As we move beyond the five-hundred-year anniversary of the Protestant reformulation on October 31, 2017, it is good for us to look back and examine how that all worked out for them. For, how are we to judge the fruit of a tree over the last 500 years unless we first examine the roots of that tree? Therefore, let us start from the beginning and blink our eyes at the 38 Most Ridiculous things that Martin Luther, the illustrious Father of Protestantism and the Bible-Only (sola-scriptura) movement, said. It is still hard to believe how we allowed and still allow this very plain instrument of Satan to divide God’s people . . .
Martin Luther on the Dignity and Majesty of God
- “I look upon God no better than a scoundrel” (ref. Weimar, Vol. 1, Pg. 487. Cf. Table Talk, No. 963).
- “Christ committed adultery first of all with the women at the well about whom St. John tell’s us. Was not everybody about Him saying: ‘Whatever has He been doing with her?’ Secondly, with Mary Magdalen, and thirdly with the women taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus even, Christ who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.” (ref. Trishreden, Weimer Edition, Vol. 2, Pg. 107. – What a great blasphemy from a man who is regarded as “great reformer”!).
- “I have greater confidence in my wife and my pupils than I have in Christ” (ref. Table Talk, 2397b).
- “It does not matter how Christ behaved – what He taught is all that matters” (ref. Erlangen Vol. 29, Pg. 126).
Martin Luther on the 10 Commandments
- “[The commandments] only purpose is to show man his impotence to do good and to teach him to despair of himself” (ref: Denifle’s Luther et Lutheranisme, Etude Faite d’apres les sources. Translation by J. Paquier (Paris, A. Picard, 1912-13), Volume III, p. 364).
- “We must remove the Decalogue out of sight and heart” (ref. De Wette 4, 188)
- “If we allow them – the Commandments – any influence in our conscience, they become the cloak of all evil, heresies and blasphemies” (ref. Comm. ad Galat, p.310).
- “It is more important to guard against good works than against sin.” (ref. Trischreden, Wittenberg Edition, Vol. VI., p. 160).
Martin Luther on the Material Necessity of Good Works
- “Good works are bad and are sin like the rest.” (ref. Denifle’s Luther et Lutheranisme, Etude Faite d’apres les sources. Translation by J. Paquier (Paris, A. Picard, 1912-13), VOl. III, pg. 47).
- “There is no scandal greater, more dangerous, more venomous, than a good outward life, manifested by good works and a pious mode of life. That is the grand portal, the highway that leads to damnation.” (ref. Denifle’s Luther et Lutheranisme, Etude Faite d’apres les sources. Translation by J. Paquier (Paris, A. Picard, 1912-13), VOl. II, pg. 128).
Martin Luther on the Importance of Free-Will
- “…with regard to God, and in all that bears on salvation or damnation, (man) has no ‘free-will’, but is a captive, prisoner and bond slave, either to the will of God, or to the will of Satan.” (ref. From the essay, ‘Bondage of the Will,’ ‘Martin Luther: Selections From His Writings, ed. by Dillenberger, Anchor Books, 1962 p. 190).
- “Man is like a horse. Does God leap into the saddle? The horse is obedient and accommodates itself to every movement of the rider and goes whither he wills it. Does God throw down the reins? Then Satan leaps upon the back of the animal, which bends, goes and submits to the spurs and caprices of its new rider… Therefore, necessity, not free will, is the controlling principle of our conduct. God is the author of what is evil as well as of what is good, and, as He bestows happiness on those who merit it not, so also does He damn others who deserve not their fate.” (ref. ‘De Servo Arbitrio’, 7, 113 seq., quoted by O’Hare, in ‘The Facts About Luther, TAN Books, 1987, pp. 266-267).
- “His (Judas) will was the work of God; God by His almighty power moved his will as He does all that is in this world.” (ref. De servo Arbitrio, against man’s free will).
- “No good work happens as the result of one’s own wisdom; but everything must happen in a stupor . . . Reason must be left behind for it is the enemy of faith.” (ref. Trischreden, Weimer VI, 143, 25-35).
Martin Luther on Christian Living
- “Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides… No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.” (ref. ‘Let Your Sins Be Strong, from ‘The Wittenberg Project;’ ‘The Wartburg Segment’, translated by Erika Flores, from Dr. Martin Luther’s Saemmtliche Schriften, Letter No. 99, 1 Aug. 1521. – Cf. Also Denifle’s Luther et Lutheranisme, Etude Faite d’apres les sources. Translation by J. Paquier (Paris, A. Picard, 1912-13), VOl. II, pg. 404))
- “Do not ask anything of your conscience; and if it speaks, do not listen to it; if it insists, stifle it, amuse yourself; if necessary, commit some good big sin, in order to drive it away. Conscience is the voice of Satan, and it is necessary always to do just the contrary of what Satan wishes.” (ref. J. Dollinger, La Reforme et les resultants qu’elle a produits. (Trans. E. Perrot, Paris, Gaume, 1848-49), Vol III, pg. 248).
Martin Luther on Capital Punishment and Charity
- “If some were to teach doctrines contradicting an article of faith clearly grounded in Scripture and believed throughout the world by all Christendom, such as the articles we teach children in the Creed — for example, if anyone were to teach that Christ is not God, but a mere man and like other prophets, as the Turks and the Anabaptists hold — such teachers shuold not be tolerated, but punished as blasphemers . . . By this procedure no one is compelled to believe, for he can still believe what he will; but he is forbidden to teach and to blaspheme.” (ref. Luther’s Works [LW], Vol. 13, 61-62)
- “That seditious articles of doctrine should be punished by the sword needed no further proof. For the rest, the Anabaptists hold tenets relating to infant baptism, original sin, and inspiration, which have no connection with the Word of God, and are indeed opposed to it . . . Secular authorities are also bound to restrain and punish avowedly false doctrine . . . For think what disaster would ensue if children were not baptized? . . . Besides this the Anabaptists separate themselves from the churches . . . and they set up a ministry and congregation of their own, which is also contrary to the command of God. From all this it becomes clear that the secular authorities are bound . . . to inflict corporal punishment on the offenders . . . Also when it is a case of only upholding some spiritual tenet, such as infant baptism, original sin, and unnecessary separation, then . . . we conclude that . . . the stubborn sectaries must be put to death.” (ref. pamphlet of 1536; in Johannes Janssen, History of the German People From the Close of the Middle Ages, 16 volumes, translated by A.M. Christie, St. Louis: B. Herder, 1910 [orig. 1891]; Vol. X, 222-223)
Martin Luther on Social Justice
- “Peasants are no better than straw. They will not hear the word and they are without sense; therefore they must be compelled to hear the crack of the whip and the whiz of bullets and it is only what they deserve.” (ref. Erlangen Vol 24, Pg. 294).
- “To kill a peasant is not murder; it is helping to extinguish the conflagration. Let there be no half measures! Crush them! Cut their throats! Transfix them. Leave no stone unturned! To kill a peasant is to destroy a mad dog!” – “If they say that I am very hard and merciless, mercy be damned. Let whoever can stab, strangle, and kill them like mad dogs” (ref. Erlangen Vol 24, Pg. 294).
- “Like the drivers of donkeys, who have to belabor the donkeys incessantly with rods and whips, or they will not obey, so must the ruler do with the people; they must drive, beat throttle, hang, burn, behead and torture, so as to make themselves feared and to keep the people in check.” (ref. Erlangen Vol 15, Pg. 276).
Adolf HitlerMartin Luther on the Love of Jews - “My advice, as I said earlier, is: First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire… Second, that all their books– their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bible– be taken from them, not leaving them one leaf, and that these be preserved for those who may be converted…Third, that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country…Fourth, that they be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. For we cannot with a good conscience listen to this or tolerate it… He who hears this name [God] from a Jew must inform the authorities, or else throw sow dung at him when he sees him and chase him away”. (ref. Martin Luther; On the Jews and Their Lies, translated by Martin H. Bertram, Fortress Press, 1955).
- “Burn their synagogues. Forbid them all that I have mentioned above. Force them to work and treat them with every kind of severity, as Moses did in the desert and slew three thousand… If that is no use, we must drive them away like mad dogs, in order that we may not be partakers of their abominable blasphemy and of all their vices, and in order that we may not deserve the anger of God and be damned with them. I have done my duty. Let everyone see how he does his. I am excused.” (ref. About the Jews and Their Lies,’ quoted by O’Hare, in ‘The Facts About Luther, TAN Books, 1987, p. 290).
- “If I had to baptize a Jew, I would take him to the bridge of the Elbe, hang a stone round his neck and push him over with the words I baptize thee in the name of Abraham” (ref. Grisar, “Luther”, Vol. V. pg. 413).
- “The Jews deserve to be hanged on gallows seven times higher than ordinary thieves.” (ref. Weimar, Vol. 53, Pg. 502).
Martin Luther on the Sanctity and Dignity of Marriage
- “If the husband is unwilling, there is another who is; if the wife is unwilling, then let the maid come.” (ref. Of Married Life).
- “Suppose I should counsel the wife of an impotent man, with his consent, to giver herself to another, say her husband’s brother, but to keep this marriage secret and to ascribe the children to the so-called putative father. The question is: Is such a women in a saved state? I answer, certainly.” (ref. On Marriage).
- “It is not in opposition to the Holy Scriptures for a man to have several wives.” (ref. De Wette, Vol. 2, p. 459).
- “The word and work of God is quite clear, viz., that women are made to be either wives or prostitutes.” (ref. On Married Life).
- “In spite of all the good I say of married life, I will not grant so much to nature as to admit that there is no sin in it. .. no conjugal due is ever rendered without sin. The matrimonial duty is never performed without sin.” (ref. Weimar, Vol 8. Pg. 654. In other words for Luther the matrimonial act is “a sin differing in nothing from adultery and fornication.” ibid. What then is the purpose of marriage for Luther you may ask? Luther affirms that it’s simply to satisfy one’s sexual cravings “The body asks for a women and must have it” or again “To marry is a remedy for fornication” – Grisar, “Luther”, vol. iv, pg. 145).
Martin Luther on the Quality of Edifying Speech
- “What harm could it do if a man told a good lusty lie in a worthy cause and for the sake of the Christian Churches?” (ref. Lenz: Briefwechsel, Vol. 1. Pg. 373).
- “To lie in a case of necessity or for convenience or in excuse – such lying would not be against God; He was ready to take such lies on Himself” (ref. Lenz: Briefwechsel, Vol. 1. Pg. 375).
Martin Luther on Humility
- “St. Augustine or St. Ambrosius cannot be compared with me.” (ref. Erlangen, Vol. 61, pg. 422).
- “What I teach and write remains true even though the whole world should fall to pieces over it” (ref. Weimar, Vol. 18, Pg. 401).
Martin Luther on the value of Sacred Scripture
- “To my mind it (the book of the Apocalypse) bears upon it no marks of an apostolic or prophetic character… Everyone may form his own judgment of this book; as for myself, I feel an aversion to it, and to me this is sufficient reason for rejecting it.” (ref. ammtliche Werke, 63, pp. 169-170, ‘The Facts About Luther,’ O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 203).
- “If your Papist annoys you with the word (‘alone’ – Rom. 3:28), tell him straightway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and ass are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil’s thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom.” (ref. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127,’The Facts About Luther,’ O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 201. Cf. Also J. Dollinger, La Reforme et les resultants qu’elle a produits. (Trans. E. Perrot, Paris, Gaume, 1848-49), Vol III, pg. 138).
- “The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible.” (ref. The Facts About Luther, O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 202).
