Martin Luther: False Teacher?

[keepingtabs]

Don't know about all the rest of the accusations toward Luther but, (look out) will have to put his book "The Bondage of the Will" in the 'false teacher' category!
But, that's an argument for another thread.

[P_otto]

P_otto said:
Funny how Catholics point to Luther, and most of us Protestants never really studied the man.

The reason I point these things out about Martin Luther is because millions of people have adopted a brand of Christianity based on his teachings---

Who is being lazy here? I just told you Luther had nothing to do with my conversion or as why I left the RCC. Hello Anyone home
But you are clueless because you think the reason why ALL protestants are protestants, traces back to Martin Luther. It does not. You are delusional, and no matter how many times we tell you differently, it will not change your mind.

You welcome Martin Luther as a great reformer

I think we have different definitions of what a reformer is. Therefore I an unable to comment on this.

but then are upset when I post his writings?

Another clueless statement.
I am not upset about you posting his writings. Post all you want, I could care less. It is when a wolf disguised as sheep enters the fold, I feel it is time to go into WWE mode and apply some SMACK DOWN.

Of all the Bible studies I have been to, there has never been an in depth discussion about ML. We might have touched the subject, but never in great detail.

millions of people have adopted a brand of Christianity based on his teachings

Oh really. Which protestant Church that totals up to millions reject James, hate the Jews, and added "alone" in Romans?
If you can't answer that question you will remain clueless.

[Be Not Afraid]

shotgun, you said:

I'll recognize that your heart is on fire for Christ, if you recognize that my Bible is God's word.

I'm not saying you Bible is not God's word. I have the same Bible--plus the 7 books of the Old Testament which Luther removed from the canon. Thus your Bible smaller than mine. But this fact is because of Martin Luther, therefore I have to conclude that you've put your faith in Martin Luther, a fallen away Catholic.

I will kiss your Bible just as I kiss my Bible. The problem is the erroneous interpretation of Scripture which I believe Martin Luther introduced.

There's no question that there was, is, and will always be corrupt members inside of the visible Church. Judas is proof of this. In Luther's time the need was for a conversion corrupt people, not a new doctrines. I can say this because everything the Catholic Church teaches today or in the times of Martin Luther, was taught and believed by the earliest Christians. Just read the writings of the early Church Fathers. Or Augustine, Aquinas, etc.

I do not admire Luther at all. I believe he was a false teacher. Instead, I admire the likes of St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, and Ignatius of Loyola, who lead the counter-reformation movement.

By way of false teachers, which of us is false, and which true?

It's a matter of authority. I believe in Christ's promise to guide the Church. One Church not many opinionated sects. Only the Catholic Church can trace its roots to the 1st century and it's teachings are confirmed by the writings of the Early Church. Also, the Catholic Church under Pope Damasus I defined the New Testament Canon of Scripture in the 4th century. The original Protestants were "protesting Catholics" who rightly protested corruption among the clergy in the 16th century. But the corruption of man nor the powers of hell will prevail against the Church (Matthew 16:18)

I say we all attack the Mormons!

This religion is an example of how millions of people have put their faith in one man (Joseph Smith). Not much different than what millions do when they put their faith in the man Martin Luther. (Your Bible is missing 7 books!!)

[shotgun]

Look...no one here is delusional, ok?

If thinking the entire Protestant community owes their conversion to Luther is delusional, then let's not think that all Roman Catholics are Catholic because they follow strictly by the teachings of Rome...(Lest we be equally as delusional.)

There is a long and beautiful history tied up with Roman Catholicism. Romantic notions of chivalry and virtue that have long been forgotten, were the order of the day in Medieval Europe.

I'd take Mary Queen of Scots and the religion she wished to impose ANY day over this God-hating, infant slaughtering regime we currently live under.

To Ms. BeNot...

"Your Bible is missing 7 books!"

And your pope wears a funny hat!

**Edit**

Or, I should have said, (in keeping with our deal:) "and your heart burns for Rome..."

