Herman Benedict - 9th March 2012
Re: Inconsistency + Portestantism [sic]
The authenticity of these quotes is not disputed, but openly admitted by Protestant defenders of Luther. Martin Luther, Letter to Melanchthon, August 1, 1521: 'preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here [in the world] we have to sin...No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day... Pray boldly - you too are a mighty sinner.' Martin Luther was fascinated by crude and disturbing subject matter. Protestant scholars have noted that Luther's fascination with crude subjects is disquieting. He admittedly had much interaction with the Devil. 'These [demons] would haunt the imagination of Martin Luther who had visions, which he believed to be actual physical occurrences, of the devil hurling [excrement] at him and his hurling it back. Indeed, in one of his many anal combats with the devil - in which Luther would challenge the devil to 'lick' his posterior - Luther thought the best tactic might be to 'throw him into my anus, where he belongs.'' (H.W. Crocker, Triumph, Roseville, CA: Prima Publishing, 2001, p.237.) Luther claims that he came up with justification by faith alone while on the toilet. He claims that it came as 'knowledge the Holy Spirit gave me on the privy in the tower.'(Quoted in Willaim Manchester, A World Lit only By Fire: The Medieval Mind and the Renaissance Little Brown & Co., 1993, p.140.) This is from Luther's Table Talk '..I have committed many a solid and real sin. Indeed there must be good honest sins - not fabricated and invented ones..' Martin Luther had a satanic mindset and said Jesus Christ was guilty of fornication: 'Christ committed adultery first of all with the women at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: 'Whatever has He been doing with her?' Secondly, with Mary Magdalene, 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.' (Trishreden, Weimer Edition. Vol.2. Pg. 107.)
He also said that God is the author of evil and bestows merit on those who don't deserve it, and damns others who don't deserve it. He taught man had no free will. He said good works are worse than sin and to avoid them. This filthy man is touted as some sort of hero by Protestants blindly oblivious about his writings and teachings. He also threw and rejected the book of James and Hebrews and other books out the New Testament, but other Protestants retained them. He also threw 7 books out of the Old Testament. He also rejected the book of Revelation as spurious. He said filthy words against Moses and the Ten Commandments. And he said not to follow them. He also added the word 'alone' in Romans 3:28 and bragged about it. He said many highly disturbing things. Your founder (of Protestantism) was a pervert.
With these facts in mind it should be quite clear now that those who follow Luther's eventual conclusions the core of which are faith alone and scripture alone, are simply following the machinations, inventions, and discoveries of a man; they are following the inventions of a man who was guided and used by the Devil to create a false version of 'Christianity' which would lead countless souls astray; 50,000+ different Protestant denominations. Doctrinal chaos is the bad fruit of man-made religion. 2 Peter 2:1 'But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers, who shall bring in sects of perdition..' When we consider the fact that the original founders of Protestantism didn't even agree with each other on major points of doctrine, such denominational chaos shouldn't be a surprise. Protestantism is man-made religion, in which each person ultimately determines for himself what he thinks the bible teaches. Martin Luther the initiator of Protestantism condemned the doctrinal views of John Calvin, and Huldrych Zwingli, 2 other leading Protestant figures. They all claimed to follow the bible. Basically all of these thousands of man-made sects purport to be 'Christian' and claim to follow the bible, even though they disagree with each other on crucial doctrinal matters such as: the precise nature of Justification, whether human works and sins are a part of salvation, whether man has free will, Predestination, whether infants need baptism for salvation, what Communion is, whether it's necessary to confess to the Lord, which books of the New Testament apply to us today, the structure of the Church's hierarchy, the role of Bishops and ministers, the Sabbath, the role of women in the Church, etc., most of these groups even claim that that the individual 'Christian' will be led by the Holy Spirit when privately reading the Bible. The disunity of these sects constitutes an irrefutable proof that their doctrine is not of the Spirit of Truth, and that their principle of operation, that is 'scripture alone' apart from the Church and Divine Tradition, is not the doctrine of the bible and the Apostles. Ephesians 4: 4-5 'One body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism.'
The Church will persist to the end of time and will be preserved unimpaired. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men. God does not create anything to have it destroyed by either man or hell. Christ established His Church as the source of salvation for every generation. He merited, by His passion, death and resurrection the graces necessary for the continual protection of what He established.
We must always remember that the Church is the 'Pillar and Bulwark of Truth', the Bride of Christ, the Kingdom of God, the very mystical Body of Christ. In the Gospel of St. Matthew, chapter 16, verse 18 Jesus gives Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus tells Peter that the Church built upon him will endure 'the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.' At the end of this same gospel St. Matthew reports the last words of Jesus before he ascended into heaven. Jesus commissions the Apostles by saying, 'All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you all days, even unto the consummation of the world.' (Matthew. 28:18) When the Angel Gabriel came to Mary he told her that her Son would also be the Son of the Most High God and that 'He shall reign in the House of Jacob forever.' (Luke 1:32) There are hundreds of such passages. The Church is what Jesus came and died for.
All that having been said there are a vast number of Protestant sects, and cults who believe that after the death of the last Apostle the Church was completely corrupted. This, of course, flies directly in the face of Christ's promise to Peter and the Apostles. The point is that all those who are not united to the Church that Jesus founded upon Peter have some kind of excuse for not being a part of it. They all claim that either after the death of the last Apostle or sometime thereafter the Church fell victim to error, which ultimately turned it completely away from God's original intention. Now some of these Protestants, realizing that saying this means that Jesus was a charlatan, devise strange ways of compensating. Some desperate Protestant 'theologians' attempt to show that in fact the Church remained intact through the ages by taking the heretics of every age as their Christian genealogy. The Catholic Church can demonstrate its credentials by using a combination of Scripture and historic fact. We have seen how the Scriptures proclaim the indefectibility of the Church. Protestantism was not founded by Christ, but by man.
TCE replies: 15th March 2012
thank you for taking the time and effort to inform us of your concerns over the matters in your e-mail.
To ensure an adequate reply we will respond appropriately in the next 2-6 weeks and therefore ask for your patience in the meanwhile.
May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit,
The mistake you make is to believe bringing Martin Luther down will destroy the beliefs of orthodox Christians!
TCE replies: 13th May 2012
thank you for expressing your concern about Luther and his problems and your list of supposed problems that 'Protestantism' inherited.
We should point out immediately that the personal doctrines and problems of a man such as Luther can never influence or over-ride the genuine Scriptural beliefs of any orthodox Christian.
In short, the mistake you make is to believe that to bring down Luther in any way - but mainly through an ad hominem attack - is to damage or destroy the beliefs of non-Papal Roman Catholics.
Unlike Papal Roman Catholics, who rely on the 'infallibility' of their popes and resultant imagined magisterial might of their church, genuine orthodox Christians rely on nothing but the Bible - the Word of God who is the Lord Jesus Christ - and therefore have unshakeable foundations on The Rock (1 Corinthians 10:4).
Perhaps you should have considered the weakness of such an attack by remembering the words of the apostle Paul:
1 Timothy 1:15 'Faithful is the saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief...'
If Paul could recognise this of himself we can hardly be surprised that Luther should also be so clear about the filthiness of his own sinful life (we have dealt with these aspects of his life in detail in previous articles which will soon appear on the website). We can also recognise that Luther's struggle to overcome the confusion of his early life as an Augustinian monk caused him difficulties with different aspects of interpretation.