- “…the epistle of St. James is an epistle full of straw, because it contains nothing evangelical.” (ref. ‘Preface to the New Testament,’ ed. Dillenberger, p. 19. – Cf. Also Jean Janssen, L’Allemagne et la Reforme. (Trans. E. Paris, Plon, 1887-1911). Vol II, Pg. 218).
– For more great quotes from the Father of Protestantism, visit Luther, Exposing the Myth. Also, check out my book Dead on Arrival: The Seven Fatal Errors of Sola-Scriptura.
9/16/13 – Addendum:
Even though you can find all of these quotes online, this compilation, ever since its publication, has received a lot of attention from our brothers and sisters in the protesting community. I have read all the comments on the blogs and message boards linked to this article, and here are some of their conclusions. (1) The book Table Talk is not a reliable reference for Martin Luther’s work (ONLY TWO quotes above come from Table Talk). (2) There is a problem with translating some of the quotes because some are from German or Latin to French to English rather than from German or Latin to English. (4) Luther’s violent comments against the peasants are to be contextualized in light of the Peasant Revolt in which he sided with the German Princes. (5) Luther’s violent comments against the Jews are to be contextualized in light of his disappointment that they didn’t receive his reformulation of the Gospel. (6) Luther’s comments against Scripture are true. (7) Luther’s comments against monogamous marriage are true (probably). (8) Luther’s violent comments against the Anabaptists are true, (9) Luther’s comments against the Catholic understanding of Freewill are true, and (10) The only writings of Luther that conservative Lutheran pastors are required to subscribe to (because they strictly reflect biblical doctrine) are the Small Catechism, the Large Catechism, and the Smalkald Articles.
Regarding one of the sources of this compilation (Luther, Exposing the Myth), Reformed protester and Martin Luther Apologist James Swan of William Paterson University has written a detailed critique. In crafting this compilation, I considered Swan’s response and ended up not including many of the quotes he had a good case against. In some cases, Swan was spot on, but in other cases, he would have been much better off not trying to contextualize or excuse Luther. In those cases, Swan’s intellectual honesty is betrayed by his passion for Luther.
WE WANT TO HELP YOU GROW IN YOUR FAITH
HERE ARE SOME OF OUR COURSES
Free
Introduction to the Theology of the Catholic Mass
Free
Return to the Sacred: A Discussion Course on the Dispelling of Darkness in the World
Free
Visiting Professor Lecture Series at Saint Dominic’s Media
Free
Eight Talks on the Theology of the Catholic Mass
Free
The Catechism of the Catholic Church in 32 Lessons (with David L. Gray)
Free
317 Comments
Andy Brown
Matthew 24:4-7, 11, 24-26 KJB: “And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. 5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. 6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. . . 11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. . . 24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. 25 Behold, I have told you before. 26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.”
Luke 21:8-9 KJB: “And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them. 9 But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by.”
1 John 4:1-6 KJB: “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. 4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. 5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. 6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.”
2 Peter 2:1-3 KJB: “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. 3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.”
John 3:16-18, 36 KJB: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. . . 36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”
“For there is ONE GOD, and ONE MEDIATOR between God and men, the man CHRIST JESUS;”
—1 Timothy 2:5 KJB
“Jesus saith unto him, I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE: NO MAN cometh unto the Father, BUT BY ME.”
—John 14:6 KJB
“Neither is there salvation IN ANY OTHER: for THERE IS NONE OTHER NAME under heaven given among men, WHEREBY WE MUST BE SAVED.”
—Acts 4:12 KJB
“And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep YOUR OWN TRADITION. … Making the word of God of none effect through YOUR tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.”
—Mark 7:9, 13 KJB
“And this is his commandment,
THAT WE SHOULD BELIEVE ON THE NAME OF HIS SON JESUS CHRIST,
and love one another, as he gave us commandment.”
—1 John 3:23 KJB
“Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: HE THAT BELIEVETH IN ME, though he were dead, yet shall he live:”
—John 11:25 KJB
“But as many as received HIM, (Christ Jesus) to them gave he power to become the sons of God, EVEN TO THEM THAT BELIEVE ON HIS NAME:”
—John 1:12 KJB
“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
—Romans 10:9-10, 13 KJB
“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”
—John 3:36 KJB
“For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.”
—Romans 14:11 KJB
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”
John 13:16-18 KJB
John 12:47-48 KJB: “And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.”
“. . BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, AND THOU SHALT BE SAVED . . ”
—Acts 16:31 KJB
David Parker
The pope and the papal system is nothing more than an earthly organization designed to centralize earthly wealth and power. The pope is nothing more than a sinful man in need of a savior and the virgin Mary was a sinful woman chosen by God to bear the savior and she has no influence or power beyond being the vessel chosen by God to bring the Second Person of the holy trinity incarnate.
Luther exposed the papal system as man’s invention. Christianity is open to all with out any earthly and earthy intermediaries. The veil into the holy of holies was torn asunder by God once for all.
Sincerely,
David Parker
David L. Gray
Being that this post spits in the face of 2,000 years of Christian tradition and Scripture, while elevating a lunatic to the level of a saint, I’m inclined to dismiss it as mere ramblings of a drunk or a person who NEEDS to believe what he says, because he knows the consequences of being humble enough to dare himself to be wrong . . .
Wynda MacLeod
Um, if you want to talk about traditions with evidential support, the Ancient Church of the East and the Jacobites are just as well supported as the Catholic, just because you guys took over Europe and they got smashed in the 13th-15th centuries by Muslim crack-downs; in fact, the lack of persecution that Catholics have faced counts against their being the true church (God’s people are despised in this world).
The Jacobites and Gnostics are just as well documented and patristic as the Catholics, and let’s face it, you guys basically co-opted the Marcionite church.
Pretending that Catholicism is either original or well-documented flies in the face of everything that archeologists and scholars of religion have known since the 19th century. But, not having the Protestant Reformation, your church is content to repeat fairy tales and superstitions and self-congratulatory and imaginary histories.
Judy
Oh please lady
David Parker
“… 2,000 years of Christian tradition and Scripture”?
My argument is that the universal church has been around since Eve looked to God for a Messiah: The papal superstition that calls itself the Roman “Catholic” Church (or whatever you call the papal organization) is the upstart.
“… mere ramblings of a drunk or a person who NEEDS to believe what he says, because he knows the consequences of being humble enough to dare himself to be wrong … “?
I don’t know what you have been taking, but I hope you recover. The real deal is over how we are saved from the wrath of God that we so justly deserve. Luther had the courage to face the murderous papal establishment and point out that salvation cannot be by any form of works, that there is no “treasury of merit”, that all our good deeds are as filty rags in the sight of God absent his assignment, etc. In the Universal (Catholic) Church every man appeals directly to God in the name of Jesus, the only intercessor. Take your “prayers” to Mary and the saints elsewhere, God doesn’t need any help looking after his elect and working out his eternal plan.
Sincerely,
David Parker
David L. Gray
1, I agree with point 1, but you have to make the distinction – I do so in my article – The 7 Historical Marks of the Church in the Kingdom of God (http://www.davidlgray.info/blog/2013/11/the-7-historical-marks-of-the-catholic-church/)
2. Here you also agree with the Catholic Church. Salvation is not by works of alone, and that you can take you prayers to Jesus alone, but you are wrong about intercessory prayer. You can ask me to pray for you, just ask you can the saints in Heaven. At no point in time do people stop loving God, and those in Heaven love Him perfect. The first fruit of love is serving God, and the saints in Heaven do that perfectly. If you don’t believe in intercessory prayer with the Saints, I dare you to ask Mary to help you with a spiritual need!!!!
Trimelda McDaniels
He’s not going to do that. Neither is he going to examine the implications of what Luther said in the light of the Gospel. That’s too scary.
Jim H.
Blah, blah, blah, blah… good luck with that, Korah.
Trimelda McDaniels
But your statement does not erase what Luther said.
RexRyan
Hail Mary Full of Grace……she was not ever sinful….ever as she was FULL of Grace….. she was the ark of the covenant…perfect…I pray she asks her son to have mercy on you and open your eyes to the evil you espouse…..
Wynda MacLeod
Do you even try to source your quotes? For God’s sake, half of those are well-known to invented by propagandists who probably had no more love for the Catholic than the Reformed church.
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/11/luther-it-does-not-matter-how-christ.html
Seriously, lazy, lazy.
David L. Gray
Do you always comment before you read the entire article and others comments, or was your response just the by-product of your mystical freedom? 😀
Trimelda McDaniels
Luther did say that the Epistle of James was straw. Lutherans have even quoted that. I understand that Luther didn’t like the implcations of the Epistle but who was he to say it was “straw”?
Josh
This blog post is intellectually and historically infantile.
David L. Gray
Considering that this blog post consists of only what Martin Luther stated, I agree 100%. Thank you!
Trimelda McDaniels
How is what he posted infantile?
Andrew
“In those cases, Swan’s intellectually honesty is betrayed by his passion for Luther.”
Kind of like how Gray’s intellectual honesty is betrayed by his hatred for Luther…
CMLD3
How precisely when these are quotes from the man himself? Bare assertion means nothing. Mr. Gray explained his position, have the courtesy to do likewise and illustrate the intellectual dishonesty you allege.
Trimelda McDaniels
I don’t think he hates Luther at all. He’s just stating why he thinks Luther is cuckoo. You can question Luther’s sanity without hating him. Shrinks do it all the time.
Jerry Kliner
I am a Lutheran Pastor… First, “Table Talk” is NOT what “Luther wrote.” “Table Talk” (AE vol. 50) are nuggets of what someone else wrote that “Luther said” while in conversation at meal-time. It is quite clear in the volume who the recorder is. Not to mention that I’d hate to think what I have said at any random meal-time, especially while alcohol is being consumed. Among Luther scholars, “Table Talk” is of almost no practical value except for those “eye raising nuggets.” Second, when it comes to the Law, one MUST understand the whole of Luther’s theological system. The reason Luther speaks negatively about the Ten Commandments is because he understood the Law to work in three ways for the believer: (1) The Law is a disciplinarian, ordering our lives, (2) The Law works to disabuse the believer from any trust in their own goodness so that they flee to the mercy of Christ (all have fallen short of the glory of God…), and (3) The Law…only after 1 and 2…can teach us how God wants us to live. So Luther does say things like “The Decalogue needs to be removed…” ONLY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SECOND USE OF THE LAW, by which we are so aware of our sin that we despair of our own goodness. Third, is Christ truly served by looking for the serious missteps of other believers? Should I go looking for ever scandalous thing a Pope has ever said or done? Luther says, of the 8th Commandment, that “We are to fear and love God so that we neither slander nor betray our neighbor, but instead we are to SPEAK WELL OF THEM, RISE TO THEIR DEFENSE, AND INTERPRET EVERYTHING THEY DO IN THE BEST POSSIBLE LIGHT.” (Small Catechism) So it is that we best serve the Commandments by rising to the defense of our neighbors and no looking for scandal. If you look for scandal, you doubtless will find it.
Jerry Kliner
My apologies… “Table Talk” is AE 54, not AE 50…
David L. Gray
Two quotes come from Table Talk. I understand that perspective of the law. Not one orthodox Catholic theologians would agree with though. About looking for missteps of other believers. I agree here, but I don’t consider Luther a believer. I think he was a lunatic or a madman.
pete salveinini
Luther from the evidence on both side of the Prot.-Catholic divide was OBVIOUSLY suffering from a bi-polar personality disorder with huge narcissistic pride. At the same time he lived the Catholic Church produced GREAT SAINTS OF EXTRAORDINARY VIRTUE AND HOLINESS OF LIFE. “by their fruits you will know them”.
Stephen Dalton
Luther was a drunk, and probably bipolar.
