Saturday, August 08, 2015

Martin Luther Was Satanic?


Here's one from the world of Shoebat.com: Martin Luther Was Satanic, If He Were Alive Today He Would Be No Different Than Any Of These Sick Heretics Who Encourage Evil And Sin.   As far as I can tell, Shoebat is some sort of Anti-Islam pro-Roman Catholic website.

It appears that much of the material may come from Luther: Exposing the Myth. I've worked through the entirety of the entry.

1. Luther was an antinomian?
Since Luther despised Moses and also despised the Law of God, it was only logical for him, due to his antinomianism, to encourage others to be lawless and wicked as he was. In a word, Luther was nothing short of a spiritual Jezebel and a Balaam to the Christian Church, or even a modern day forerunner of Nicolaitinism. (See Revelation 2:14, 15, 20-23). Here are his words at this point to show his blatant antinomianism and Nicolaitine behaviour: “If you are a preacher of grace, then 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 . . . as long as we are here [in this 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.” (Letter to Melanchthon, August 1, 1521, American Edition, Luther’s Works, vol. 48, pp. 281-82)
Contrarily, the historical record demonstrates Luther was anything but an antinomian.  See also, Luther And The Law: Did Martin Luther Abhor God's Law? (Part One) and Luther And The Law: Did Martin Luther Abhor God's Law? (Part Two). Here's an ironic tidbit- some people think it may have been Luther who actually coined the term, "antinomian." For the "sin boldly" quote, see: Luther: Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong.


2. Luther mistranslated Matthew 3:2?
In addition to this, he speaks against any idea of repentance from sin in his own translation of the Holy Scripture by removing the word for “repent” in Matthew 3:2 and changing it altogether to: “mend” or “do better” which is totally different in meaning to repent. Is this really worthy of entry into the kingdom of heaven? Our Lord Jesus Christ says otherwise. (Matthew 7:21-23).
This one may originally come from Patrick O'Hare's Facts About Luther. O'Hare states, "The errors in Luther's version were not those of ignorance, but were a wilful perversion of the Scriptures to suit his own views. A few examples will suffice to prove our contention. In St. Matthew III, 2, he renders the word, 'repent, or do penance,' by the expression 'mend, or do better.'" Well, Luther didn't translate the Bible into English, so that's the first mistake.   This article explains,
An interesting instance showing that Luther tried to adapt his translation to the growing Christian knowledge and consciousness of his readers is his rendering of such passages as Matthew 3:2; 4:17; Mark 1:15, where he first rendered the Greek metanoeo by Bessert euch (Mend your ways), in order that these texts might not be understood as referring to the satisfactions and penances which the church imposed in the confessional. Later, when the people through his teachings had obtained the correct understanding of confession and repentance, he changed the rendering to "Repent," which is the correct rendering and which he had favored at first. 
The editors of Luther's Works point out,
As to penance itself, the situation was problematic. By 1520 Luther was to reduce the number of sacraments to two, and omit penance because it lacked a divinely instituted visible sign. But this did not mean that he took penance more lightly than before. Rather he was trying to rescue it from some of the difficulties into which it had fallen. The double meaning of the Latin word obscured the vital content behind traditional forms; the Vulgate rendering of Matt. 3:2 et al., poenitentiam agite, could mean either to repent (penitence) or to do penance. In line with the latter meaning, the church in the later Middle Ages had refined the sacrament of penance, so that its material aspect consisted in contrition (genuine remorse for one’s sins), confession (to the priest), and satisfaction (making good, on the priest’s orders, what had been done wrong). Its formal aspect consisted in the absolution given by the priest, while the effective aspect consisted in receiving the forgiveness of sins. In his definitive Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas too had distinguished between the external penance-as-a-sacrament and the internal penance-as-a-virtue, or, in effect, between doing penance and being repentant. While he recognized satisfaction as a “fruit” of the virtue of being repentant, he nevertheless made it an integral “part” of the sacrament of penance, not a matter of the individual’s being, but of the individual’s doing. Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 35: Word and Sacrament I. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, and H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 35, p. 6). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
And also:
The Vulgate translation of metanoeite in Matt. 3:2 is poenitentiam agite. This could mean both the attempt to attain a penitent heart and the fulfilment of the satisfactions imposed by the church upon the penitent. In his Annotations, Erasmus has demonstrated how the word poenitentia came to be applied to the satisfactions and why he considered poenitentiam agite to be an unsatisfactory translation of metanoeite. Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 48: Letters I. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, and H. T. Lehmann, Eds.). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
In a 1540 sermon, Luther states,
But John had been called and his office appointed to this end: to preach, as Luke writes, “a Baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sin” [Luke 3:3] and to proclaim this not to the godless heathen or only to manifest sinners among the Jewish people, but to the whole people of Israel in common. At that time, they alone were the people of God on earth, and God had entrusted His Word to them [alone], Psalm 147 [:19]. It is to those people, when they came out from all the surrounding areas, from cities and the countryside, to flock to him in the wilderness, that he says, “All of you, whoever you are, no matter what your estate or title is, repent” [Matt. 3:2], that is: “Abandon your godless ways and sinful life; turn and mend your ways and prepare the way for the Lord who was promised to you and [who] has now been sent to bring you all grace and salvation—if you want to escape the wrath and judgment of God and have a share in the kingdom of heaven that has now drawn nigh.” Luther, M. (2010). First Sermon at the Baptism of Bernard of Anhalt Matthew 3:1–17. In C. B. Brown (Ed.), J. S. Bruss (Trans.), Luther’s Works: Sermons V (Vol. 58, p. 35). Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House.
Luther's 1545 Bible reads, "und sprach: Tut Buße, das Himmelreich ist nahe herbeigekommen!" The 1545 Bible uses, "Tut Buße" ("repent"). Probably what's going on here is that the O'Hare is functioning with the Latin Vulgate which would have, "Pœnitentiam agite" have something to do with "do penance."


