many holy founders, Doctors and canonized Saints, to the examples and words left to us by Martin Luther, both by his writings and examples. Even his followers in the many Lutheran Churches…those who have taken the time to carefully read his life and writings, cannot easily recommend him as a model for imitation by others. How unlike these other great Catholic Saints he was, in both word and example! What a foul and vulgar mouth he had…that not even a child should be allowed to hear or read!
So, as a founder of a large religious movement, Martin Luther can in no way be compared to others who have likewise started similar Christian institutions throughout history. To compare Luther to St.Francis of Assisi, or to St. Dominic, St. Ignatius of Loyola, St. Benedict, St. Theresa of Avila, St. Francis of Paola, St. John Bosco, St. Philip Neri, etc… is not really possible. He is too profane and vulgar, in both his words and his actions, to be even be put in the same category as these other Saints of the Church. For the Lord in His Holy Gospel does not teach us to merely listen to Him, or teach about Him… but rather, to put His words and examples into practice in our lives. For a Christian examples are essential. Moreover, the greatest example of Christ that we can put into practice in our lives is love and kindness for one another, and even for our enemies, even as Jesus teaches: “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another.” And also, “..love your enemies”.
Did Martin Luther have this virtue? Did he show love for his enemies?
Everyone should read the lives and writings of these great Catholic Saints above. You will certainly be able to recognize them as true disciples of Christ… and that is by their great love, even as the Lord said.
I read sometime ago that Luther became a priest only to satisfy his father’s dream of having a son become a priest. In addition, I read where Luther suffered from some serious digestive ailments that plagued him all through his adult life causing much embarrassment. I believe these conditions were most likely psychosomatic. He has the souls of those he diverted from the Truth on his head.
How the Church and world might have been different had Martin Luther been inspired to seek out for consultation a fellow religious of his time by the name of Francis of Paola! St. Francis of Paola was very famous at this time for his deep faith, incredible miracles and accurate prophesies in both Italy and France. Francis and his order of “Minums”, least brothers, lived a perpetual lent (and fast), and one of these companions, Fr. Bernard Boyl, accompanied Christopher Columbus in his maritime journeys and became the first missionary priest to step foot in the Americas on Nov. 22, 1493.
Anyone who reads the life of Francis of Paola cannot be but astounded by his incredible life of faith and love! He also lived a long time, to the age of 91, dying in 1507.
Had Martin Luther encountered St. Francis of Paola…only God knows how he would have benefitted, both spiritually and physically! But certainly, a few good lessons on fasting and a meatless diet would have helped with those “digestive ailments that plagued him all through his adult life”!
catholic’s sins:
a) mass – they take down Jesus, move Him into peace of bread and some wine and eat their “god”;
pagan thinking was: when you eat, spirits can come into you through your mouth, you have to offer eating to good spirits ;
In RCC you have the same thinking.
b) they pray to people –
10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft,
11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. (Deut. 18:10-11 NIV)
“consults the dead” is exactly: “calling the dead”
c) 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor their bodies among themselves.
25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. (Rom. 1:22-25 NET)
“exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings”
but the worse is:
“worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator”
Most catholics worship “Mather Mary” and many serve her.
But she is not a Creator.
That is the essense of idolatry.
Drop the name of Luther in your denomination. That’s a start. Focus on the theology … which is problematic enough.
Lutherans or Catholic, I’m a Christian, I follow Christ! And the word of God ! The Bible. If you doing do things the way the bible says . you are wrong! If your ” religion ” doesn’t match with the bible. You might be living in darkness. Baby baptism is not biblical. These are man’s traditions, they are not accustomed to God! Read the bible and follow it! Y’all ask sound confused to me.
There is only one God, his name is jesus Christ! The word Trinity cannot even be found in the bible! There are no 3 define persons! Baby baptism is NOT biblical, therefore that doesn’t mean your going to heaven. Acts 2:38 Peter said! Repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins! If you did/ have not been baptized in Jesus name ( not sprinkled but complety submerged) it’s not right! Follow the holy Bible. You Catholics and Lutheran’s are living in darkness!
If there is only one Divine Person, who was Jesus praying to in the Garden of Gethsemane?
Not true. First, all mention of the word “scripture” refers to the Old Testament, as the New Testament didn’t come till later, and in Revelations, the “Book,” it is talking about is Revelations, NOT the whole Bible.