Anne
“Third, is Christ truly served by looking for the serious missteps of other believers? Should I go looking for ever scandalous thing a Pope has ever said or done? ” Good point, but is this not what exactly what Martin Luther did to begin the great schism?
John
Please pause and reflect on the fruits, pray for humility, and ask God where he wants you.
e.g.g.
John Calvin was worse than Luther. Calvinism makes no sense……at all. Calvin also ordered the murder of many people. Calvin is the real lunatic.
Stephen Dalton
Calvin was an outright psychopath.
Mainer
No one lives in eternal damnation who truly does not belong there or whose salvation is not procured by other’s prayers and sufferings. Have read(do not recall the source) that Martin Luther was confined to 500 years in Purgatory for erroneous teachings.
David L. Gray
What a merciful God if that is true . . . .
Trimelda McDaniels
LOL Luther was a very troubled man. Your remark is funny but not politically correct lol
Michael S Clifford
I’ve never cared about being politically “correct”. I don’t plan to start now.
mollysdad
Comment #35 is perhaps the reason why the Protestants lost the true faith concerning the Blessed Sacrament. “if anyone takes away from the words of prophecy of this book, God will remove his share in the tree of life . . . “
Jim Jim
I should think that this article would raise all kinds of doubts in the minds of all Protestants. I am surprised that these points would be attributed to Luther. I expected more along the lines of selling indulgences.
From. Dan Hesko
The great problem with protestantism is that there is no anchor, no fixed point. I was an evangelical (fundamentalist baptist)) and attended a fundamental bible college. Protestantism constantly reinvents itself every generation or 2. For instance accepting Jesus as your personal Savior was unheard of 125 years ago, the importance of living a moral life was not emphasized until the next generation or so after Luther with the birth of pietism, today divorce and re marriage is almost a mute subject in most evangelical circles, and now many are trying to accommodate gay marriage. These quotes amusing or disgusting as they may be bear little on protestantism today, because they have constantly evolved. Today by God’s grace I am a Catholic Priest, and I pray that all may discover the true Catholic faith which is the SAME, yesterday, today and forever.
David L. Gray
Exactly. That is the one thing I’m pointing to in this series. Chesterton talks a lot about this in Orthodoxy and Everlasting Man in regards to progressives. He says that progressive is the wrong word for them, because to progress you would need a standard to know where you began, but progressives have no standard. Therefore, what they are doing is devolving.
SpokenMind
I find this article surprising – I never knew Luther said such things.
If you think about it, there are tens of thousands of Christian groups out there.
At best, only one can be true.
“. . . the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” (1 Tim 3:15)
cycle66
Thanks to Luther and Calvin, there are now over some 40k different Protestant denominations. Some have a Creed (or Mission) and some don’t. Some have liturgy but many don’t. Some have some semblance of truth but many don’t. While visiting my brother and his wife in Colorado we visited one of those non-denominational churches that former Catholics are apparently flocking to. Their entire service consisted of taking coffee and donuts, listening to loud Christian rock music and patting themselves on the back. There was a huge plea for $$$ from a “pastor” wearing faded, tattered blue jeans and polo shirt. The teaching was on Proverbs but very little was actually said between the plea for money and the rock band. Apparently this is what former Catholics are looking for? This is what passes for church? Shame on you, Luther and Calvin and as far as I’m concerned the 500 years you (Luther) spent in Purgatory was a punishment far too light considering how many people you’ve bamboozled and lead from the truth of the Holy, Catholic church. Protestantism is truly a scourge on all who are searching for truth, goodness, beauty and the Holy Eucharist.
Eskimo man
What makes you think that Luther made it to Purgatory? He would have to be in hell wouldn’t he? What about all the countless souls he has led to hell, and the damage to the Catholic Church, plus the confusion for those who are searching for the true faith?
Alex
I don’t think Catholics should speculate on Luther’s final destination. My sixth grade religion teacher, a monk, told me that God will judge us based on what we thought to be true and pleasing to God. This meant, he said, that if Luther *genuinely* thought he was doing God’s will, then he could go to heaven too.
RexRyan
I take it your catechism class was after he anti catholic Vatican II?
JusMc
I guess he can just genuinely leave books out to suit his new definitions. That is NOT genuine. To bad there is not an insanity plea in the Bible. I think he’d be ok then.
Lloyd Cadle
Of course we don’t know the eternal destiny of any one, only God knows and it is really none of our business.
That being said, Luther would consider himself indeed, most fortunate if he even made it to purgatory.
If he lived and believed his own quotes he died in mortal sin.
Janet Afflick
Somehow this all sounds extremely contradictory even from quote to quote. Is it possible that these quotes are being taken out of context in a topically Protestant manner? Yes, I have taken note of the in-text citations, however, we should be very careful of the information we give on others. It would be most unchristian of us to mis-inform the less informed.
Thank you for your online apostolate may you always be guided by the Holy Spirit and may Mary Mother of Jesus be a mother to you now and always.
David L. Gray
Even once you lift most of these statement out of the paragraph there were contained or away from the question they were responding to, they are still problematic. Even apologists for Luther admit that these statements are troublesome, but they’ll say that he wasn’t doing systematic theology, but just spouting off his opinion. Ok, maybe he was more like Donald Trump and John Calvin, but that doesn’t excuse, inasmuch as it allows us to understand better.
Daniel Carlson
As a Lutheran, I can tell you that these are ALL taken out of the context from which they were said/written. I am ashamed that my brothers in Christ in the Roman church entertain the straw-man just to prop their theology up as better. Throw out your doctrines and traditions which are contrary to God’s Word and then we can have a conversation about Luther. I know Roman Catholics don’t like Luther, but please – be honest in your attempts to trivialize him as a Christian should be. Otherwise that plank in your eye is doing far more harm than good.
David L. Gray
Well, as a Lutheran you should know that not all Lutherans agree with your opinion that all of these quotes are out of context. If you’ve read the addendum you’ll see I was very fair. I even included links to Protestant sites.
Daniel Carlson
No, you’re doing exactly what someone who doesn’t like a particular sect/religion/person does – to keep it theological, you’re being an isogist. You decide in your mind that you don’t like any doctrines but what is taught by the Roman Catholic church, and/or that you don’t like Lutheranism, and you go out and look for things to prove your point.
Let’s assume for a moment that every quote you made is true, contextual, and that Luther either actually said/wrote it and that he meant it. Well if objectivity were a good thing here, wouldn’t you also take the time to make mention of the literally thousands of things he said/wrote that were wonderful, doctrinally pure, and good?
Look I’ll be honest with you: I don’t like the Roman Catholic church. Too much works-righteousness and piety-based salvation. I don’t really care to argue that point here and now. BUT, I do at the same time recognize the contributions that Roman Catholicism has made to Christendom over the decades, and in spite of my distaste for making people grovel up the stairs of St. Peter in order to free grandma from some non-biblical place called purgatory (which exists only to support the works-righteousness method of salvation), I am willing to say “thank you” for all the good things that Roman Catholicism has done.
Now if you don’t think Confessional Lutheranism has contributed any good to Christendom, fine that’s your prerogative. But the last time I looked at a Roman hymnal, I remember seeing Ein Feste Berg (A Mighty Fortress) as well as several Bach hymns (Bach was a Lutheran). It was the Lutheran tradition/liturgy/hymns/practices that you admired back during Vatican II and before then you had all but lost good and reverent worship (yeah, you had your latin, but that was about it).
David L. Gray
For the purposes of THIS SERIES about the 500 year old Protestant experiment, I am focusing on all of the negatives of the philosophy and generally agreed theology of the protest, because even the good that ‘individual’ Protestants do, doesn’t justify the Christian division – the ripping apart of the Body of Christ – that Protestantism is responsible for.
SIDE NOTE: You may want to revisit what Catholics actually believe about works in regards to salvation and what we believe about Purgatory. I use to be a Protestant after i was an Agnostic. It helped me to actually pick up a Catechism and read what Catholics believe from a Catholic point of view. Based upon your paragraph above, it doesn’t seem like you’ve done that yet.
Kevin McAuley
Just you REALLY just say that all the bad things Luther said, have to be weighed with the things he said that weren’t full blown crazy? So If Jeffrey Dahmer made a REALLY good stew, but it was made out of teenager, does that balance? The fact that hitler fixed the german economy and improved the middle class balance that he was a genocidal maniac? Just because not everything luther did was evil, doesn’t excuse the fact that what he did WAS actually evil. And although I was born after Vatican 2, I cannot say anything protestant was to be admired over the Church.
Oh and purgatory IS scriptural, but you see you have to actually have ALL of scripture, and not just the parts Luther was ok with and didn’t throw out.
Daniel Carlson
Buddy, I’m a pastor in a Lutheran church. I live, breathe, and ingest Scripture all the time. There is no purgatory in the Bible (unless you read it in). The Virgin Mary does not hear your prayers; she had other children, and St. Peter was not the first “pope”. These are all doctrines invented by the Roman Catholic church WELL WELL beyond the Apostles’ teachings, and they were all created with a mix of philosophy and bad theology.
Your elevate own doctrine the tradition and dogma of the church to the same level as Holy Scripture. Where in the bible does it say “All Scripture….and the teachings of many popes of the church…are God-breathed…?” Where does it say to “Trust in God…and the holy see…and lean no on your own understanding…?” It doesn’t!
If purgatory is Scriptural, give me the reference – show me where it says that people go to this place called purgatory in order to get the rest of their sins (the ones that Christ wasn’t strong enough to deal with) paid for? And don’t reference Maccabees. Those books were never accepted in the early church, or the Hebrew canon, and these books are, by their very name, considered “secret” or “hidden” or even gnostic. And certainly they are not primary source material, even if they are part of the canon. Good hermeneutics attests to that. Jerome was a Hebrew OT guy. Why would he have wanted these LXX additions added to the Vulgate? Not only so but none of these books were quoted or even made mention in the NT. Besides, since Luther and us protestants insist on translating Scripture from original sources and not the vulgate, it’s hard for us to see any inspired good from the apocrypha. It was added later, much later, and probably not by Jerome (and of course NONE of the apocryphal books were included at Qumran in the Dead Sea Scrolls). That should tell ya something!
And lest you forget…what was the papacy doing during the time of Luther? And shall we go back further and utilize your logic and apply Roman Catholicism? Should I name a few popes for you, you know those vicars of Christ who are supposedly higher on the divine food chain than all the rest? Pope Alexander VI…Pope Damusus I…Benedict IX…Pious XII…John XXIII, and who was the pope during Luther’s time? Pope Leo X, who lied to the flock, selling “indulgences” and promising that their loved ones would be taken out of purgatory if they buy them…all to raise money for your precious basilica.
Free yourself from this, my friend! Granted, King David wasn’t perfect, and the Apostle’s weren’t perfect. But, to continue living by the teaching and dogma of a denomination (yes Roman Catholicism IS a denomination) which has consistently blended itself with cultural leanings — transubstantiation is a mix of theology and philosophical ideas but I so wish you’d just say “it’s the body and blood” and do away with all of the “substance and essence and accident” crap, and do away with the resacrifice stuff too…who ever said that His Supper was a resacrifice for sins? Not Christ. Take Haiti for example. What did the RC do there? They blended voodoo with theology and now we have voodoo Catholics. Us Lutherans are down there trying to clean up your mess and have been for decades. Sola Scriptura! Not Scripture and the musings of a sinful pope or texts that have always been considered suspect, never accepted by the Jews, and added to the Canon by mystics (a mix of Christianity and Gnosticism). Sola Scriptura!