3. Luther said the conscience was akin to Satan?
Luther even dared to call the God-given conscience as even something of Satan himself! Here are his words: “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.” (J. Dollinger, La Reforme et les resultants qu’elle a produits. (Trans. E. Perrot, Paris, Gaume, 1848-49), Vol III, pg. 248)
This was probably taken from Luther: Exposing the Myth. I dealt with this here: Luther: Perform a Big Sin to Quiet Your Conscience. Back in 2010, I could not verify the quote was actually found on page 248 of the book cited (it wasn't there). It's a good example of why simply cutting-and-pasting citations without checking them can be hazardous to your credibility.


4. No Luther hit piece is complete without mentioning the Nazis
This sounds exactly like something the Nazis and the Communists would say! They had their predecessor in none other than Luther even before Hitler or Karl Marx. No wonder the former was so successful in Germany amongst Lutherans and the latter came out of a traitorous German Lutheran background that rebelled against God altogether. In equally a wicked fashion, Luther advocated lying, something that not only goes against the Decalogue (which Luther expressed contempt for), but also against our Lord Jesus Christ, who is not only Truth, but also taught against lies and against the Devil, “the father of liars” (John 8:44).
The Nazis don't have anything to do with Luther's point about the "conscience." The "conscience" quote probably reflects Luther's typical point of  trusting in the work of Christ, who took sin upon himself. If you're a believer, your sin has already been punished and atoned for by the death of Christ. Left in our sins we will face nothing but death and damnation. By Christ’s victory over sin, death, and the world, we stand clothed in His righteousness, the recipients of His grace, no matter what we have done.


5. Luther advocated lying?
Luther, on the other hand, taught otherwise: “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?” (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” (Ibid. p375)
These were probably taken from Luther: Exposing the Myth. I've gone over the first quote here: 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? and the second quote here: 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.

6. Luther was against good works?
This can only be expected of a follower of Satan, not a follower of Christ. Such is Luther. As is typical of Satan, Luther also spoke against doing good works, contrary to what our Lord Jesus Christ taught us (Matthew 5:16). He stated: “It is more important to guard against good works than against sin.” (Trischreden, Wittenberg Edition, Vol VI, p160)
This was probably taken from Luther: Exposing the Myth. I went over this quote here: Luther: It is more important to guard against good works than against sin. The context shows Luther exhorts his readers to beware of sin, but to guard against negating God's promises by seeking to be justified by works.


7. Luther thought marriage was sinful?
Luther was shameful enough to even call marriage as sinful, even though Scripture clearly teaches otherwise: “The matrimonial duty is never performed without sin” (Weimar, Vol.8, p654) Since Luther has inverted good for evil and evil for good, then God clearly pronounces His woes upon him. (Isaiah 5:20-25).
This was probably taken from Luther: Exposing the Myth. I went over this quote here: There is sin in marriage. The context shows Luther is carefully pointing out that sin is not absent from marriage, and that every aspect of human existence is tainted with sin. Sin is transferred through the means of intercourse. All children are born with a sin nature inherited from their parents.


8. Luther was a devil?
Luther clearly shows himself once again not only to be a heretic, but even worse, an antichrist and a devil.
Actually, what's proved by Shoebat's article is that they don't research stuff before they post it.

1 comment:

Levi said...

Love your work. Serious effort should be commended. Really sick of the horse manure getting shoveled out at Shoebat's site.

One irony about it all is that for the all fundie Bible-thumping that Shoebat and his hapless followers go on about, the commandment against false witness seems to be something not worthy of their time to obey. I think the real antinominans might be the ones writing those poorly researched hate-pieces.