As we have already written to another Papal correspondent on this page under the heading:
The Central Issue - A Clear Choice
Sola Scriptura remains the central issue at the heart of the Christian faith and is the reason Martin Luther and others brought it to the forefront at 'the Reformation.' One must choose between submitting to the authority of the Bible or to that of the Roman Catholic Church. One cannot do both because of the clear conflict between the two.
Luther was a product of Roman Catholic error and pagan philosophy who put far too much trust in Augustine!
Since we already answered the bulk of the points you raise (in replies to other Papal Roman Catholics) we are not going to sacrifice valuable time in hunting through the material in order to address every aspect you have also brought up. In order to speed the material onto the website we will press on with it and then, if you so request, send you the addresses of the relative pages when that work is completed.
In the meantime we will comment fairly briefly on a few of your points:
You write: Protestant scholars have noted that Luther's fascination with crude subjects is disquieting.
TCE: Luther made many coarse and even arrogant statements as he struggled with the truth that he found plainly stated in the book of Romans, and his path into the full light of justification by faith apart from the works of the law did not occur overnight.
Luther was a product of Roman Catholic error and pagan philosophy and, sadly, put far too much trust in Augustine, apparently not even getting to grips with Augustine's false teaching that sex is evil!
Papal Rome's 'Indulgences' and 'Prayers for the Dead' are clearly cruel, un-Biblical, deceptions!
Since you have decided to attack Luther perhaps you should consider how he came to be so famous? When Rome introduced 'Indulgences' and 'Prayers for the Dead' and moved further and further away from the clear Biblical truth that 'righteousness is by faith' and thoroughly into a 'righteousness by works', she came up with one of her cruellest 'works' - the false doctrine of 'Indulgences'. During the Renaissance Rome needed money to build her Babylonish Cathedrals and, in particular, St. Peter's Basilica, so they required a doctrine that would strike at the very heart of those seduced by the spirit of popery: how to get your poor, suffering relative(s) out of Purgatory (which is non-existent and another Roman invention!)?
Johann Tetzel was originally a Dominican priest who (in 1502) was commissioned by the pope to preach the Jubilee (Christian) indulgence. He was also (1509) made an inquisitor of Poland and Pope Leo X made him Commissioner of Indulgences for all Germany (in 1517). He acquired the degree of Licentiate of Sacred Theology in the University of Frankfurt (1517), and that of Doctor of Sacred Theology (1518), by attempting to defend the doctrine of indulgences against Luther. The offer to sell full forgiveness for sins not yet committed caused understandable scandal and Martin Luther rightly condemned his evil doctrines and began to preach openly against him. Luther's 'Ninety-Five Theses' were written, in part, because of Tetzel's Papally approved doctrine which history will remember because of its catchy little jingle which any ad-man would be proud of:
'As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs'.
Luther's objection was correctly stated:
They preach only human doctrines who say that as soon as the money clinks into the money chest, the soul flies out of purgatory. It is certain that when money clinks in the money chest, greed and avarice can be increased; but when the church intercedes, the result is in the hands of God alone.
The evidence for papal approval for Tetzel's work can still be read on an inscription on the Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome:
Indulgentia plenaria perpetua quotidiana toties quoties pro vivis et defunctis ('Perpetual everyday plenary indulgence on every occasion for the living and the dead')
When you condemn Luther for his apparent depravity you should also think of Tetzel who said you could sexually violate even Mary the Mother of Christ and be forgiven if you came up with the right price to purchase an indulgence! Remember that Tetzel was a Dominican, the order that perpetrated the Inquisitions and were a rival order to, among others, the Augustinians, of which Luther was once a member.
Thus the great cathedrals of the Renaissance were constructed through preying on people's fear of a totally unbiblical doctrine. Forgetting both Stephen's apology (Acts 7:48) that 'the Most High does not dwell in houses built by human hands,' and Peter's declaration that 'ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ' (1 Peter 2:5), not only did they try to build a house by human hands but they exploited the laity who were the true house in order to do so!
The corruption in Rome began long before Tetzel. Even Augustine, under the influence of Cyprian, played his part when he claimed that the church is holy, no matter how unholy the men who run it, simply because it is Christ's church! Hence, when we confront the Roman Catholic Church with the Spanish Inquisition, the Papal wars, Papal corruption, the Papal role in the Holocaust etc., its leaders and apologists hardly bother to deny these facts - yet still bluster that it is the 'Holy' Roman Catholic Church because Jesus died to make it holy!
While many Papal Roman Catholics obviously believe that non-Catholics owe everything to Luther and the 'Protestant Reformation', we have shown in multiple ways that the truth is very different. At TCE we consider the tragedy that was the Protestant Reformation which, instead of going back to the New Testament, went back to Augustinian beliefs. Both Papal Catholicism and Protestantism draw from Chalcedon and both are built on Augustine. New Testament orthodoxy (i.e. strict adherence to the whole of doctrine and behaviour enunciated in those inspired books) is what is obviously mandated before Chalcedon and before Augustine.
God has always had a faithful remnant - as shown elsewhere - and the building persecution from heretical groups is exemplified by such as Cyril of Alexandria who persecuted followers of Nestorius (ca. 386-450) whose 'heresy' was to argue that it was impossible for God to change, suffer, and be tempted. To solve this problem, Nestorius advanced the theory that Jesus combined in himself two distinct elements, the divine and the human, and the result was a conjunction, not a union, in the person of Jesus Christ. The human Christ had the Spirit of the Godhead bestowed upon him while the divine took upon himself the form of a servant. Thus Mary was not theotokos or the 'Mother of God', but Christotokos, or 'Christ-bearer'. In trying to separate the divine and the human in Christ, Nestorius erred by not defining the bond that held the two natures together. That he was clearly correct to say that theotikos, the supposed 'divine motherhood of Mary, is a pagan concept alien to Biblical thought and the term is not found in Scripture. But those who opposed this early Marian falsehood experienced persecution.
Born of Persian parents, Nestorius studied under Theodore of Mopsuestia and became a monk and presbyter at Antioch. His fame as a preacher led Emperor Theodosius to elevate him (in 428) to the throne of the patriarch of Constantinople and, sometime after, he was embroiled in the controversy bearing his name and, at the Council of Ephesus, anathematized as a heretic and deposed. The emperor exiled him to his monastery at Antioch and later to the Great Oasis in Egypt, where he died, but not before writing an autobiographical refutation of the charges against him.
It should be noted that Theodore of Mopsuestia (ca. 350-428) was an ordained presbyter by Flavian (about 383) and made bishop of Mopsuestia in Cilicia in 392. He was a brilliant scholar noted for his erudition and literary skills, but his reputation suffered as the mentor of Nestorius with whom his name is forever associated and with whom he was condemned at the Council of Ephesus, and anathematized in the first of the Three Chapters by Justinian and the Second Council of Constantinople. Although only some of his works survive, modern scholars have been able to re-establish his doctrinal integrity and his opposition to the major heretics of the day, such as Apollinaris, Arius, and Eunomius. While his terminology was imprecise, his contributions to Christology were more orthodox than his enemies acknowledged, and his Biblical commentaries used critical methods with great insight.