David L. Gray
Hello Daniel again. So you are a Luther Pastor who ingest the Scriptures all the time, but you don’t account yourself as one of those who Jesus spoke of in John 5:39,”You search* the scriptures, because you think you have eternal life through them; even they testify on my behalf.”
You ingest the Scriptures all the time, but can’t prove that Mary had other sons. Can’t get around all of the implied language that points to the fact that she didn’t; even though it is implied that Joseph may have.
You ingest the Scriptures all the time – can’t find the word Purgatory, but you are okay with not being able to find the word Trinity and are okay with not even being able to find what books should be in the Bible. Are okay with the Bible itself not even saying what books should be in the Bible. Odd!
—- What is Purgatory, and is it Reasonable to Believe? = http://www.davidlgray.info/blog/2011/07/what-is-purgatory-and-is-it-reasonable-to-believe/
You ingest the Scriptures all the time, but can’t explain why your Old Testament is seven books short. By what authority were they removed? Even Paul quotes exhaustively from the book of Wisdom. The Council of Rome in 382 decreed the Septuagint as the Old Testament. That was our authority. Who is your authority? Some guy held up in a castle who also taught that polygamy was cool?
You ingest the Scriptures all the time, but can’t get around the fact that the Bible points to Tradition (paradosis) being equal or greater to it. You simply ignore that Paul said hold fast to Scripture and Tradition.
—- Fatal Errors with Sola Scriptura’s “God Breathed” Argument = http://www.davidlgray.info/blog/2014/04/fatal-errors-with-sola-scripturas-god-breathed-argument/
ingest the Scriptures all the time, but seem to not have asked to the question, how did Christians survive for nearly 300 year before the Catholic Church put the Bible together. Tradition perhaps?
You ingest the Scriptures all the time, but fail to see that the only thing Jesus asked you to ingest was HIMSELF as the Holy Eucharist – John 6.
—- Proofs of the Catholic Church #5: It all Stands or Falls on John 6 = http://www.davidlgray.info/blog/2011/03/proofs-of-the-catholic-church-5-it-all-stands-or-falls-on-john-6/
Daniel, please don’t come post on my blog again until you bring your A GAME. I am a Catholic Convert by the way of Agnosticism and Protestantism. I have a well reasoned and logical response and an article to every argument you have, but all you’ve brought me so far was 3rd Grade Excuses to Reject the ONLY Church that Christ Jesus established through His Apostles FOR YOU. You reject Jesus’ Church, but think you have Him! It doesn’t work that way. You reject Jesus’ Church for some man’s Church, you reject Jesus.
Daniel Carlson
Buddy, don’t be a complete idiot. I’m not going to offer you “A game” things because you won’t listen anyway. I am a convert from fundamentalism/Pentecostalism, spending most of my childhood/teen years frequenting “Church of God in Christ”, “Four-square Gospel” type churches. It was the Lord who led me out of those cesspools and into a right understanding of Christ and His work on the cross.
See the trouble with having a closed mind is that it matters not if the trump of truth is dealt out in the shuffled deck of ideas, the person won’t take the card. He’d rather lose the game than admit that he’s wrong. So if I offer you a winning hand, you’ll just throw it back anyway. So why should I bother? So unless you are willing to take down the papacy-barriers and take off the rosary-bead glasses, I’m not going to bother with “A-game” stuff – I’d rather just poke and prod at you prayerfully hoping that you’ll go and look for yourself.
I gave you about 1100 years worth of scandalous, evil, corrupt popes – popes that murdered, committed adultery, stole, cheated, lied, and used God’s holy Name for profit.
So if your straw-man is asserting that because Luther “supposedly” said some controversial things 500 years ago (depending on the context that you lack), therefore Lutheranism and Protestantism is evil, well then what does it say for the Roman Catholic church, a church inundated with popes who not only said but DID horrible things while at Rome (or France)? What does it say for the entire Christian religion which has been filled with St. Augustine’s, St. Aquinas’s, St. Jerome’s, etc. and even going back to St. Peter who denied Christ and 10 other disciples who scattered and one who betrayed Jesus to the Jews? What does it say for King David, a man after God’s own heart, who had a man murdered in order to steal his wife? What does it say about Abraham, a man justified by faith, but who did some very questionable things with his wife-sister when he gave her to the king of Egypt (two times)? What does it say about Noah, about the 11 brothers, about Esau and Jacob his brother?
See you get on your mighty Roman soapbox and call out one man and crucify him on the cross of your dogma, but you glaze over all the rest of history – the history of Roman Catholicism, and the history of the Church, to do so. You’re a zealot! You see what you want and you say what you want, but you aren’t willing to learn and listen. And in some ways that makes you worse than Luther. I don’t claim Luther was perfect and frankly there are a few things he said that make me a bit uneasy, but when it comes to the theology, Luther just echoed what was said by so many during the early church and by many of the church fathers, and what had been all but lost to Christendom for hundreds of years under the Holy Roman Empire. It’s no wonder Luther saw the papacy as the anti-Christ! They became the object of the people’s worship because the pope would condemn them all to hell if they wouldn’t submit.
You see, you set yourself up for this: YOU chose to call out Luther. And you continue to choose to NOT be fair and honest and objective. There’s no rule that says you have to be objective – and in fact I rather appreciate God’s gift of subjectivity. BUT if you’re not going to be objective and fair, then don’t expect fair and objective answers.
David L. Gray
So rather than coming back with reason and logic, all I get if presumption? Daniel if you present me a reasonable and logical case to reject the only Church Christ Jesus established through His Apostles AND to reject the Holy Eucharist which is clearly fulfills God’s command in Exodus 12 to celebrate the Passover Meal FOREVER, then I’ll leave the Catholic Church.
As for this article, I think you missed the point. Yes, we’ve had some HORRIBLE Catholics, and some of them were even Popes, but they are different than Luther. None of the Popes started a new religion and asked people to follow them. No Pope has been a sheep thief. The Catholic Church is NEVER about man – it’s always been about Jesus. Attend Mass and you’ll see that. No cult of personality here. No room for it in the liturgy.
Daniel Carlson
Alright I will throw one bone. And if you can’t deal with this one, nothing else I would say could matter much.
Tradition. Using Scripture Alone, I am going to show you why human traditions (or by obvious relation, church traditions) cannot be equal to or supersede Scripture.
First the affirmative thesis: The Holy Scripture is the only infallible rule and norm for church and practice. In other words, Holy Scripture is the norm normans or the norming norm, the very Word of God by which all other things submit to including the teachings of the church on earth and traditions (Summary: Epitome of the Augsburg Confession).
The negative thesis: That Sacred Scripture and sacred tradition make up a single deposit of the Word of God (Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 97).
First, the Holy Scripture speaks both positively and negatively on traditions. The following are a few examples of positive statements:
“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life
and not according to the tradition which you received from us.” (2 Thess 3:6)
“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.” (2 Thess 2:15)
“Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.” (1 Cor 11:2)
The following are negative statements:
“And He answered and said to them, ‘And why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, Honor your father and mother, and, He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death. But you say, Whoever shall say to his father or mother, Anything of mine you might have been helped by has been given to God, he is not to honor his father or his mother. And thus you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.” (Mt 15:3-6)
“Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men. He was also saying to them, You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.” (Mk 7:8-9)
“See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” (Col 2:8)
Now it would appear that there is a contradiction here, that on the one hand tradition is something to be followed and lived out, but on the other hand that tradition is to be passed by. (In truth, this is a theological contrast between Roman Catholicism and most denominations that sprouted from the Reformation. Confessional Lutheranism does NOT fit into this contrast! We never wanted to give up traditions which conformed to Scripture and helpful in proclaiming the Gospel. Post-reformation leaders did.)
We do not pit Scripture against Scripture! Therefore we must seek to understand what is going on here. According to the very words of Christ, there are traditions which are not to be part of the Christian church. Similarly, there are other traditions that should be part of the Church, as the Apostles encouraged the believers to hold fast to them. But not ALL traditions! The ‘traditions’ that Paul instructed his churches to follow were the instructions, teachings, and practices which had been passed down from the other apostles. What WERE those instructions, teachings, and practices? Well, certainly Scripture was a HUGE part of the teachings that the people were told to follow. But also was the liturgy of the time, also was the practice of supporting the Jerusalem church, also was the ‘tradition’ of meeting together regularly (daily, weekly) for worship and the Eucharist.
But St Paul nor the Apostles NEVER said or implied that the church or her leaders has the authority to create traditions, teachings, instructions, or practices which are CONTRARY to Scripture! In fact Paul was quite adamant that such NOT be done (Col 2:8)!
Well, the question is: Should traditions of the church be subject to the Word of God or it is simply assumed that a tradition, no matter it’s history or purpose, is to be followed because it is a decree of the Church?
Well, in Roman Catholicism, there is the doctrine of “living tradition”. What does this mean and where does Scripture fit into this? There are two possibilities: A) That Scripture exists WITHIN the ‘living tradition’ and therefore subject to said ‘living tradition’ or B) the ‘living tradition’ exists WITHIN Scripture and therefore subject to Scripture.
What is the Roman Catholic stance? Well, simple reasoning and study will conclude that for Roman Catholics, Scripture exists within the ‘living tradition’. This makes passages like Matthew 15 absolutely pointed. Why? Because you allow man-made traditions (living tradition) to supersede Scripture.
See, that’s exactly what the Pharisees were doing! They interpreted Scripture (in this case the 4th commandment) within the realm of their traditions. Christ called them “white-washed tombs” and servants of Satan, among other choice names primarily on account of this oral tradition/living tradition issue. The pharisees had their Talmuds which they taught to their disciples; they lived and died by these writings at the expense of Scripture.
How is it that we Lutherans can affirm Scripture to being the norma normans? By simply quoting Scripture: First, Scripture affirms itself as the Word of God (2 Timothy 3; Matt 24; Proverbs 4:22ff; Heb 4:12; Prob 30:5-6; Ps 119:105; 2 Pe 1:20-21; Gal 1:6-9). Second, while Scripture my not explicitly say “Scripture Alone”, it DOES say that God’s Word does not change, that God’s Word is perfect, living, active, and that it does what it says (you’ve used this same argument with regard to purgatory, by the way). Therefore we conclude that any tradition of the church MUST be in conformity to the Word of God – to
the Scripture, otherwise said tradition is useless, and it serves to create confusion, despair, hopelessness, faithlessness, and instead of building faith, it destroys faith, creating a theology of glory which is empty of Christ.
So what teachings has the Roman Catholic church added over the centuries which are contrary to Scripture? What ‘living traditions’ supersede or even contradict the clear teachings of Christ which the church clings to even at the expense of the Word of God?
Knowing a “little bit” about the Roman Catholic church, I can compile a list for you and give you specific passages from Scripture as to how each on that list of your ‘living traditions’ flows contrary to Scripture. But I won’t do that until you admit that “living tradition” is a dangerous game to play – a truly hell-bound game to be sure. The Devil WANTS you to trust in the reasonings and in the philosophies of man, see. He WANTS you to see man-made traditions as equal to Scripture or as a part of the Word of God because it causes you to overlook God’s Word for the sake of the traditions. Don’t be so easily swayed by this lie! You were agnostic before Roman Catholic…did you stop for a second and ask yourself “is getting on this boat really the best way to go…there are other Christian boats to ride!” Did you even look at Confessional Lutheranism, Greek Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, Calvinism? I’m guessing you really didn’t.