How did Christians follow the “Bible way,” when the New Testament didn’t come around till hundreds of years after the Apostles had died? If you say it was already put together then you flat out reject and deny historical and archaeological facts. Also look up these verses and tell me your response to them, 1 Timothy 3:15 and John 20:23.
Secondly, the Didache (95 AD- 199AD) which predates the New Testament canon (393–419AD) talks about infant baptism, it is a replacement for circumcision; Baptism is a sign of the New Covenant, since it was more important to be circumcised of the heart (Romans 2:25-29). Jewish babies were circumcised after 8 days from their birth in accordance with the Torah, as a sign of the Abrahamic Covenant. Baptism is the replacement for the Messianic Covenant.
As we all know, if you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved (Romans 10:9-10). However, because not everyone who says “Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of the heavenly father (Matthew 7:21), and we need faith working through love (Galatians 5:6).
It is TRUE we’re justified from the old covenant, The Law/The Torah, But we are justified BY works and not by faith alone, since having only faith with no action is dead (James 2:24 & 2:17).
We NEED Baptism (there is NO “age of accountability” identified or hinted in scripture), because we are, by nature, children of wrath and have ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Ephesians 2:3 & Romans 3:23). Christ commanded the Apostles to preach the gospel and baptize to ALL creatures, not just Adults (Matthew 28:19). The Bible states in Acts 16:33 that, ALL of the household was baptized, and never once does it say adults only. So, it’s essential to be cleaned of sin, including the sin we are born into, Original Sin. Through Jesus, who by Grace we have been given to be saved, gave us the power of Baptism, which was so important that he himself did it, commanded his Apostles to perform it and the MOMENT Paul/Saul was converted he quickly was Baptized, (Matthew 3:15-17, Matthew 28:19, Mark 16: 15-16 & Acts 9:10-21). The bible shows very clearly that the person who believes AND IS BAPTISED, will be saved; baptism saves you, it’s not a symbol or simple removal of dirt from the body, but a pledge of a clear conscience toward God (Mark 16:16, 1 Peter 3:21) through the resurrection of Jesus Christ Baptism has this power.
.Source:
* Philip Schaff, “Chapter IX. Theological Controversies, and Development of the Ecumenical Orthodoxy”, History of the Christian Church, CCEL
* http://biblehub.com/
* Didache”, Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3.
abbie macnamara says hi!!!
I’m sure that Martin Luther deserves criticism. But the idea that a Catholic would try to discredit someone on the basis of their antisemitism or innocents who died in an uprising inspired by his example is laughable. The teachings and actions of the Catholic Church killed *millions.* One million in the Albigensian crusade ALONE. They only maintained “unity” in the church by violently stamping out dissent.
Meanwhile, long before the rise of the Third Reich, Jews were being persecuted, expelled and killed by nation’s dominated by Catholicism. This was taking place right up until the early 1900s.
So please, leave the job of critiquing Luther to someone else.
that’s really sad that your sitting here wasting your time commenting on this!!~!!!
go off sis
How are you?
Good
Luther is likely in hell for his brutal pride (Whoever opposes me is in hell for my thoughts are the thoughts of God) and perverse hatred just as many Catholic hierarchs and clerics are in hell for similar perversions. He trashed the Scriptures and twisted doctrine in utterly demonic fashion.
I no longer believe in one religion.I only believe in God. I believe I have a soul which goes on and on.I will never
join another church. I believe in doing right by treating how I would want to be treated. The Christian Jesus had it right: DO ON TO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU. Even my people of the earth,Native Americans of North America believed in the Great Spirit before the white men came. How was that possible? I was raised in a very strict religion, the Catholic Church.I no longer have a fear of God;I have the love of God. I am now nearly 80 and feel young and hopeful.I believe the youth of America will pull us out of the era of hate it is so engulfed. I want to live to see our future bright and hopeful.If only ministers, priests and other leaders of faiths throughout the world would welcome us with only a simple touch…it would be heaven on earth.