We must note here that, compared with the many blatant heresies of popes (listed in our upcoming pages and enclosed in brief form after this section), these men were doctrinal, Christian giants and worthy of being called 'saints'. Note that all believers are 'saints'- as made clear in the Epistle to the Ephesians where the Greek word, hagios (meaning 'sacred - i.e. physically, pure, morally blameless or religious, ceremonially, consecrated, 'most holy', or 'saint') is used repeatedly of all believers. This is yet another heretical error of Papal Rome which thinks it can pick and choose who makes 'Sainthood' - and then declares evil con-artists such as Mother Theresa as material for its 'Saints'!
While history shows that later 'Nestorians' went into severe doctrinal error it is a historical fact that anyone who stood for Biblical truth was persecuted and became a very small minority as the 'Institutionalised church' moved further and further away from the truth and became more and more Hellenized, and Platonized. The subsequent split began to occur between the Greek-speaking East and the Latin-speaking West which resulted, during the Middle Ages, in the split between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.
The 'Protestants' and 'Reformers' may, in their ignorance, have thought that they had rediscovered the Gospel but there were always people who never lost it and there was never a time when God did not have a remnant of faithful, true, Bible-believing Christians. Long before Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, et al, there were always sects of true believers - and even individuals within the Papal Roman Catholic Church - who were trying to waken people to the truths that they could not avoid finding in the Bible, so clearly are they enunciated. But the reaction of Rome was persecution and death for dissenters who they labelled heretics, or even accused them of 'witchcraft.' Only when the social and political circumstances changed and Papal Rome lost its power to suppress the Gospel in many countries were the Reformers able to get away with things that other people died for saying.
When Luther nailed his '95 Theses' to the cathedral door he thought he was calling for a theological debate but, of course, Papal Rome could not allow that and the predictable threats followed. The 'Reformers' never wanted to start another church but Babylon can never be healed. Anyone who stands up against Pharisees and false priest-hoods, as Jesus did in Nazareth (Luke 4), or as Stephen did in the synagogue in Jerusalem (Acts 7), will experience the citizens of Babylon having them thrown out, or attempting to murder them!
Luther started off well before falling back to Rome's false position that God had rejected the Jews - and the 'new Israel' was the Christian church!
Returning to Luther, he declared of the Jews: 'Set fire to their synagogues or schools,' in On the Jews and Their Lies. Jewish houses should 'be razed and destroyed,' and Jewish 'prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, [should] be taken from them ... their rabbis [should] be forbidden to teach on pain of loss of life and limb.' He also urged that 'safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews,' and that 'all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them.' What Jews could do was to have 'a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade' put into their hands so 'young, strong Jews and Jewesses' could 'earn their bread in the sweat of their brow.' Was Luther 'one of the 'church fathers' of anti-Semitism'? Did Luther's attacks pave the way for Hitler? Was Luther anti-Semitic? Where did he get his beliefs from?
In 1523, Luther accused Papal Rome of being unfair to Jews and treating them 'as if they were dogs,' thus making it difficult for Jews to convert. 'I would request and advise that one deal gently with them [the Jews] ... If we really want to help them, we must be guided in our dealings with them not by papal law but by the law of Christian love. We must receive them cordially, and permit them to trade and work with us, hear our Christian teaching, and witness our Christian life. If some of them should prove stiff-necked, what of it? After all, we ourselves are not all good Christians either.'
But, about fifteen years later, rumours of Jewish efforts to convert Christians upset him, and he wrote a treatise venting his frustration and concluding that converting Jews had become hopeless. He seemed to believe that God had deserted the Jews, leaving them to wander homeless without a land or temple of their own and, if this was God's attitude, then one might with good conscience ignore the Jews. Why would God desert His own people if He did not despair of them? Luther concluded that God had rejected them and turned His attention to the 'new Israel,' the Christian church (a false teaching!).
By 1543, Luther was clearly frustrated by the Jews' refusal to convert to Christianity and wrote: 'A Jewish heart is as hard as a stick, a stone, as iron, as a devil.' At some time in his life Luther did not, however, hold Jews responsible for the death of Christ and wrote in a hymn, 'We dare not blame … the band of Jews; ours is the shame' and believed that at least a small number of Jews might be won for Christ. The Papal Roman Catholic view was to lead to centuries of Catholic children - even to this day - taunting Jewish children with the accusation: 'Christ killers!'
Luther struggled with the relationship between Old Testament and New Testament Scriptures - a struggle he could not easily resolve. But when Luther concluded that God had rejected the people of Israel, he violated his own theological method, for he had taught his students that one cannot and should not speculate about the will of Sovereign God, for what God has not revealed cannot be known. A student once asked Luther, 'What did God do before he created the world?' Luther responded, 'He created hell for people who ask this question.' Yet when the question was 'Why do Jews refuse to convert to Christianity?' Luther's response was, 'Because God hardened their hearts and deserted them because of their stubbornness.'
Some people recognised the many truths he told, particularly regarding Papal Rome, and ignored his errors, even calling him a great hero while Lutherans (who took his name despite his insistence against such foolishness) will defend him to the hilt - despite the troubling evidence that shows his continual struggle with un-Biblical views. In many ways he meant well and began well, declaring of his '95 Theses': 'Here I stand, I can do no other.'
Luther condemned rabbinic teaching (which is certainly a false religion based on 'synagogism' since their temple was destroyed irreparably to this day - although this may change in the near future if plans to re-build it succeed!) as madness and blindness that blasphemed Christ, Mary, and the Holy Trinity and declared that he could not 'have any fellowship or patience with obstinate [Jewish] blasphemers and those who defame this dear Saviour.' Blasphemy was a civil crime and he feared that allowing it to continue meant Christians would share in the guilt for it, even proposing seven measures of 'sharp mercy' that German princes could take against Jews:
(1) burn their schools and synagogues;
(2) transfer Jews to community settlements;
(3) confiscate all Jewish literature, which was blasphemous;
(4) prohibit rabbis to teach, on pain of death;
(5) deny Jews safe-conduct, so as to prevent the spread of Judaism;
(6) appropriate their wealth and use it to support converts and to prevent the lewd practice of usury;
(7) assign Jews to manual labour as a form of penance.
Luther advised clergy, their congregations, and all government officials to help carry out these measures but, since most Jews had been expelled from Germany before 1536, Luther's counsel was implemented by few officials. Yet harsh anti-Jewish measures in 1543 used Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies as a reference. Friend and foe alike criticized him for proposing these measures, some begging him to stop his anti-Jewish raving, but Luther continued his attacks in other treatises, even repeating the worst anti-Semitic charges from medieval literature, e.g. that Jews poisoned wells, killed Christian babies, and murdered Christ over and over again by stabbing Eucharistic hosts! Luther was now repeating what he had accused Catholics of thinking in 1523 - that Jews were dogs. His last sermon included these words:
'Every Jew should he herded into a corral and forced to confess Christ at the point of a knife. For we should burn their synagogues. Indeed we, the German people, are to blame if we do not murder the Jews to prove we are Christians.'
A week later he was dead. Many would argue that God removed him from the earth because of his unrepentant attitude towards His chosen people and people remember that Adolf Hitler quoted these words some 350 years later to justify genocide against the Jews. The Jewish Holocaust perpetrated by Hitler and his National Socialists used Luther to support their racist anti-Semitism, calling him a genuine German who had hated non-Nordic races. Luther erred because he presumed to know God's will. But how many people compare Luther's words and actions with those who made him the man who experienced Papal Rome at the closest of quarters - and who never fully shook off those influences.