David L. Gray
Thanks Daniel! I think first you’d have to convince me that the Bible the Catholic Church put together can be interpreted outside their understand of their book. They were relying on Tradition for nearly 300 before they decided what books should be in there. You’d also first have to convince me that YOU have the authority to interpret the text outside of the Church that the Apostles started, because from where I stand I see thousands of denominations of Protestants interpreting the Catholic Bible thousands of different ways. Why should I trust YOUR interpretation of the Catholic Bible (less 7 books)? I wouldn’t trust you to interpret the Book of Mormon or the Qur’an, so why should I trust YOU to interpret the Catholic Bible?
But let’s say you did all of that. The Catholic Church teaches that God has revealed Himself (God Spoke) and we have received that revelation through oral tradition and the written word – a great deal of which first began was oral tradition. The Catholic Church teaches that there is no conflict between either; that everything in Tradition in not contrary to Scripture and nothing in Scripture is contrary to Tradition. But the rub for you here is that the Magisterium – the 2,000 year old teacher and interpreter claims to have the authority to authenticity to interpret both, AND you have to deal with their interpretation has been consistent on faith and morals for nearly 2,000 years. You as a Lutheran can only offer me 500 years of inconsistent interpretation. Where are you at now on abortion, gay marriage, contraception and divorce? The Catholic Church hasn’t moved? You have!
So, I am open to you trying to convince me, but at this point, I have no reason to trust your interpretation of the Catholic’s Bible.
Yes, I look at all religions. Only reason I am Catholic is because it is the only Church that can prove it was started by Jesus, has continued with the successor of Peter, AND, most importantly, is obedient to the command in Exodus 12.
By Living Tradition, Catholics only believe that the Holy Spirit isn’t dead. LOL He is the Spirit of Truth that guides us to all Truth. That’s how we know that embryonic stem cell research is immoral. It told us that being a Freemason is an offense against God. There are things that Scripture alone cannot inform us.
Daniel Carlson
First, The Catholic Church does NOT teach that God revealed himself through both oral tradition and Scripture. The ROMAN Catholic church teaches that, but not the Catholic church. Catholic means “Christian”, and I AM a child in God’s Christian Church…but I am not Roman.
Part of what you’re missing here is the theology of the Two Kingdoms, which is a HUGE problem in Roman Catholicism. But we won’t get into that now.
As far as your statements about what the Lutheran church believes (or inconsistent interpretations), let me state it like this: There is a difference between the Lutheran church as a general protestant movement and Confessional Lutheran churches, which existed before what is now considered Protestantism. Confessional Lutheran churches, have held to the same Scriptural teachings since Luther (and by extension, since Christ). So for example, homosexuality is a sin, abortion is murder, divorce is sin, gay marriage is not really truly marriage (and cannot be). We also believe in trying to be consistent with certain traditions and liturgies that have been passed down from generation to generation because we believe they rightly promote good order and are good for teaching the Gospel. But more importantly, confessional Lutherans confess the one and only true faith as taught in the Creeds of the Church, and taught in Scripture. But we move pointedly deny and confess AGAINST any doctrine of the church which is contrary to Scripture or the Creeds. Church history is wonderful and it may be profitable in certain situations, but it stands in submission to Scripture. Our written confessions (The Book of Concord) is a wonderful collection of confessional texts from Luther and other reformers, but it is also in submission to Scripture.
As far as oral tradition, bear in mind that Apostolic oral tradition was all written down within 50 years of Christ! St. Paul never wrote “All Scripture and oral tradition…” but that “all Scripture is God-breathed and useful for…”. When he wrote that, inspired by God, he did it knowing full well that the oral tradition (teachings, commands, practices, instruction) needed to be put in manuscript form so that sinful man wouldn’t continue to add to or change what is traditioned. At the passing of the Apostolic era, the oral tradition had already become written tradition, and everything that they taught (they who had witnessed Christ) and that was taught to them by Christ was complete. The church on earth is obliged to study, understand, and take heed to what is written, without adding to or removing from what is written. This is why the Apostles wrote it all down! It’s for our learning and growing in faith.
Now how do we know what letters are to be in the canon and what are not? Well the early church fathers had a set of standards for including the various NT books. The OT scribes and religious leaders had a different set of standards. According to the very standards that were set by the ancient religious leaders who assembled the Hebrew Bible, the Apocrypha was not included in the canon. The scribes who translated the Hebrew into Greek LXX DID include the intertestament books, but not because they were considered inspired. Later when the Vulgate was introduced, the Apocrypha remained (be it by Jerome’s wishes or other priests, whose to say?) Luther and the reformers, when the Bible was translated into German, excluded the Apocrypha because, frankly, he wanted to go back to the way it was BEFORE the Latin Vulgate (to a time closer to the early church’s version of the canon). SOME fathers thought the apocrypha to be inspired and others did not.
So, yes, in one respect, the church fathers relied on tradition with regard to which letters were passed around and which weren’t. BUT the words of those texts weren’t changed! So it wasn’t ‘oral tradition’, but consensus tradition. Here’s what I mean. If it were ‘oral tradition’ we would assume that the letters of St. Paul weren’t being used, but that there was an oration passed from generation to generation going back to Christ and the Apostles. But there wasn’t! The oration was done when St. John died. And everything that Christ and His Apostles spoke (and that was necessary for salvation, faith, and life) was jotted down and passed around on paper (parchment). These letters were copied by Christian scribes and sent out to the churches throughout Asia, Europe, Africa, and the middle east. Each of the letters was sent with the understanding that the knowledge given in said letters was the ‘tradition’ (teaching, practice, instruction) for those churches. There was NO OTHER tradition except for what was contained in those pages of parchment! That is important to understand! Post St. Peter, the church fathers were NOT implementing any additional ‘oral’ or ‘living’ tradition apart from what was written. The ‘living tradition’ proposition didn’t find its way into Roman dogma until WELL after the early church fathers. Where it came from? I don’t really know. There were a few fathers who implied that there be a ‘living tradition’ but it was never an official dogma of the church until much later. MOST church fathers confessed “Scripture Alone” in one way or another.
I mean gee wiz, you can say that the Bible doesn’t talk about the Trinity, but it REALLY DOES! You just have to get past the cliche approach to reading Scripture and really study it and inwardly digest it!!
And during the 300 years of all that, the church fathers said “hey, let’s clean this up and make all this more manageable: let’s assemble a canon of all of these texts which the churches have been using, applying certain restrictions to which letters are added to the canon (because we know that there are gnostic texts floating around).” The process took YEARS. And from THAT comes the Bible we have today….well sort of. The first official Latin Vulgate (not made official until the 13th century) which was translated from the LXX and from several NT sources such as textus receptus and the “old latin bible”. Where the Roman Catholic bible continues to use the Vulgate as its primary source, the rest of the translations (ESV, NIV, NASB, RSV, etc.) use not only the Vulgate where appropriate, but also use more recent and earlier dated codices and texts. This is good. I believe that if the church had access to autographs when they assembled the canon, that they would have used them. And perhaps they did for at least some of the letters. And frankly between the translations from the Latin Vulgate and translations from more close to original sources, there aren’t a lot of differences, and none of them are major. The Apocrypha is the exception, but that’s not an issue of translation but of source. Protestant Bibles use the Hebrew Old Testament rather than the LXX. And frankly, there ARE some pretty major differences between the LXX and the Hebrew text, to say the least.
The Holy Spirit always works in conformity to the Word of God as given in Scripture, because it is in Scripture where Christ’s work of salvation is revealed. Therefore, ‘living tradition’ MUST conform to Scripture or it is not the Holy Spirit!
David L. Gray
Daniel, I’ve never heard of a Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church doesn’t call itself Roman, because if it’s Roman, then it’s not truly Catholic. There is a Roman liturgy and a Catholic Church of Rome where the successor of Peter sits, but there is no Roman Catholic Church. I do agree that there are “c” lower “c” catholic churches.
I wrote a whole book defeating Sola Scriptura. You have a problem finding the Scripture alone doctrine in the “God breathed verse”. I summarized that precise argument in this article ( http://www.davidlgray.info/blog/2014/04/fatal-errors-with-sola-scripturas-god-breathed-argument/ ) . No Protestant has even been able to refute it.
BUT WHAT AUTHORITY did the Reformers change the Bible? By what authority? Tell me! The Catholic Bible was decided by Council of Bishops. By what authority did your Bible come about?
The Bible does not explicitly teach the Trinity. If it did it would’t have take 400 years to define it.
Daniel Carlson
Funny…you say that the bible does not explicitly teach the Trinity and yet we believe it. Likewise the Scripture does not explicitly teach “scripture alone” but we again believe it. We believe both of these doctrines because we can derive at them by reading Scripture. It didn’t take 400 years for the doctrine of the Trinity to exist – it existed (it’s all over in John), but it took 400 years for the church to learn and accept what was already there. It took 1500 years for the church to learn and accept sola scriptura. Maybe some day the church will learn and accept salvation by grace through faith and not by works…that’s one biblical doctrine that very few churches can accept (even if they say they do…such as the Baptists).
The Reformers didn’t need earthly authority to return the Bible to its original texts. They didn’t need a pope to tell them that it was alright. Funny, the pharisees questioned Christ about that whole “authority” issue too and what was his answer? I wonder if the reformers had the same answer (yes, they did). We have ONE mediator between God and man – and that is the man Christ Jesus (those are Paul’s own words!) We don’t need a pope to mediate for us. Why do you?
David L. Gray
Daniel, I think if you are honest you will admit that you believe in the Trinity because the Catholic Church, just as you would admit that you have the Bible you do, and you accept the dates of Easter and Christmas because of the Catholic Church. Because not all Protestants accept the Trinity, and if it was up to them to decide the dates of Christmas and Easter you’d have as many dates as you do versions of communion and marriage is. I’m surprised you all have the same Bible generally. You just have NO authority to know anything. No authority whatsoever.
The Catholic Church doesn’t believe salvation through works ALONE. It’s faith AND works as James taught. Lutherans and Catholic have a joint declaration to agree on this.
As for your last paragraph, I think you misunderstand the role of the Peterine Ministry and the role of the Magisterium. The Pope does not mediate. There is ONE mediator we agree! The Pope is the successor of Peter’s ministry that is clearly spelled out in the Gospels. Just as they replaced Judas the office of Peter continued after he died. This is attested to by the Fathers of the Church. The Peterine Ministry shepherds, feeds, and unifies the people of God through the Holy Spirit.
But back to the basics. I asked you to show me some things. 1. That it is okay to reject the Church Jesus established through the Apostles; 2. That the Protestant collective has any form of Authority to define anything – including Scripture; 3. How do Protestant fulfill the command in Exodus 12 to ALWAYS celebrate the Passover meal, and 4. Demonstrate to me how Protestantism has been consistent for the past 500 years on faith and morals.
So far you’ve said nothing about #1.
For #2 you’ve basically said that Protestants don’t need an earthly authority, but that isn’t true, because they have been authoritative in their own denominations. They have defined many things, but nothing they’ve defined is the same with each other. You are trying to convince me to leave the Catholic Church, but which Protestant denomination teaches the truth and HOW do I know it has the authority to teach what is 100% true? Did God just leave me out here to be stupid and not know the truth? If He did, is He God? The God in the OT was not like that. He had one Tempe, one Priesthood, one teaching. Why should I trust a post-Bible religion over a Church that was around before the Bible and put the Bible together? Why should I trust anyone’s interpretation but theirs of their book?
For #3 you’ve been utterly silent
For #4 you’ve basically said that the Reformers were right and the CC was wrong, but which Reformers, because the only thing they agreed on was that the CC was wrong. For 500 years they’ve agreed on nothing else. How can I trust division? Which one is right and show me the proof of them not changing what they believe and the authority to change what they said they believe. You can’t use the authority of the Holy Spirit because they all say they have the Holy Spirit. You can’t say the Bible because the Bible doesn’t claim anywhere to be the sole source of authority.