So called “Christians”. Jesus is the head of the Church. The Bible points you to the Church over and over again. Corithians 12:28 “And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues.’ God’s Church is none of the thousands of denominations you have to choose from. Which Church is that? If you’re not submit to the Church you’re not submitting to Jesus. Your “Jesus” has a different definition, your “god” has a different def., your “faith” have a different def., your Holy Spirit have a different def. You don’t get to go to heaven by calling God god god.. God says i don’t know you, you persecuted my Church you persecuted me. Oh and btw according to Luther he didn’t talk to God he talked to the devils.. Which Church is that? Everybody knows but many will deny for many reasons.. Church is too strict i want to have my lazy “faith alone” belief where i don’t have to do anything just sit back relax sinning all i want cuz I’m “saved” and read my imperfect translated version of the Bible according to wherever the “Holy Spirit” leads me aka my ego, then go on poking with the Catholics some Catholics are dumb.. Oh snap now they poke me back they know the Bible and history more than i do so i need back up by reading Protestants websites about why the Catholic Church is so evil.. They’re pagans, they use candles like the pagans! How blasphemous! The pope! The pope have horns on his garment! Heavenly creatures have horns too God gave Moses horns i know that but the pope is evil! Idk I’m confused, when I’m confused i just need to call on Jesus Jesus Jesus i love you.. Then I’m good again i don’t need to worry about some church.. Now I’m all up in my feelings forget Peter Paul Mary.. I’m special to God i can make my own church if i want to.. Jesus be like they’re calling me saying they love me at the same time persecuting me and not DOING my Father’s will, disregarding all my Saints whom i gave authority to bind and loosen whatever on earth as in heaven.. I got one word, hypocritesss.
Good
Thank you very much for this, it was very helpful for a school assignment I am doing.
Agreed. I also read he had a problem with lust and has a relationship with a nun. As Jesus said, by their fruits you will know them.
Hey Kurtis!
You raised an interesting point on Romans 10. Paul actually referenced Deuteronomy 30 twice [once in Rom. 10, once indirectly in Eph. 4] and believed it an integral text of the Christian faith. Paul is connecting the descent and ascent of Christ to the word of God being near to us, that is, within our grasp to keep [because our hearts will desire God’s word and our mouths will proclaim it]. Deuteronomy 30 is very similar to Jeremiah 31 and refers to some future time after the Exile when God’s people will come to obey Him. Paul actually writes that the one who is not reborn in the Spirit is unable to keep the Law, but the one reborn of the Spirit is able to keep the Law (Rom. 8:2-8). So when Paul writes Romans 10, he is teaching that the righteousness of God is near because of Christ. Not only that those who confess Christ are justified, but also that they become righteous in action. Paul writes that those born of the Spirit who have the word of God near them will keep it (Rom. 8:9-12) and he makes this point even more clearly in Romans 6:1-7. Jesus teaches that those who seek will find and so if you truly seek out what God proclaims in the Scriptures, New and Old Testament, you will find they tell a beautiful story of God’s redemption through Christ. I admire your study of the Scriptures and pray you’ll stay in the Word always. Best wishes,
Jarod
“If the Reformation was started by someone led by intellectual pride, rather than the Holy Spirit, why trust it?”
Doesn’t this logic also apply to the Great Schism of 1054, when the Roman Patriarch doubled down on a change to the creed that was inserted without permission from an ecumenical council, and he claimed ecumenical authority over all Christendom and above an ecumenical council? The other four Patriarchs rejected this claim, and Rome separated from the rest of the Christian world on the basis of the ego of a Roman Patriarch.
Perhaps the Roman Catholic church should consider repenting of its separation from the Orthodox church, repudiate the Papal claim of authority outside of the Roman See, and reconcile the heretical theological innovations it’s introduced since the schism.
Would Martin Luther have supported the
Murder of 6 Million Jews by Adolf Hitler and the Nazis during World War II ?
Some say he would have, some say no ,
Which is more likely ?
Don’t forget about jewish Bolsheviks that murdered 65 million white Christians. I doubt six million that existed. The newspapers that mentioned six million many times in 1915 to 1942. Research it.
Oy vey! Don’t you dare blaspheme muh 6 gorillion. Society demands you be canceled, bankrupted, and imprisoned for such blasphemy. *proceeds to produce a hollywood movie titled “Toldoth Yeshu HaNotzri”.*
Martin Luther and Protestants killed Catholic people and stolen Catholic Churches into protestant churches. Please don’t call protestants Christians.
It’s refreshing to get some unbiased information on Luther. I had to read several biographies to uncover these truths about the man. Thanks Joe