[Mike Bull]

Have covered this in another thread, but, BeNotAfraid, your definition of "Church" is not the same as the one given in the New Testament. It is not a human institution with a sign on the door.

[Be Not Afraid]

P_otto, you said:

Oh really. Which protestant Church that totals up to millions reject James, hate the Jews, and added "alone" in Romans?
If you can't answer that question you will remain clueless.

Well, let's start with your Bible. Your Protestant Bible is missing 7 Old Testament books because of Martin Luther. (One reason being is because it contained scripture which supported the Church's teaching on Purgatory.)

Next, the demonic concept of "Once Saved Always Saved" is rooted in Luther's claim of "justification by faith alone" which ignores Romans 2:6-7 as well as all the many warnings which Jesus gave us concerning the failure to do good works.

Luther's dislike of the book of James and Hebrews is reflected in the many discombobulated doctrines on justification found among even those writing in these forums. About the Book of James (The Sacred Word of God) he said:

"If nonsense is spoken anywhere, this is the very place. I pass over the fact that many have maintained, with much probability, that this epistle was not written by the apostle James, and is not worthy of the spirit of the apostle." ('Pagan Servitude of the Church,' ed. Dillenberger, p. 352.)

Luther called the Book of James the "epistle of straw." The reason Luther dismissed this is because in it, James stated this:

You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did." (James 2:20-22)

and this:

Adulterers, know you not that the friendship of this world is the enemy of God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of this world, becomes an enemy of God. (James 4:4)

But Martin Luther was claiming this:

"Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong.... No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day." ('Let Your Sins Be Strong" from Saemmtliche Schriften, Letter No. 99, 1 Aug. 1521). How much do you need to figure that this man was a false teacher? In fact this view makes a mockery of God's justice and goes against the words of Jesus Christ in Luke 18:20 as well as many other passages throughout Scripture.

Millions of protestants march to different doctrines based upon many different interpretations of Scripture, this is because of Martin Luther's invented doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which itself is un-Biblical.

[P_otto]

Also, the Catholic Church under Pope Damasus I defined the New Testament Canon of Scripture in the 4th century.

Damasus accepted Esdras I, which the Council of Trent does not recognize as Scripture.
(Esdras II is Ezra/Nehemiah). Then later, Pope Gregory said Maccabees was not Scripture yet Trent does. Doh!
It is hard to tell which Pope is right, I guess you just pick and choose.

[JLVaughn]

I like the Ethiopian Canon. It has 81 books.

[Be Not Afraid]

P_otto, said:

Damasus accepted Esdras I, which the Council of Trent does not recognize as Scripture.
(Esdras II is Ezra/Nehemiah). Then later, Pope Gregory said Maccabees was not Scripture yet Trent does. Doh!
It is hard to tell which Pope is right, I guess you just pick and choose.

I hate to put you on the spot, but I think this is a great teaching moment.

The Council of Trent reaffirmed the historic canon of the Bible after it had been challenged by Protestants in the 16th century. The same books Trent affirmed had been affirmed by councils and popes prior to Trent. The first council recorded as dealing with the canon was the Council of Rome, which convened in the year 382 under Pope Damasus I. The Canon of Scripture always included the seven deuterocanonical books: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, and Sirach—and rejected 1 and 2 Esdras. Far from being inconsistent; Trent reaffirmed what the Church had taught since the earliest centuries.

You may be thinking about 3 Maccabees, which the Catholic Church never included in the Canon of Scripture.

boink.

[JTownsend]

Ms. BNA
I just wanted to reply to your earlier question.

I have studied Luther and I don't mind his writings... So anything you bring up that he wrote wont be new or amaze me. And I don't find him evil because of it either.

All your name calling will only bring turmoil. If I acted like you I would have to start many new threads for many Pope's in history who disgraced the Catholic church. How does this help? Sure we all have our failings, but if you disagree with someone, then let's discuss those issues one at a time instead of using a broad brush to paint everything someone did as wrong.