Luther's failings don't begin to compare with Papal Rome's vile pogroms, Inquisitions, and paedophilic priests and nuns!
When the Bible specifies that there will be those teaching doctrines of demons and forbidding marriage (celibacy, 1 Timothy 4:1-3) we can see the fruit of that false doctrine to this day with paedophilia among Roman Catholic priests and nuns, and the criminal conspiracies of their Cardinals and Bishops to obstruct justice in order to preserve the status quo and protect their child-raping clergy. The release of the Ryan and Murphy Reports in the Republic of Ireland in late 2009 horrified the Irish public with the disclosures that countless thousands of children were proven victims of paedophilia perpetrated with the certain knowledge of the Papacy. In addition to sexual abuse, an endemic history of emotional and physical abuse was uncovered in cases that appeared to include defenceless children being used as sex toys for sadomasochistic lesbian and homosexual practices of the clergy. Due to the political and judicial influence of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland however, it was agreed to preclude and exclude the possibility of even identifying the perpetrators, and none of the sex criminals were arrested or prosecuted as a direct result of the report. In one of the cases in Ireland a priest, who had ritually raped ten little girls dressed as little brides for their first communion using the Eucharist altar as a bed to violate them, was shielded by the Irish police when evidence in the custody of a senior Irish Garda police investigator mysteriously disappeared. The Irish press reported that this action came about through his involvement in an organization called 'The Knights of Columbus' and this same police official shortly afterward was honoured by Pope John Paul II with a medal and commendation for his service to the Roman church. How does Papal Rome explain such actions?
Both reports in Ireland indicated collusion between the church and the police in sequestering evidence and pursuing the arrest and prosecution of dangerous paedophile sex criminals who were allowed by the church to continue their depravity and victimization of helpless little children. Virtually every bishop, archbishop, and cardinal in Ireland had been implicated in the protection of these child molesters and the same has largely been found to be true in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Great Britain. But, unsurprisingly, such massive cover-ups have been routinely worse in Roman Catholic controlled countries such as Ireland, Austria, and Brazil.
Paedophiles in 177 out of 179 Roman Catholic diocese and archdiocese!
In Austria the largest Roman Catholic seminary for training priests in Europe was closed under pressure from the Austrian government after the seminary was found to contain 40,000 hours of recorded child pornography, the largest cache of child-porn discovered in the history of paedophilic investigation. The volume of this material even exceeded the previous record of 8,000 hours of child pornography placed on the Internet by a Catholic priest from St. Joseph's church in Newcastle, England. It was also reported in the Austrian and international press that the cardinal of Vienna had probable knowledge of what was taking place in the seminary. In effect, in studying for the priesthood, seminarians learned how to molest children and much of the film footage was also of older priests performing homosexual acts with younger ones.
In the United States former Governor William Keating of Kansas (himself a Catholic), who chaired the Roman Catholic Church's own investigation commission, complained of continual obfuscation by church authorities. Keating publicly announced that, based on his previous experience as an FBI agent and prosecutor, elements of the Roman Catholic Church were more secretive than the Mafia. Indeed, the law enforcement community and district attorneys discovered that, by comparison, both the Italian and Russian Mafias will not traffic in child pornography as it violates even their imagined code of ethics. How would a Papal Roman Catholic explain how the Roman Catholic clergy could engage on a wide scale in acts so vile that even organized crime would consider it too sick and evil to partake in? What measure of 'holy priesthood' are Papal Roman Catholics using that we find that even professional thugs and killers do not sink to the levels of depravity demonstrated by Roman Catholic clergy!
Worse was to come for Papal Rome. The second Irish report disclosed that its investigations uncovered Roman Catholic teaching called The Doctrine of Mental Reservation where church hierarchy could mislead authorities in order to protect sex criminal priests and nuns without it being considered a lie or a sin! The Irish public was left in stunned indignation that their bishops, archbishops, and cardinals could so twist the truth that they could effectively say that it is not a sin to lie in order to protect paedophiles at the cost of not protecting the victimized children, providing the child molester is a 'holy' priest or nun!
Thus it was clearly demonstrated that the source of this outrage is not simply the secretive misdeeds of a few. In fact, 177 out of 179 Roman Catholic diocese and archdiocese and their bishops in the United States have been proven responsible in court for the same kind of practice. The Catholic Church responded to Keating's pronouncement by Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles demanding the resignation of Keating. But, shortly afterward, the archdiocese of Los Angeles paid $660 million in damages plus legal fees - which was declared by some legal editorialists to be the price of keeping Mahoney out of prison. Mahoney's colleague, Cardinal Law of Boston, left the country amidst such scandals, and was subsequently promoted to arch-priest of a Vatican cathedral in Rome by Pope John Paul II and even led the funeral mass for this same, late pope!
These facts are undeniable and well-documented. The Roman Catholic Church and its lawyers can only amplify moot points in the reported details. Any reasonably intelligent Papal Roman Catholic knowing these facts should be left horrified, astounded, and disgusted. But, doubtlessly, they will react like most cultists and waffle and bluster about Satanic conspiracies against 'Holy Mother Church.' The Criminale Solicitaciones directive, informing bishops to prevent these scandals being uncovered at all costs, even when they involve the violation of children and sex with animals, was uncovered in both Australia and the USA. It was first issued by Pope John XXIII, proving that the Vatican knew about these evil deeds for at least fifty years or so! It was even re-issued by Cardinal Joseph Radzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) at the command of his predecessor John Paul II (Karol Wojtyla). When a litigation was begun against Benedict XVI, by Daniel Shea and other American attorneys for the victims, the George W. Bush administration and Condoleezza Rice pressed the Justice Department to ask the court to dismiss the litigation because the Pope is the chief of state of a nation given full diplomatic recognition by Ronald Reagan and cannot be prosecuted! The Vatican cover-up attempted to persuade the public that their evil document had to do with confessional secrecy - as if bishops needed to be reminded of their obligation to keep confessional matters absolutely confidential. Of course, the truth is that clergy privilege is protected by U.S. law the same as attorney-client privilege and physician-patient privilege, as well as under constitutional provision for freedom of religion. Legally no defense of confessional secrecy could have been required. The Vatican had really petitioned the White House and the U.S. State Department for a political defence that simply saw the President, Secretary of State, and Attorney General asking the court to prevent the case going forward and not for reasons based on the merits of the case, but for reasons of politics and diplomacy, i.e. a blatant cover-up of the vilest kind.
The Criminale Solicitaciones instruction and the Doctrine of Mental Reservation prove categorically that the source of this Satanic corruption, which manifested itself in the perpetration of the most appalling sex crimes imaginable, is rooted in Roman Catholic false doctrine - namely the 'doctrine of demons' which forbids marriage (1 Timothy 4:1-3). This filth cannot be levelled at the lowest echelons of Papal Rome, or even one leader - as you attempt with your attacks on one very flawed sinner, Luther. This goes right up to the highest echelons of the papacy and Roman Catholic hierarchy!