Daniel Carlson
Regarding the Trinity, I knew of the doctrine on account of the Catholic Church (prior to Roman Catholicism) at taught in the LCMS. So, in the same way a child knows that the moon is in the sky, I knew of the Trinity. But I didn’t grasp a biblical teaching OF the Trinity until I studied Scripture, and I am still learning that and I will until I reach the other side of paradise.
Salvation is by Grace through Faith – good works are an essential RESULT (consequence) of faith. But this also has a lot to do with Holy Baptism. For the Catholicism, Baptism deals with past sins, but the person, through penance, must deal with life sins and the rest are paid for in purgatory. Thus salvation isn’t by grace through faith…it’s by grace through faith AND good works (not as a result of faith but as a condition to grace). Lutherans do not believe works are a condition to grace but a response which CAN be done because we are free from the law. And God’s grace is all the more gracious because we (as our sinful selves) cannot do good works perfectly, though we may try. Christ’s mediation satisfies this completely, so there is no need for a purgatory. We are justified on account of Christ 100%. And faith reaches to that promise throughout life.
1) The Church that Jesus established is NOT AN EARTHLY system but an invisible one. ALL who believe, whether Roman Catholic or Lutheran or Methodist or 4-Square Gospel, are part of the true Catholic Church. This goes back to OT times. Israel was Israel because God was their Lord and they were His people. THEY demanded an earthly rule so that they could be like the rest of the world, but it wasn’t God’s desire for them to have a king. As St Paul says, not all Israel are (and by deduction, were) Israel. The true Israel (true Christians) are so by faith in Christ no matter what denomination they belong to. SHOULD a Christian remain in a heterodox denomination? NO! But he should seek a church that teaches Christ Crucified and doesn’t led the doctrines of man interfere with that. Is that possible? I don’t believe there is such an earthly establishment with such perfection; all fall short because all are created by man. Only the TRUE CHURCH (the invisible Church) is holy and full of God’s saints. So to answer your question, it is NOT okay for anyone to reject the Church that was established through the Apostles. And the church they established was not an earthly organization, but a heavenly one. This is where Christ’s words “My kingdom is not of this world” and St. Paul’s words “Not all Israel are Israel” mean so much. Jesus says to Peter, “You are Peter, and upon this rock, I shall build my church.” The “this rock” Jesus refers to isn’t Peter the person, but Peter the saint – Peter the one of faith – the Peter who confessed his faith! God did NOT establish His church on the shoulders of a sinful man – His Church is established on the shoulders of Christ and through the faith of all who believe and confess it to be so.
2) “What is truth”? “Your Word is Truth!” “Lord, to whom shall we go, You have the words of eternal life!” So who do you go to in order to find the truth? CHRIST and His Word! The reason you shouldn’t trust Roman Catholicism is, frankly, because their truth has changed throughout the centuries. It’s what prompted Luther to attempt a reform, and not only him, but many others. The doctrine of the Holy Roman church was corrupt, vile, political, and steeped in feudalism and back door hand shakes with princes and kings. In all honesty, there is such a mix of Gnosticism with Catholicism. the more I study up on Catholicism, the more I find this to be true. We Lutherans, we run to Scripture for truth, and we study and we discipline, and we pray to God’s Holy Spirit to guide our understanding. And we have the Confessions. 500 plus years of teachings and creedal statements. I say “plus” because part of our confessions ARE the 3 ecumenical creeds. While most of the Confessions are based on quotes from Scripture, they do call upon the wisdom of church fathers as well when appropriate. St. Augustine especially is heavily quoted in Luther’s own writings (he was an Augustinian monk after all).
3) There are a LOT of commands in the OT regarding festivals, meals, holidays, and required acts. What was it about the Passover meal, and what WAS the Passover meal? For Israel, it was a way of remembering God’s deliverance for them from the hand of Pharaoh. When Christ reclined with His disciples on the night He was betrayed, He established a NEW covenant – a final testament. He took bread and gave thanks and gave it to them and said “Take eat, this IS my body. After supper He took the cup and when He had given thanks He gave it to them and said “Take drink, this cup is the new testament in my blood which is shed for you for the forgiveness of sins…” We celebrate the TRUE PASSOVER every time we eat and drink of our Lord’s body and blood! How so? Because just as death passed over the Hebrews thousands of years ago, death now passes over us on account of the true and final sacrifice – Jesus Christ – who gives us forgiveness, salvation, eternal life, and strengthens our faith by His holy meal. It’s not a “re” sacrifice, for Christ was sacrificed once for all. And it is not the priest making sacrifice, but it is the words of Christ which make the bread and wine his true body and blood.
4) Protestantism has NOT been consistent. But Protestantism is not a denomination – its a hodge podge of a bunch of people who are truly faithful and others who think they know what they’re talking about but don’t. Bennie Hinn is a “protestant”, but he’s also a heretic. Rick Warren is a “protestant” but he’s also heterodox. I can name several more. But if I’m not mistaken, The RCC has had its share of heterodox and heretics throughout it’s time too, and it IS a single denomination, where you’d think unity and consistency would exist. Just goes to show that this world is sin-infested. Even in Lutheranism, as I said before, there is orthodox, heterodox, and heretic. ELCA is, for all practical purposes, a heretical sect. Simple conclusion: Just because there are some heretics in a group doesn’t make the whole group heretical. This holds true for RCC, Lutheranism, Calvinism, etc. Also, just because a group calls itself orthodox doesn’t mean that it is. Confessional Lutherans consider ourselves truly orthodox. But so does the Churches of Christ (and we are NOT in fellowship with one another), and the RCC, and others. The only truth we can know is what is revealed to us in God’s Word. Having an earthly organization (a church body) dictate what God’s Word means isn’t the answer and has never been. Trusting in God (to lead us in all truth, to guide us in His ways, and to shepherd us)…that’s what faith is all about.
Is it wrong to have an earthly establishment (a church body)? No, but we shouldn’t put our trust first in that visible body, but rather trust in Christ and seek wisdom through the faithful in the invisible church and then shape and mold the visible church to conform to that wisdom.
David L. Gray
Faith Works – See JOINT DECLARATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html
1. So you believe in the Invisible Church or Body of Christ. That’s not Scriptural. If you fully consider the Scriptural implications of the non-hierarchical and invisible Mystical Body of Christ I think you might agree. See – Refuting The Myth of the “Invisible Church” – http://www.davidlgray.info/blog/2013/12/the-myth-of-the-invisible-church/
2. If this argument were true, I’d appreciate it, but Luther actually lied and he was looking at non-Ecumenical councils. As far as Ecumenical councils go, there has been no change on faith and morals. None. Remember Sola S was a late idea of Luther because he can’t losing in debates. He was losing because he had no authorities/Church & Council fathers that agreed with him, so one day he decided to reject all of the authorities and declare himself to be right. This was problematic.
3. This was pretty good. If you are a Lutheran you know we only disagree little here. You’d have to convince me hat Luther had the authority to decree the Eucharist to be consubstantial rather than transubstantial.
4. This does NOT hold true for the Catholic Church.
Daniel Carlson
1) Why can’t one believe both? The invisible church consists of ALL believers, which makes all believers a part of the Body of Christ. When St. Paul talks about the “one body” and “many parts”, he’s not talking about papal hierarchy. When Jesus talks about all people coming to Him, he is not talking about us all being one under an earthly rule. The invisible church is all believers. You can’t say for “sure” that every person who considers themselves RCC is a regenerate believer. So even though they worship in a Catholic church, are they apart of the Church?
The visible/invisible church is Augustinian! It’s not Luther’s idea. Luther just revived it. Summary: The invisible church is all believers, the visible church is any earthly institution which supports the body of Christ – the invisible church.
2) It really doesn’t matter what Luther said – what matters is the Confessions. Luther said a lot of things, and the Lutheran church (hopefully) doesn’t take his words as doctrine. The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran church include the 3 ecumenical creeds (Apostles’, Nicene, Athanasian), and they are actually the first part of Concord. Then the Augsburg Confession, and onward. Scripture and the Confessions is what makes the Lutheran church (confessional) the Lutheran church, NOT what Luther said or didn’t say. Otherwise it would only be fair of me to bring up a few of Rome’s favorite popes of yesteryear (the bad ones) and say that everything they said represent what you believe and that’s just nonsense.
3) Lutherans do NOT believe in consubstantiation!! Don’t ever think that! It’s just wrong. Why do I say that? Because the MOMENT we apply a metaphysical definition on it, we leave Scripture, and we don’t want to do that. We believe that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ. Call it the Eucharist, call it the Lord’s Supper, call it the Body and the Blood, call it Holy Communion, what have you, but do NOT call it consubstantiation. Luther would be rolling in his grave. The PRIMARY reason we don’t accept transubstantiation is because of the philosophical way it’s described. St. Paul calls it the Eucharist, or the Body and Blood. We don’t need to explain it – we just believe it!
David L. Gray
1. We’re talking about Ecclesiology here. If you believe in an Mystical body of Christ that is both visible AND invisible, you accept the Catholic idea. For, if it is visible then it must, therefore, be hierarchal. The Church in Scripture is a local community (visible), a physical building with bishops, priests, deacons and deaconesses (visible), a Temple of the Holy Spirit (invisible), and Body of Christ of which He is the Head (invisible). It is unified. It sorts out its differences in a council.. It has a liturgy of word and a liturgy of Eucharist. Now if you believe in only something invisible and non-hierarchical you believe in the Protestant idea, which was necessary, because they had to sort out what the Church was and they had to say it was invisible because if it was visible then it also had to be hierarchical and Apostolic and there is only one Apostolic Church. I talk about this more in that article I referenced.
2. Sounds good, but you can’t argue that what you are eating is a orange if I saw you pluck it from an apple tree. You have to own up to the source and originator of your doctrine AND the motive by which it derived. Sola S was last ditched effort to justify his doctrine. He did not come up with it first. He ONLY said Bible Alone, because he could not cite ANY authority of the Fathers, where as Cajetan and others who were beating him in debates all they were doing was citing authority for what they believe. Luther could not find ONE Father who agreed with him. This is significant and just can’t be dismissed. You have to own the fact that this idea came from Luther, and BY WHAT AUTHORITY! None!
3. Well, here we go again with the Protestant problem. SOME Lutherans DO use consubstantial. Clearly, you aren’t one of them, but the overall point here is that this is in area where we aren’t too far apart. Here we are still dealing with authority. By what authority do you confect this sacrament? Lutherans reject the Sacrament of Holy Orders, which was a prerequisite of the Church Fathers to be able to confect the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.
Alex McCleod
To follow on your point about purgatory it is very Biblical and also was believed by early Christians. Writings still exist today from as early as the 2nd century pertaining to the topic. Catholic beliefs have remained the same thought the years as I mentioned we have very early writings from as far back as the 1st century as various issue of our beliefs some from 1st generation disciples taught by the apostles themselves. Very little has changed in our beliefs from the beginning. Sorry for the delayed response I just found this site.
Alex
My knowledge of Luther is basic, but as I understand, when he started off posting the 95, he was reasonable and had many points, but as he went on, his statements increasingly became bizarre.
David L. Gray
Yeah, it became very political with the German Princes, and clearly he was very prideful.