I liken your actions to saying that Moses was "evil" and no one should listen to anything he said or did or wrote because Moses was a murderer. Sure Moses was a murderer - but dismissing all he did because of an action in his life is totally stupid. It's pure poppycock, and acting that way only makes you look foolish.

[Be Not Afraid]

Hello JTownsend,

You said:

All your name calling will only bring turmoil. If I acted like you I would have to start many new threads for many Pope's in history who disgraced the Catholic church. How does this help?

It's one thing to have failings and be a sinner. We all are. It's quite another to teach false doctrines, tamper with Sacred Scripture and denigrate the Book of James, etc. Martin Luther was the Father of the Reformation and ushered millions of people into completely new doctrines which opposed 1500 + years of Church teaching as evidenced by the writings of the Early Church. I believe that his writings are proof that he was a false prophet. He denied the existence of man's free will, removed books from the Bible and taught that you could commit adultery and murder 100 times a day and not endanger your salvation. This is false teaching and I can prove it to you through Scripture, and the writings of Augustine, Aquinas and Church Fathers dating back to the first century.

Sure we all have our failings, but if you disagree with someone, then let's discuss those issues one at a time instead of using a broad brush to paint everything someone did as wrong.

I repeat: It's one thing to have failings and be a sinner. We all are. It's quite another to teach false doctrines tamper with Sacred Scripture and denigrate the Book of James, etc.

I liken your actions to saying that Moses was "evil" and no one should listen to anything he said or did or wrote because Moses was a murderer. Sure Moses was a murderer - but dismissing all he did because of an action in his life is totally stupid. It's pure poppycock, and acting that way only makes you look foolish.

Moses did not remove books from Scripture or call on people to "sin boldly". Neither did he claim that sin cannot separate us from God. It is sin itself which separates us from God, and I can show you mountains of Scripture which says this, yet you refuse to acknowledge this.

He who has ears, let him hear.

The Bible warned us of false prophets and lying teachers. What's your opinion of false teachers?

[Thomas]

Your Protestant Bible is missing 7 Old Testament books because of Martin Luther.

This is an allegation I've never heard before. Martin Luther was not materially involved in matters of textual issues. While certainly he and many other's, including many Dr's of the Roman Church questioned the validity of some of the New Testament books, they are nevertheless contained within Luther's translation. Luther, as well as anyone, may give his opinion on matters that were questionable to him, but in the end he backed off those opinions.

Since you seem to be unaware, the Protestant Bible is not missing 7 "Old Testament" books because those books were never Old Testament books. Even Jerome acknowledged they were not inspired Old Testament books - they are intertestial historical books, but never have they been Old Testament books. (Romans 3:2 KJV)

At least be honest and admit the fact that you receive these Greek historical books via Origen and not the Old Testament.

Next, the demonic concept of "Once Saved Always Saved" is rooted in Luther's claim of "justification by faith alone" which ignores Romans 2:6-7

Well, "Once Saved Always Saved" is not Luther's doctrine, that is a modern and primarily American syncretism of Calvinistic & Arminian soteriology. Luther explicitly denied the Arminian system, which necessarily includes the Artistotlism of Aquinas which is at root of Rome's doctrine, which is a development and substantive alteration to that of Anselm which held the sway for centuries prior. You do know that Luther was awarded his doctorate in Augustinianism? I presume you are familiar with the 97 Thesis of August 1517?

" I pass over the fact that many have maintained, with much probability, that this epistle was not written by the apostle James, and is not worthy of the spirit of the apostle."

You do realize that the "many have maintained...that this epistle was not written by the apostle James" he refers to were the Dr's of the Roman Church, not the Protestant? He echo's one stream of Roman opinion of his day and you chide him on it? That's amusing.

Millions of protestants march to different doctrines based upon many different interpretations of Scripture, this is because of Martin Luther's invented doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which itself is un-Biblical.

Space does not allow me to address everything I would like to, so I am addressing these substantive issues. Luther did not invent the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, and it is an entirely Biblical doctrine, of course, I've already addressed these and similar issues in another thread, which no one will address - but rather continue with their baseless allegations based upon nothing.