Let us go back just a few years to World War II when the Roman Catholic Church organized the notorious Rat Lines facilitating the escape of numerous Nazi war criminals to Latin America, protecting them in convents and monasteries. Many of these Nazis murdered children, especially Gypsies and Jews. So we see that the same corrupt institution that protected the Nazi killers of children continues to protect the rapists of children. Thus we see that corrupt doctrines, which were introduced in the fourth century and evolved through the Middle Ages, have led to the attraction to Papal Rome of every manner of pervert and sex offender of the vilest nature.
Compare Papal Rome's flagellation with the sins of Luther who learnt his traits from Rome and not from the Bible!
This subversion of Scriptural truth, regarding marriage and sexuality, is found to originate with Augustine of Hippo and his non-Biblical doctrinal influence lingers to the present day in many areas including these modern Roman Catholic paedophilia scandals. Augustine claimed that the only good thing about marriage is the procreation of children who will be celibate! Like many other heretical ideas, which other contemporary cults 'warm up' to use again in our day, he somehow mis-interpreted Scripture and came to the conclusion that the sin of Adam and Eve was sex.
Apart from Augustine imparting his mis-interpretations to Roman Catholicism and leaving a continuing legacy of serious and sinister hang-ups about marital sexuality, never mind sinful, perverted sexuality, there is another vile legacy. The Crusaders saw Shia Moslems commemorate the martyrdom of Mohammed's grandson Ali, at the Battle of Kabala (A.D. 680) in Iraq, by mutilating and flagellating themselves, and each other. This ritual so impressed them that they brought it back with them to Papal Rome , along with another Islamic ritual that impressed them where little girls in white gowns hold prayer beads. These rituals from a Satanic, anti-Christ religion were then integrated into Papal Roman Catholic Church doctrine. Why would any sect claiming to represent Christ allow such error? Nuns and monks began to flog each other as a form of penance. The descent that followed the forbidding of marriage led to the installation of further 'doctrines of demons' (1 Timothy 4:1-3) and outlawing normal sex led to perverted sex becoming one inevitable consequence. Incredibly, Papal Roman Catholic monastic movements even taught flagellation rituals and it should not surprise us that religious flagellation accounts for the prevalence of sadomasochism in Roman Catholic culture. We have to ask how anyone could allow these 'doctrines of demons' to infiltrate their personal actions and church and be deceived into believing they were making atonement for sin when the Word of God clearly reveals that Christ has already performed the only work necessary on the Calvary Road for, as the prophets foretold: 'By His stripes we are healed' (Isaiah 53:5). Again, trying to add our own 'filthy rags' (Isaiah 64:6) to the cross of the Saviour of the world certainly reveals the desperate delusion that Rome labours under:
Isaiah 53:5: But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with His stripes we are healed.
Papal Rome is the cult that made martyrs of many true Christians by burning them alive in England - even before Luther - for simply being in possession of an English text translated by John Wycliffe! In many other countries where Rome held sway there were also those who would not bow down to the 'host,' the wafer, and the images, and were also burned for their faith and for daring to stand against the monster that is Babylon disguised as Rome.
By his own admission, Martin Luther was unkind to those who opposed his reforms, declaring: 'I cannot deny that I am more vehement than I should be … But they assail me and God's Word so atrociously and criminally that … these monsters are carrying me beyond the bounds of moderation.' Thus, Luther demanded the same kind of treatment that the popes had used to torture those who rejected the Papal heresies: 'We should take him - the pope, the cardinals, and whatever riff-raff belongs to His Idolatrous and Papal Holiness - and (as blasphemers) tear out their tongues from the back, and nail them on the gallows.' On another occasion, he asked: 'Why should we hesitate to use arms against these teachers of perdition, the cardinals, popes, and the whole Roman Sodom, which corrupts the Church of God without end, and wash our hands in their blood?'
Luther also admitted that he could be rude and crude and, strangely, he considered foul language an appropriate weapon to combat evil. For example, he dismissed the Jewish rabbis' interpretations of Scripture as 'Jewish p*** and sh**.' He was certainly bull-headed, coarse-tongued, and intemperate - as the record reveals. Some defenders try to argue that he behaved like other people of his time - that his speech and actions were 'intense'. He has been called 'a man of grand contradictions' and he clearly spoke freely and unguardedly about himself and others. Luther's view of himself was shaped by his life as a monk, priest, and professor; by his environment and historical events; and also by his physical problems, for he had developed digestive difficulties, probably from the ascetic lifestyle of the rigorous Augustinian monks. He suffered from kidney and gall stone attacks, for which there were no effective treatments in his day, not even aspirin, and he complained of headaches, insomnia, and what he called 'night wars' - nightmares, anxiety attacks, and Anfechtung ('inner turmoil' or 'temptation'). An open sore on one of his legs refused to heal, and physicians tried to drain the wound with an arrangement of uncomfortable bandages. By the age of 62 he was nearly blind in one eye, hard of hearing, and subject to attacks of angina pectoris, from which he eventually died in 1546.
Does any of this excuse Luther? The hours he clearly spent in studying the Word of God surely must have made these verses familiar to him:
Psalms 141:3 Set a watch, O YHWH, before my mouth; Keep the door of my lips.
Proverbs 25:11 A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in network of silver.
Matthew 12:36 And I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
Ephesians 4:29 Let no corrupt speech proceed out of your mouth, but such as is good for edifying as the need may be, that it may give grace to them that hear.
Colossians 4:6 Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer each one.
James 3:6-10 And the tongue is a fire: the world of iniquity among our members is the tongue, which defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the wheel of nature, and is set on fire by hell. For every kind of beasts and birds, of creeping things and things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed by mankind. But the tongue can no man tame; it is a restless evil, it is full of deadly poison. Therewith bless we the Lord and Father; and therewith curse we men, who are made after the likeness of God: out of the same mouth cometh forth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.
1 Peter 3:15 but sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord: being ready always to give answer to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, yet with meekness and fear.
Why did (in 1520) Luther write that he had been destined to appear in the guise of a monk, ringing his bells and tapping his shoes. Not everyone, he said, would be able to understand what the jester said or did, for it had to be ambiguous, often offensive. He chided his Papal opponents: 'How often must I cry out to you coarse, stupid papists to quote Scripture sometime? Scripture! Scripture! Scripture! Do you not hear, you deaf goat and coarse ass?' Hardly consistent with the Word of God! He even refused to shake hands with Ulrich Zwingli, because the Swiss Reformer disagreed with his (incorrect!) interpretation of the Eucharist. On another occasion, when he was being publicly criticized, Luther declared: 'l am a tough Saxon, a peasant. I've grown a thick skin for this kind of ****.' How did Luther think that: 'to curse for the sake of God's Word is just'?
Luther's words made even the reprobate Pope Leo X call him: 'the boar in the vineyard' for
his attacks on the Roman church - quite mild for Papal standards! Even Swiss Protestants asserted Luther was as bad as a swineherd because of how he condemned the Jews. Luther admitted he had 'sharply inveighed against ungodly doctrines,' but 'What good does salt do if it does not bite? What good does the edge of the sword do if it does not cut?' He sometimes showed regret at his outbursts, explaining to his wife, Katie: 'Wrath just won't turn me loose. Why, I sometimes rage about a piddling thing not worthy of mention. Whoever crosses my path has to suffer for it - I won't say a kind word to anyone. Isn't that a shameful thing?'