Sirene
Unreal!!!! How demonic!!!
redlady763
Wow. So, the homosexual, sodomite priesthood of the wicked, idolatrous, antichrist Catholic Church and its cultists have the audacity to throw stones at a man who had the courage to stand against the heresies of this cult from the pit of hell! Was Luther perfect and always right? NO! Why? Because he was a CATHOLIC MONK who still had a lot of poison in him from years of being part of such a wicked institution, but the core of what he did is why Christians can freely read the bible for themselves without being burned at the stake or tortured by wicked Catholics!! The twisting of history and scripture by the RCC and its evil sycophants will be settled on judgment day, when the full cup of the wrath of Almighty God will be poured out on the Great Whore of Babylon, the Mother of all Harlots, the Roman Catholic Church. I’m sure this post will never be made public, because people like David L Gray don’t have the courage to post the truth; only their distorted view of it.
David L. Gray
Twisting history and scripture? How could the Catholic Church twist the book they published? That’s like J. R. Tolkien twisted Lord of the Rings LOL. But based upon Scripture Alone, how can you prove the Catholic Church to be the Whore of Babylon? You sound like a Jehovah Witness saying that.
If you’ve read my website, you’ll see I post ridiculous comments all the time from Catholics and Non-Catholics alike. I love them! People’s inability to demonstrate reason and logic always prove me to the right.
David Bryant
WOW, glad Mr. Gray allowed this post to stay. not sure what church you go to, but please to not invite me. Oh and i will share you post in a lot of places, just because I can and I like it, it made my day. Thank you. That poison you talk about is a deep love for Jesus, I will share some with you if you ever have the courage to stop in a monastery or a Catholic church for that matter. –From a monk
Alex McCleod
Must be a miserable and dark place in which you live.
Lloyd Cadle
redlady763 – There are no excuses for child abuse, it is disgusting. However, the Catholic stuff happened mostly 30-40 years ago and has been cleaned up.
Google sexual abuse by Protestants. Billy Graham’s grandson (Boz Tchividijian) is an attorney who handles sexual abuse by Protestants. He says that sexual abuse by Protestants is far worse than anything that ever happened in the Catholic Church. He states that it is a ticking time bomb.
Again, Google: sexual abuse by Protestants.
Mark Woodworth, Ph.D.
Haters will hate.
Paul
LOL, yep.
Matt Kleinhans
On the first quote: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/luther-i-look-upon-god-no-better-than.html
No reason to go any further…
MAJohnson
I have read, and correct me if I’m wrong, that he never lost his devotion to the Virgin Mary … and because of her intercession … he received a judgement of Purgatory until the End of Time instead of Hell. True? Not true? Urban legend? I also heard that he repented at the end of his life. Thoughts?
David L. Gray
Yes, it seems to be true that he never rejected the rosary, but where his eternal soul is right now, that is beyond me to know. Yet, if I were to speculate, it would seem that justice would demand a price for the souls he led and continues to lead astray.
What he had REGRETS about towards the end of his life was his part in creating denominationalism. It frustrated him greatly that Calvin, Zwingli and others didn’t agree with him and diverged into creating their own teachings, systems, and churches.
James L. Davis
I see said the blind man……for his words are no different than those of Mohammed…..his thoughts are the same and his teachings!! I wonder, where would our world be without the church…..without god and jesus….maybe just maybe…..much better????!!
Omar Garcia
I am a non-denonominational Christian and I think that Martin Luther was one of the most deceitful and dangerous religious leaders EVER. I totally destest that he is categorized as a hero in the mainstream Christendom. His ideas are extremely un-Christian and some of the things he wrote are extremely evil, apostate or balsphemous. He is just like any other pope.
Mario
It is pitiful how the Body of Christ (the true Church) makes it a point to trash one another. This is obviously a Catholic site set up for the purpose of trashing so called Protestant denominations, specially Lutherans.
Instead of wasting God given time in this ungodly endeavors, go out there and evangelize unbelievers. You sit here hammering other believers with your venom while your church attendance dwindles, and Jehovah’s Witnesses with their heresies are eating your lunch. On the one hand, the Pope speaks of reconciliation and on the other hand the Catholic Church through her apologists sets up sites like this, hoping to discredit other Christian denominations. Ironically, the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church signed an agreement of reconciliation in 2014. By your comments about Luther, you may have accused the catholic church of having signed an agreement of reconciliation with a satanic cult. May I suggest that the catholic church take the Beam out of her eye before she tries to take the speck out of her sister’s eye.
David L. Gray
Solely due to your laziness, you’ve made a number of assumptions and presumptions, and you’ve wasted everyone’s time. Nothing in your comments is true.
Mario
It is funny how a group of crazies like Luther, Calvin and Wesley were so easily able to drag so many people away from the Roman Catholic church. Could it be that the Roman Catholic church of the time was cruel, oppressive and intrusive, killing and/or torturing those who dared to speak against he teachings including reading the Holy Scriptures. Could it be that maybe people were fed up with her.
Here is my message to the Roman Catholic church: GET OVER IT! It happened 500 years ago. You sound like a scorned woman who got dumped for someone older and uglier. Let go of your pride. Stop whining. You can’t put the pieces back together. Trashing protestant icons is not how love and forgiveness is practiced.
The best thing that has ever happened to the Roman Catholic church was the reformation movement. It caused the church to undergo serious soul searching and self examination and this successfully transformed the church from a pharisaic theocracy, that for centuries ruled Europe with an iron fist, into the real religious institution that it is today.
David L. Gray
Mario why are you so intellectually lazy? It is better to ask the question rather than assume the answer. Also, you definitely want to spend some time researching more of the history to understand the political climate in Germany at the time of Luther. Finally, never confuse love with apathy. Thanks for reading and commenting.
Mario
David, you don’t seem to like my message, so you arrogantly attack the messenger as lazy. Are you suggesting that the catholic church, during the time of the birth of the Reformation did not burn religious dissenters at the stake or subject them to the inquisition and tortured them. Such acts in modern times would be considered barbaric crimes against humanity. The first steps towards repentance are confession and acceptance of responsibility and not denial. If you can not accept these facts, then you are trying to rewrite history on behalf of the Roman Catholic church.
David L. Gray
Mario these are YOUR messages, correct? You aren’t copying and pasting from somewhere else? The quality of a message speaks of the quality of their origin. What do your messages say about you? 1. You don’t have a good understanding of Christian history. 2. You are very judgemental of people you don’t know, and 3. You’re intellectually lazy because you assume rather than ask questions to discover what is true, and 4. You haven’t explored this website to see that it’s more than just truth telling about Luther (again LAZY).
Mario
David, you are incapable of having a factual discussion with, as you lack intellectual integrity. Stick to your propaganda approach where if the facts don’t fit your narrative, you can dismiss the other side for being ignorant, misinformed and stupid.
Athanasius Reliquiae
I agree with Luther on how we should treat the perfidious Jews. They are a cancer in mankind.
John
Is there any truth to Luther changing his name from Luder? Interestingly, Luder can mean BEAST (see https://translate.google.com/#de/en/luder). Perhaps he had a marketing problem. Kinda difficult to convince the populace that the Pope is the beast of revelation when your last name means beast.
S Benedict Gregory
Hi, David!
I shared this page with a Protestant apologist via email. This is what he said.
“Answered by: Jeff
Answer:
Thanks for bringing your questions here! Three points to consider: first, messages aren’t false simply because they`re delivered by an ugly messenger. Second, it`s easy to take phrases out of context and twist them to mean something which the speaker never intended. Third, one needs to take a common-sense approach to what history tells us about Luther before we take the word of a few modern voices.
The first, and most important point, is that one always has to distinguish between a message and a messenger. Truth is truth, whether or not the person relaying that truth is a good person. If an evil man said, `it is wrong to murder,` we wouldn’t doubt that truth simply because it was spoken by an evil person. If we were to suddenly learn that Albert Einstein was a horrible, immoral man, it would not change the truths he discovered about physics.
In the same way, whether or not Luther was perfect, or even whether or not he was a nice person, is ultimately irrelevant to the question of whether or not what `Protestantism` believes is true or false. Jonah, the Biblical prophet, was a flaming racist. He hated the people of Nineveh so much that he ran away from preaching the gospel to them. And, when God saw their repentance and showed them mercy, Jonah was bitter (Jonah 4:1–3). None of that changed the fact that the gospel message he preached was true. His views on culture and race were certainly ungodly. But Nineveh wasn`t saved by liking Jonah; they were saved by believing what he said about God.
Neither modern-day Protestants, nor the early Reformers, followed Martin Luther for the sake of following Martin Luther. They were swayed by his theological arguments. Today, many people are swayed in the same way, who know nothing about Luther himself. For that reason, even if the worst possible quotes one can find were really from Luther, it would make no difference whatsoever as to whether or not his theology was correct.
It`s a sign of shaky theological foundations when one needs to spend so much energy attacking the messenger, rather than dealing with the issue at hand. And yet, Catholic apologists often focus great attention on Luther`s moral failures (more about those later). Usually, it`s with the kind of cut-and-paste amateurism of the webpage you`ve linked to.
The second point is that taking quotes out of context is never a safe way to judge someone`s beliefs. After all, the Bible says, `there is no God` (Psalm 10:4; Psalm 14:1; Psalm 53:1). It tells us not to witness to people since they won`t listen: `They will not believe you, God said` (Exodus 4:8). It commands idolatry: `And there you will serve gods of wood and stone, the work of human hands, that neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell` (Deuteronomy 4:28).
What`s the problem with all of those? They`re all taken horribly out of context. In most cases, the words right before and right after show how wrongly they`re being used. Before one judges Luther on the basis of any quote, they need to know exactly what the context was. Luther was known as a debater, arguer, and teacher. He often challenged people with counter-examples and other ideas. Some of what he said, in those moments, was meant to provoke a reaction. Or, it was a deeper description of some view that Luther didn’t actually believe.
For an explicitly Biblical example of this, see how Paul makes statements for the sake of refuting them in the book of Romans.
More specifically, some of the quotes you`ve relayed are unsupportable. For instance, there is no such book as Trishreden, Weimar Edition, Vol. 2. There is a collection called D. Martin Luthers Werke. Part of that rather large text is titled Tischreden, separated into 6 parts. I`ve seen some of these others referenced before, and few literally can’t be found anywhere, except when they`re quoted against Luther.
In short, some of the scandalous quotes attributed to Martin Luther are spurious, at best. Most of these appear to be the same copy-pasted quotes often seen on the internet, many of which are just that: parroted, not researched. The vast majority can’t actually be substantiated – try finding those quotes in the actual books listed, and see how often the trail runs cold. Or, how frequently the trail of citations stops in some anti-Protestant book or another, which has a reference that either does not exist, or cannot be found.
As a single example, the quote about God being a `rogue` is probably from a much longer statement attributed to Luther, were he was discussing predestination. It`s seen in What Luther Says, Volume 1, page 456. And, it`s entirely possible that Luther was actually quoting someone else when he said it. In the full quote, Luther muses that if he were to take a certain view of God, he would start to think that maybe God was immoral in some way. Yanking the phrase you`ve seen quoted, out of context, is just as invalid as what was done to the other Bible quotes above. Until or unless someone can show you one of these, in full context, I wouldn`t take them very seriously.
The third important point is that of history. Luther didn’t win anyone over by force of personality. He was generally known as an unlikeable, irascible person. How do we know this? Because we actually have a lot of solid historical evidence about the man. We know, for a fact, that he often expressed anti-Semitic ideas, which are not easily excused; nor should they be. That is to say, history has no support for the idea that Luther was some kind of secret heretic, God-denier, or apostate. A few odd-looking remarks with his name attached to them aren’t enough to overturn the vast bulk of historical data.
In the end, the Reformation was not a cult of personality. People did not struggle to reform Catholicism because they really liked Martin Luther. They did it because they saw the same errors and corruptions that Luther did. These quotes, unsupported as they are, prove nothing. Even if they did, they should be no more meaningful to modern `Protestantism` than Jonah`s racism should be to modern Judaism.”