How serious was Luther about the moments when he had 'theological' insights? He once told Wittenberg congregation that it was while he and Philipp Melanchthon were having a beer that the Word of God reformed the church! Another time he claimed, of a treatise: 'I wrote it after dining - but a Christian can speak better inebriated than a papist can sober.'
Was Martin Luther's intention to be a doctor of Holy Scripture and a theologian like the apostle Paul, intent on fulfilling his oath in the guise of a fool?:
1 Corinthians 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man thinketh that he is wise among you in this world, let him become a fool, that he may become wise.
As we have shown in previous material to Papists, Luther was in no way the originator of salvation by faith alone, by grace alone. But he spoke of Biblical truths that Rome had trampled on for years and renewed faith in the gracious God who reserves final judgment - which includes final judgment of all of us, including Luther.
'Genuine Apostolic Succession'?
Let us compare his life with that of the 'infallible popes' by referring you to these previous articles:
Criminal behaviour from 'popes'?
'Popes' chosen by prostitutes and 'Madams'?
'Popes' battled murderously for the throne?
Many Roman Pontiffs were heretics!
'Pope' John XXII exposes the scam
The Abomination of Papal Indulgences!
The Heretical Heritage
Popes who bowed to Emperors?
When is a 'Pope' not a 'Pope' but an 'anti-pope'?
Did Luther have more 'interaction with the Devil' than Padre Pio?!
Satan was jealous of Padre Pio and 'attacks' by Satan and evil spirits prove he was used by God?
Papal Roman Catholics claim that Luther came up with 'justification by faith alone' while on the toilet!
Returning to your accusations against Luther (the 'partially-Reformed' ex-Roman Catholic priest):
Do all Roman Catholic writers try and make use of 'Table Talk' to score points against Luther?
Returning, again, to your material:
You write: Luther claims that he came up with justification by faith alone while on the toilet. He claims that it came as 'knowledge the Holy Spirit gave me on the privy in the tower.'(Quoted in Willaim [sic] Manchester, A World Lit only By Fire: The Medieval Mind and the Renaissance Little Brown & Co., 1993, p.140.)
TCE: It is clearly a common Papal delusion that Luther was the only searching soul who discovered the doctrine of true grace - justification by faith alone in Christ alone. Believing that revealing every possible embarrassing detail about Luther's personal life and then besmirching the Biblically correct doctrine he held will silence every non-Papist is another sad delusion. Whether we believe Luther had his moment of 'inspiration' on 'the privy' or in his 'heated office' (cf. arguments raised by his defenders) we are entirely content to rely on Scripture alone to determine what we believe and to judge the actions of genuine elders (aka pastors, overseers, or bishops). In the same manner we will allow the Word of God to compare the life of Luther with that of every supposedly infallible pope and wait for a single Papal apologist to explain to us how their church can believe the words of Pope Adrian VI (1523):
'It is beyond question that he [the pope] can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman Pontiffs were heretics.'
The great claim that the popes are infallible when they speak on morals and dogma to the entire Church needs careful examination. If they are not infallible - and the evidence is clear that they are not - then the Roman Catholic Church does not have the unique leadership and apostolic authority it claims. When Pope Adrian VI and others have denied that they, or any other popes, were infallible why do Roman Catholics chose to disbelieve them?
Since the words of Adrian VI are recorded, verified, and part of the church tradition, Roman Catholics should surely believe them and act on them, should they not? Yet they clearly choose to ignore these words. Are all the words attributed to Luther equally well recorded and verified? The evidence that we have seen for his 'Table Talk' would suggest not. While the doctrine of 'justification by faith alone' espoused by Luther is well recorded and verified - and clearly found in the inspired Bible - every genuine Christian should clearly believe and follow that clear doctrine. In fact, it is palpably clear that we should not reject any clear doctrine gleaned from the Bible alone - no matter who claims to believe it and yet, by their behaviour, leads a life of actions and words that are at odds with their claims. However, when any person tries to add doctrines to the clearly attested canon of books of the Bible (as defined clearly in this mail and on our website) from another source (such as 'their authority' or pseudo-epigraphic books) all true believers are to reject those attempts - as clearly attested by the inspired apostles (Galatians 1:6-9; 2 Corinthians 11:4). So the test is clear: are the words that are claimed for Luther, such as those found in 'Table Talk,' inspired - clearly not - and so we have no good reason to believe them or lay any particular store in them. In the same manner all Papal Roman Catholics should reject the many false doctrines introduced by popes - but the fact that they do not reveals that they are deceived and are to be rejected by true Christians. QED
While Luther's openly confessed sins are blatant in many instances, he never claimed to be infallible but, as we have expounded elsewhere, Pope Adrian VI's declaration reveals that many popes have been heretics, thus proving that there cannot be an unbroken line of 'apostolic succession back to Peter.' Espousing heresy leads to instant and automatic excommunication and the offending pope has denied the faith and placed himself outside the Church - he is no longer even a member of the Church, much less its head. A heretical pope could not possibly provide a channel of apostolic authority to a successor. So how come the Papal list of popes contains numerous heretics who were denounced as such by councils and by other popes? Clearly, every claim of the Papacy - and therefore of every person believing in their church - is built on sand!
Since we have already dealt specifically with much of the material you supplied to us in replies to other Papists, we will content ourselves for now with answering the portions that may not be included elsewhere in this reply. If, when you have thoroughly perused our answers, you can show that we have not answered any part of your material adequately then, and only then, will we deal with your material further. Should you desire to introduce any other material which touches on subjects outside of your initial e-mail and this response then, when we have finally completed our updates to the TCE website (which may take a considerable number of months and may also be affected by other issues that arise), we will try and find the time to answer those too.
So, briefly, because we note no attempt to seek out the context in which Luther is claimed to have said the words you place in speech marks and also note that it is at odds with his other statements about Christ:
You write: This is from Luther's Table Talk '..I have committed many a solid and real sin. Indeed there must be good honest sins - not fabricated and invented ones..'
Anyone expressing such a view is clearly confused over issues relating to sin - unless the answer was given to a question regarding those who think that exaggerating sin makes 'grace abound' - and we can answer it simply with the most telling Scriptures:
Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Could Luther have really been as confused as this - for none of us needs to fabricate or invent sins - or did his biographers err?
Romans 5:19-21 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 6:1-5 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Did Luther fall into the error of Rasputin and his bizarre sect which believed that practicing deliberate sin caused 'grace to abound'? We have seen no evidence that this is so, but Luther's strong emphasis on the truth that there is no sin that can separate a true believer from Christ (unless practiced in an Antinomian manner, i.e. wilfully!) is consistent with Scripture and clearly at odds with Papal Rome.
Luther added the word 'alone' to Romans 3:28?
You write: Martin Luther had a satanic mindset and said Jesus Christ was guilty of fornication: 'Christ committed adultery first of all with the women at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: 'Whatever has He been doing with her?' Secondly, with Mary Magdalene, 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.' (Trishreden, Weimer Edition. Vol.2. Pg. 107.)
TCE: if you have made any real attempt to deal with Luther's non-doctrinal statements (such as those from 'Table Talk') you will be aware of the explanations offered by his supporters, such as:
'If you run across a Roman Catholic citing these words against Luther (or any obscure comments from Luther's Table Talk) I commend to you also these words by Roman Catholic Scholar Thomas O'Meara:
'…Catholics are using inaccurately rhetorical arguments when they make the value of Luther's theology and reform depend upon his table-talk language. Rhetoric appeals to the mind - but it appeals through emotions. It reaches the mind not through a purely intellectual act, examining the case thoroughly and logically, but by leaps and bounds, driven by emotions and will, faculties incapable of a calm judgment of what is true' [Thomas O'Meara, Mary in Protestant and Catholic Theology, (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1966), 5].
I always caution Roman Catholics to be careful with Luther's Table Talk. The Table Talk is a collection of comments from Luther written down by Luther's students and friends. Thus, it is not in actuality an official writing of Luther's and should not serve as the basis for interpreting his theology. Even anti-Luther Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar has pointed out:
'Of course, it must not be overlooked that the Table Talks are ephemeral - 'children of the moment.' While they correctly and vividly reproduce the ideas of the speaker, minus the cool reflection which prevails in the writing of letters and still more of books, they contain frequent exaggerations and betray a lack of moderation. The lightning-like flashes which they emit are not always true. The momentary exaggerations of the speaker at times beget contradictions which conflict with other talks or literary utterances. Frequently humorous statements were received as serious declarations. Humor and satire of a very pungent kind play a great part in these talks' [Hartmann Grisar, Martin Luther: His Life and Work (Maryland: Newman Press, 1950), 481].
... A recent New Yorker article on Mary Magdalene, obviously written with an eye on her role as Jesus' paramour in Daniel Brown's best-selling The Da Vinci Code, began by noting that 'Brown is by no means the first to have suggested that Christ had a sex life - Martin Luther said it' (February 13-20). Bruce Chilton, an Episcopal scholar from Bard College, also makes this claim about Luther in Mary Magdalene: A Biography (2005). And a 2003 story in Time magazine declared that 'Martin Luther believed that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married.'
Did Luther really make these assertions? An electronic search of the digital edition of Luther's works, the massive Weimar Ausgabe (WA), uncovers no evidence that he did. Only two statements come even close to suggesting these unorthodoxies.
The first is a comment on Psalm 119:145 in which Luther interprets Mary Magdalene's actions at the tomb of Christ as an example of loving devotion. Mary 'came beforehand at the dawn and with untimely haste and cried and called for her betrothed [sponsum] much more wonderfully in spirit than in the body. But I think that she alone might easily explain the Song of Songs.'
Luther's Works: American Edition (LW) unfortunately mistranslates sponsum as 'husband.' In Luther's medieval monastic context, the word meant something different. The verb spondeo means 'to pledge oneself to' or 'to promise oneself to someone,' as in 'to pledge in the vow of marriage.' The male form of the noun is 'fiancé' and the female form is 'bride.'
The full context of Luther's remark indicates that he was thinking allegorically. Influenced by mainstream allegorical interpretations of the Song of Songs, Luther viewed Mary as the proto-typical disciple (a celibate nun?), the first 'bride of Christ,' who had made her vow of unconditional love and obedience to her sponsum ('betrothed,' 'groom'). Even today Roman Catholic nuns wear a ring to symbolize their betrothal to Christ. On another occasion Luther argued that all Christians are 'brides of Christ' (LW 28:48). He certainly did not think Jesus and Mary were actually husband and wife. Several unambiguous statements in his writings clearly indicate that he held the traditional view that Jesus, like Paul, was celibate and chaste.'
... Scholars know how difficult, if not impossible, it is to link the lapidary 'table notations' of Luther's friends to Luther's own views. The editors of the American Edition speculate in a footnote that the 'probable context is suggested in a sermon of 1536 (WA 41, 647) in which Luther asserted that Christ was reproached by the world as a glutton, a wine-bibber, and even an adulterer' (LW 54:154).
A more probable context is Luther's account of the atonement. One of his basic assertions is that our sins become Christ's and Christ's perfect righteousness becomes ours by faith. This idea of 'the happy exchange' is found in many Luther texts. Given his central soteriological and christological concern, the theological irony in Schlagenhaufen's remembered notation becomes clearer: The 'godly' Christ becomes or is made a sinner through his solidarity with sinners, even to the point of dying as a God-forsaken criminal on the cross. This is how Luther understood Paul's statement, 'God made him who knew no sin to be sin for us so that in him we might become the righteousness of God' (2 Corinthians 5:21).
So Christ 'becomes' an adulterer, though he does not actually commit adultery with Mary or anyone else. He puts mercy front and centre, and rejects the legalism which demanded that the woman caught in adultery be killed and the woman at the well and Mary Magdalene be shunned. The holy one becomes the sinner by putting himself into the situation of sinners, by loving and forgiving them, and ultimately by taking their sins on himself. For this gospel reason, Luther could also remark that God made Jesus 'the worst sinner of the whole world,' even though he also acknowledged that the sinless, righteous Christ actually committed no sin himself.
Trapped in a literalistic approach to Schlagenhaufen's contextless note, some readers have missed the metaphorical character of the remark, which Luther may have made, if he made it at all, with a twinkle in his eye. I'm confident that Luther would not be a fan of The Da Vinci Code - except perhaps with a beer in hand and that twinkle in his eye.'
TCE: That is the kind of refutation relied upon by Luther's supporters and, since we have no good reason to defend Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, or anyone who does not adhere closely to the true, canonical Word of God - which Rome has polluted with its extra-Biblical books and traditions - we leave you to try to defend your heretical popes who have proved themselves far worse in perversions and heresies than the man you attack with such regularity!
Luther reasoned that Revelation's message was partially for an appointed time while the Swiss Reformers saw Revelation as having had a total, instead of partial, fulfilment in the early church, but a continuous meaning throughout church history and they spiritualized away the elements that had no parallel or historical fulfilment in the early centuries of Christian history. A cornerstone of the 'Reformed Theology' of many of these men was a stoic approach to Biblical interpretation, taking a strictly grammatical-historical line, yet they departed from their own principles and automatically 'spiritualized' anything about Israel as being for the church they believed in! Luther regarded Romans to be the very heart of Scripture and its message, yet his thinking virtually omitted the plain teaching of Chapters 9 to 11. Yet another irony is found in the actions of so many of the spiritual children of these 'Reformers' who continue to use 'Replacement Theology' - in much the same way that Papal Rome has claimed the blessings prophesied for God's chosen people, Israel - yet both somehow try to side-step the associated punishments that are also part of these promises!
There have been many false ideas perpetrated by historical figures (as Paul warned - Acts 20:28) - from the Church Fathers to this day - and one of the main figures who took on Gnostic ideas in the early church in Alexandria was Origen (185 -253) who claimed that Satan would be saved, eternal hell did not exist, and that there is no eternal damnation. Revelation 20:10 states categorically:
'And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.'
Earlier 'renowned' figures in history struggled with ideas that are clearly not inspired so, to accuse Luther of behaviour that has been far exceeded - particularly by 'popes' - is quite astonishing and anything you accuse him of perpetrating has been far exceeded by Papal Rome.
You write: He said filthy words against Moses and the Ten Commandments. And he said not to follow them. He also added the word 'alone' in Romans 3:28 and bragged about it. He said many highly disturbing things.
TCE: We have already written the following in answer to the question of 'faith alone' on this page under the heading:
Protestants still use Luther's canon of the Bible instead of the rightful Catholic one?
This same writer also made a claim which we replied to on this page under the heading:
Criminal behaviour from 'popes'?