What do you think?
Kenn
Jesus was the founder of the Catholic Church which there is no doubt, and his church has its fathers the apostles and their successors.
Every reference to the church in the Bible is speaking of what is the Catholic Church in it infancy, so references to the church in the Bible hold to the Catholic Church today.
Martin Luther is the founder and father of Protestantism, which separated and keeps itself separated through Luther’s doctrines.
Jonah’s racism did not have anything to do with doctrine.
He hates the because of being taken into exile by the Assyrians. But Jonah knew God is a gracious God. Realizing his “error” he wished to die.
Luther is anything but that and the quotes here prove a man that is full of hate, malice, and pride.
If he were to want to be a deacon the qualifications in the Bible to be a deacon would have excluded him from being one.
He started off well, but ended up in ruin.
It’s interesting that protestants always look at the reformation as something that was needed and a new church was neccesary.
Yet in the OT we have abuses within the priesthood of the Levites with Eli and his sons.
Was it neccessary for the Israelites to go out and start another Israel because of Eli and his sons?
No.
Did God take care of it?
Yes.
It took 15-20 years for God to deal with it but he did.
So what of the reason for Luther’s issue with indulgences?
It was taken care of with the Bull Gum Postquam.
God took care of it.
So Luther’s rebellion goes further than his original compliant and turns into rebellion against Jesus church.
Anyone who follows him through the protestant churc, which ever that one out of the 3,000 plus denominations there are, is following in his footsteps.
Thus they protest against God himself because they reject the rightful successors to the apostles which are the seat and authority of the truth, Lk. 10:16; 1 Tim. 3:15; Gal.3:9; concerning apostolic succession Act 1.
Protestantism has been declared an error, a heresy.
Galatians 5:20 is clear about such matters.
Sincerely,
Kenn Former Protestant
Kenn
God is gracious and through his Catholic Church and it’s councils is calling all those that call themselves Christians to the unity of the Church.
There always room for repentance.
Kenn Former Protestant
Kenn
Awesome blog..
I read the critique and as usual just a bunch of blaver about nothing.
Which follows in the footsteps of their founder.
As a former protestant its a matter of just spitting out blather or spitting out bible verses without anything to back it up with and then thats suppose to be fact.
It is ridiculous and destructive as is the reason why there are over 3,000 protestant denominations.
Praise God for the Pope and 2,000 plus years of that unifying foundation to the church being there placed there and given the very authority of God.
Two verses in the Bible that prove protestantism a heresy, 1 Timothy 3:15 and James 2:24.
The interesting thing is that the Greek word sunargei in verse 22 means to work together with, to co-operate.
So our works work together with, co-operate with faith to justify.
And makes faith complete as the Greek word eteleiotha states in verse 22.
To take one verese on justification to the exclusion of other verses is a distorting of the truth which Peter warns about in. 1 Peter 2:1 and 2 Peter 3:16 and Luke warns about in Acts 20:29.
Those that practice the woks of the flesh will not inherit the kingdom of God , of which dissention and heresy are two of them, Galatians 5:20.
Of which Martin Luther did and ended up being ex communicated, cut off for.
David L. Gray
You got it Kenn!!!! Blessings and Shalom!
Louis
The Latin word for justification that was used at this time in church history was—and it’s the word from which we get the English word justification—the Latin word justificare. And it came from the Roman judicial system. And the term justificare is made up of the word justus, which is justice or righteousness, and the verb, the infinitive facare, which means to make. And so, the Latin fathers understood the doctrine of justification is what happens when God, through the sacraments of the church and elsewhere, make unrighteous people righteous.
But Luther was looking now at the Greek word that was in the New Testament, not the Latin word. The word dikaios, dikaiosune, which didn’t mean to make righteous, but rather to regard as righteous, to count as righteous, to declare as righteous. And this was the moment of awakening for Luther.
Your understanding of Justification is wrong. You are not made righteous but declared righteous. You confuse justification and sanctification. I have no idea how you show Protestantism is false with 1 Timothy 3:15, shocking. James 2:24 is easy, you will just have to read the entire chapter. He is talking about people that profess faith, but do nothing good.
Louis
…uhm should we start quoting what certain popes have said. Or should we consider what has attributed about Mary? The catholics have no leg to stand on when it comes to criticizing others what they have said, it’s like the pot calling the kettle black. In Christianity we have a proud heritage of going after the truth even when it hurts. Luther wanted t obe a catholic and he was most obsessed about being a good one, but after reading the greek text he could argue no longer that there was flaws in the system.
johnleblanc
thanks for this post
TrinityDominion
Typical Romanist, shamelessly taking text out of context in order to knowingly deceive. Yet another proof that the Romanist mind has been twisted by wholly jettisoning Scripture in order to worship themselves & their manmade Magisterial law. Blatant recapitulation of The Fall. This is why Romanism is in decline in the USA (although Romanist numbers remain constant worldwide — not growing, just constant) while Conservative Reformational catholicism (e.g. Presyberterians) is growing. Yo: Pope Sixtus’s infallible declaration of the massively error-filled 1590 Vulgate — so much for Papal infallibility. You can go back to masturbating to your icons now. Happy Reformation 500, wanker.
David L. Gray
Everything you wrote is verifiability false, and who still calls Catholics ‘romanist’? That is also false. Last time I seen us called that was in a book by that liar Pink.
Herman Ambriz
Chip off the old block, I see. Your comment sounds similar to something Luther would’ve said as far as vitriol.
Carlton Hobbs
All so fundamentally true, and important to know. But Luther just continued the murderous philosophy of Augustine. One must repent of support for any Augustinian religion before one can be a Proselyte to Christianity.
https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/freethought-freedom-augustines-case-righteous-persecution
Thomas Renz
A Christian theologian should not engage in gossip like this and someone who holds a Master of Arts in Catholic Theology should know a thing or two about the importance of proper referencing. Some of this reflects badly on Martin Luther, and rightly so, but the collection as a whole reflects badly on you. Luther must be critiqued by those who have read and understood his essential writings. Your gullibility suggests that you have not read a single of his works.
David L. Gray
Per the added the addendum, I hope to have already addressed your concern. Thanks for the read.
Thomas Renz
Your addendum touches on the question of accuracy but it still does not show much care for getting the quotes right, giving full references etc. The even more important point, however, concerning gossip, is not addressed here. Gossip is not simply about accuracy; it is about how we relate to people and speak about them. This is not to say that we must throw a mantle of silence over sayings that reflect badly on someone but to ask what the purpose is of scouring the internet for a selection of quotes like this.
David L. Gray
You are right about not including full quotes, but we disagree whether this qualifies as gossip. Luther was a liar, lunatic, and a fraud, who didn’t know his faith and aligned himself with the political agenda of the German princes. His flawed approach to reconcile himself to God should have NEVER been adopted by the masses. It is harmful andis not Christianity. That’s not gossip. That’s facts.
Since 2013, the intent of this collection was to confront the romanticism of Luther, and to inspire Catholics to dig deeper into the history of the deformation of Christianity. It had achieved that without causing scandal.
Thomas Renz
You’ll find yourself at odds with both Pope Francis and Pope Benedict XVI on this who would never say that “Luther was a lira, lunatic, and a fraud”. They know better. As for digging deeper into the history, would that not be better served by focusing on the main writings? (And if you seriously believe that Luther was against monogamy, your own knowledge of the history cannot be other than superficial.)
David L. Gray
Definitively at odds with Francis, and that is a compliment usually. A priest who marries a nun is evidence enough that he was lukewarm sin of adultery.
Thomas Renz
I suspected that you might think being at odds with Pope Francis a badge of honour which is why I added Pope Benedict XVI. The latter is a scholar. He knows that “a sizeable party of Catholic liturgists seem to have practically arrived at the conclusion that Luther, rather than Trent, was substantially right in the sixteenth century debate” (2001 Lecture Delivered During the Journées Liturgiques de Fontgombault) and argues vigorously against this but without resorting to smears. He is convinced that the Eucharist was no longer understood in the sixteenth century and that if it had, there would have been no “Luther”.
As for the point at hand, marrying a nun is evidence that he was lukewarm about the validity of the vows she had taken as a small child, not of being lukewarm about adultery in general. (In any case, she had already completely broken with convent life years before getting married.)
David L. Gray
Most Catholic theologians will agree with Luther on the abuses of Tentzel. Where most won’t agree is on Luther’s Ecclesiology, Sacramental theology, Anthropology, or linear soterilogy. If Luther had read Thomas Aquinas directly rather than Occams flawed interpretation of him, he’d may have never become so misguided.
Thomas Renz
I’m not sure it would have done him much good. He disliked scholastic theology but then so did many at the time, including Erasmus and Saint Thomas More. Then again, Philip Melanchthon (pictured with Luther on a Vatican stamp to be issued later this month) was more of a philosopher-theologian.
Matt07924
I get it – Catholics do not like Martin Luther. Luther was a reformer and like it or not he brought much-needed reforms to the Roman church. Indulgences is just the lowest of the low. However, it appears that David Gray is letting his hatred of Luther’s positions get the best of him. Much of what is listed here is OUT of context. This web site puts it all in perspective.
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/07/response-to-luther-exposing-myth.html
It is a shame that Christendom is split into multiple groups – Jesus predicted this would happen and prayed against that day. I believe both Catholics and Protestants both have good / bad points. However, I would rather be associated with Protestants as the Catholic Church (as a whole) is a continuation of the Jewish Priesthood which Jesus clearly did away with.
David L. Gray
You didn’t read the addendum.
Thomas Renz
It was good for Matt07924 to give the website. You had not given the link in your addendum. It remains surprising to me that, having had knowledge of the extensive work of James Swan, which gives full references and even links to primary sources available on the internet, you did apparently nothing to correct the remaining errors.
Matt07924
Thomas Renz – The reason the remaining errors are still in place as the page will get picked up on a Google search and not everyone is as discerning as we may be. This is typical of the mis-information on both sides of the fence. Jesus would be dismayed at what we have become. A church that is split up into factions and cares more about $$ and prestige than rescuing souls.
David L. Gray
There is s link to the website where it says WRITTEN A DETAILED CRITIQUE.
This article was transplanted from my personal site. You can’t see the comments, but Swan and a long dialogue. I disagree with SOME of his findings. He’s biased at the end of the day, and it shows. I’m biased as well, and it shows.
Thomas Renz
Thanks. I had not noticed previously that there was a hyperlink with “detailed critique”. I expect that there may be a few isolated cases where one’s bias might lead to different conclusions but there is a great deal of scholarship on Luther and more of his writings are accessible online today than ten years ago so with a bit of effort it should be possible to give a fair and reasonably unbiased account of what Luther said and meant – whether one agrees with it or not.
kameal
This provides much perspective. The Catholic Church was not perfect (ruled by people) but even with the faults the DOGMA of the Church was very much solid. These quotes explain in perspective why the slave trade flourished under the protestant reformation as the value of peasants was regarded as worthless. The Muslim world first established the Slave trade by conquering the Christian North Africa and than attacking the cities across the Mediterranean sea. The Europeans would than buy back the captured slaves to free them (St. Felix of Valois). The Europe became more powerful the Islamic world turned to Africa for slaves. Under Catholicism this was not permitted, but as Protestantism came to power the old links were reestablished and Slave trade grew. In Islam and in Protestantism value of peasants/unbelievers (very similar views) was nothing, therefore poor people were taken advantage and greed/worldly possessions flourished and were justified by faith.
RMariscal
I find it amusing that some argue against taking what was writen or said by Luther out of context because it may imply something not meant, yet isn’t this exactly what Luther himself did with scripture?