You write: 'Some of Luthers' abuses have since been rectified by his spiritual descendants, but all Protestants, including Fundamentalists, still give assent today to Luthers' doings by using his canon of the Bible instead of the rightful Catholic one'.
TCE: We have already proven that the canon you claim to be true is a figment of your imagination and it is the Papal Roman Catholic Church that has embraced a false canon. The onus is on you to disprove us! This also applies to your claim that: 'contrary to popular Protestant belief, Luther was not the first to produce a Bible in the language of the people. At the time his Bible came out, there were already 17 different Catholic Church-approved Bibles in Luther's own German tongue alone, and those were in addition to dozens of others in other European languages.' We have shown that Papal Rome persecuted those who dared translate, distribute and teach from translated Bibles. The standard Bible of the Huguenots for hundreds of years was the translation of the Scriptures by the Waldensian scholar, Robert the Olivetan at the Collegium del Barba in Pra del Torno. Robert translated into French because, at that time and even extending to the present, this was largely the language of the Waldensian people, probably because of the assimilation of Albigenses and followers of Peter Waldo, their proximity to France and the hostility of Papal Rome to these Christians. Many early translations of the Scriptures into English were made, not from Greek or Hebrew but from Jerome's monumental work into Latin. For example, Wycliffe's translation of the Bible in the early 14th century, the first in Europe in a nearly thousand years, was based upon Jerome's Vulgate. We know that people, such as the German speaking Anabaptists, used German editions of the Scripture based on the Vulgate before Luther's September Bibel (completed 1534) came into existence. William Tyndale was the first to translate the Bible into English entirely from its original languages. The Froschauer or Zuericher Bibel (completed 1529) and a translation of the Prophets, by Haetzer and Deck, were popular in Germany before Luther completed his work - but the onus on you is to prove both that Papal Rome did not just prevent and restrict the translation from the Latin Vulgate - but actually encouraged this work as you infer. We can supply the evidence from the trials of the Anabaptists and the Protestant martyrs - where is your evidence?
You write: Your founder (of Protestantism) was a pervert.
TCE: Again, we only have to compare Luther with a whole troupe of popes - and literally, thousands of your 'priests' and 'nuns' who continue their perversions and heresies to this day?! Read this page with the following titles:
'Popes' were chosen by prostitutes and 'Madams'?
'Popes' battled murderously for the throne?
Roman Pontiffs were - and are - heretics!
'Pope' John XXII exposed the scam
The Abomination of Papal Indulgences!
The Heretical Heritage
Popes who bowed to Emperors?
Who really massacred millions?
You write: With these facts in mind it should be quite clear now that those who follow Luther's eventual conclusions the core of which are faith alone and scripture alone, are simply following the machinations, inventions, and discoveries of a man; they are following the inventions of a man who was guided and used by the Devil to create a false version of 'Christianity' which would lead countless souls astray; 50,000+ different Protestant denominations. Doctrinal chaos is the bad fruit of man-made religion. 2 Peter 2:1 'But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers, who shall bring in sects of perdition..'
TCE: as shown in the referenced article above, it is easy for us to defend 'faith alone' and 'scripture alone' and your claim of '50,000+ ... denominations' sounds impressive until you check the facts and discover that 'Protestant denominations' all hold the same core beliefs while Rome has flip-flopped in doctrine - depending on which heretical pope was on the throne and on the gradual addition of 'doctrinal practices' (we have placed a list on this website page under the heading 'Papal Roman Catholic HERESIES')..
You write: When we consider the fact that the original founders of Protestantism didn't even agree with each other on major points of doctrine, such denominational chaos shouldn't be a surprise. Protestantism is man-made religion, in which each person ultimately determines for himself what he thinks the bible teaches. Martin Luther the initiator of Protestantism condemned the doctrinal views of John Calvin, and Huldrych Zwingli, 2 other leading Protestant figures.
TCE: To further prove the pointlessness of your attacks on genuine orthodox Christians we should point out that real Christians, such as the Anabaptists, who sought to return to the genuine solo scriptura faith that Luther only thought he had, were terribly persecuted and not infrequently murdered by Protestants of the ilk you mention. Even today, 'Evangelicals Christians' - e.g. Baptists, Pentecostals, Brethren and Free Church - are not, by classical historical definition, 'Protestant' and, for example, they do not hold to a state church or accept infant baptism and are really the doctrinal heirs of the Anabaptists whom Papal Rome and the 'Protestants' you name persecuted! We have already written detailed comparative sections on this page under the following titles:
Who really began the witch-hunts!
Long before the 'Reformation' - over a hundred years before Luther - a heroic personality named John Huss of the Bohemian Brethren made many brave statements of the kind that Luther is famous for stating. In Huss' case Papal Rome invited him to a disputation at Lake Constance in Germany and burned him alive, stating: 'The holy mother the church has no obligation to keep her word to heresy.' Before Huss there were the Lollards in England - followers of John Wycliffe - and before them the Waldensians. There was never a time in history when God did not have a people for His own name, long before Papal Rome and long before the 'Reformation'. By his own admission Luther preached no new truths, but simply reiterated what Huss had proclaimed a century earlier at the expense of his own life. Protected by German princes, particularly by John Eck, and reinforced by the brilliant scholarship of Erasmus, Luther was able to get away with saying what others were martyred for daring to state in previous times. Of course the Reformers were but Roman Catholic clergy who themselves were second generation humanist scholars and political nationalists - Luther (identifying with Germany), Cranmer (with England), Bucer (with France), and Zwingli (with Switzerland) - and this eventually resulted in wars that were as much religious as they were political and economic. Catholic governance and Protestant governance effectively used the church as propaganda and justification in pursuit of their political, economic, and strategic rivalries leading to such historical clashes as colossal as the sinking of the Spanish Armada and the Seven Years' War.
You write: They all claimed to follow the bible. Basically all of these thousands of man-made sects purport to be 'Christian' and claim to follow the bible, even though they disagree with each other on crucial doctrinal matters such as: the precise nature of Justification, whether human works and sins are a part of salvation, whether man has free will, Predestination, whether infants need baptism for salvation, what Communion is, whether it's necessary to confess to the Lord, which books of the New Testament apply to us today, the structure of the Church's hierarchy, the role of Bishops and ministers, the Sabbath, the role of women in the Church, etc., most of these groups even claim that that the individual 'Christian' will be led by the Holy Spirit when privately reading the Bible. The disunity of these sects constitutes an irrefutable proof that their doctrine is not of the Spirit of Truth, and that their principle of operation, that is 'scripture alone' apart from the Church and Divine Tradition, is not the doctrine of the bible and the Apostles. Ephesians 4: 4-5 'One body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism.'
TCE: Your sweeping statements simply don't stand up to close examination and, while there have always been 'factions' who should be dealt with Biblically (ref. 1 Corinthians 11:18-19; cf. Matthew 18:7; 2 Peter 2:1-2), the condoning of massive error in doctrine and practice by Papal Rome does not make her Biblical in the slightest way.
You write: The Church will persist to the end of time and will be preserved unimpaired. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men. God does not create anything to have it destroyed by either man or hell. Christ established His Church as the source of salvation for every generation. He merited, by His passion, death and resurrection the graces necessary for the continual protection of what He established.
(Continued on page 350)