Martin Luther Was Evil (But Not For Opposing the Catholic Church)

Martin Luther courageously stood against the Pope over the Catholic Church’s corrupt practices and its undue exaltation of its own tradition. His translation of the Bible from its original languages into German, so that it could be read by the common person in his nation, was also a valuable contribution which doubtlessly was spiritually profitable to multitudes.

Martin Luther must still be labeled as evil and a false teacher- since he still did not submit to the authority of the Word of God himself.

The totality of which Martin Luther taught, and the church which he founded, ended up becoming just another expression of ritualism and an overall misrepresentation of God’s grace. This, along with the variety of Reformed churches overall which Luther doubtlessly influenced, became alternative prescriptions for spiritual death in Christ’s name to the spiritual death prescribed by the Catholic Church’s doctrine and practices.

Luther did not understand the nature of saving faith himself. He also is responsible for one of the most subtle, misleading, and consequential twisting of the Bible through the phrase which he popularized “justification by faith alone.”

The Bible indeed teaches salvation by grace through faith- and it puts faith in contrast to working one’s way to God through ritual performance. Yet the Bible also firmly rebukes the concept of justification by faith alone.

It is no wonder that the book which literally, directly rebukes the concept of justification by faith alone (The Book of James) is a book which Luther himself called “an epistle of straw.” Luther didn’t see anything of Christ’s Gospel in James because Luther himself preached a false gospel which does not recognize that James’ epistle and Paul’s epistles are utterly compatible and consistent with each other.

A living faith in Christ establishes God’s authority and works in line with God’s authority in the way that the follow through to a golf swing is part of the swing itself.

Romans 3:31: “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.”

Faith in Christ establishes God’s law. One who is living in sin then is not exercising authentic faith in Jesus Christ. An authentic faith in Christ is living and inseparable from how one walks.

It is all the more amazing that Luther didn’t see James as compatible with Paul’s epistles since the very verse that Luther says opened his eyes was Romans 1:17 where the phrase “The just shall live by faith” is seen.

It seems that Luther also, like the Catholics whom he debated with, didn’t acknowledge that the ritualism of the Catholic Church does not define the works which faith must be exercised by doing. Just read the Book of James to see that James was not prescribing Catholic rituals.

Amazingly though, in spite of much speaking of the Bible being the ultimate authority which no church or church leader supersedes, Martin Luther himself practiced unbiblical Catholic rituals. And that includes Luther as a Lutheran Pastor as well as Luther as a Catholic Priest.

Luther carried unbiblical rituals from the Pope’s church into the church which was named after him (these are common knowledge- yet I’ll have Jimmy include a link to a teaching he put together about this on the Eternal Evangelism site as well as a link for a compilation on the errors of Reformation Theology).

Though Luther was excommunicated, the superstitions of the Catholic Church remained very much in Luther and were very much incorporated into Lutheranism. Martin Luther, as well as John Calvin, was also very heavily influenced by the writings of the Roman Catholic Augustine.

Though people in Reformation churches are often quick to call anyone a Roman Catholic who emphasizes man’s need to cooperate with God’s grace and have a faith that works, it is they themselves who are involved in many rituals originating from the Roman Catholic Church and they themselves who have a theology based on the writings of a Roman Catholic.

Luther not only practiced, but even vehemently defended the practice of infant baptism. He grasped at anything and everything he could think of to defend this superstitious practice- even to the point of arguing that a person having faith is not necessary for them to be baptized properly. He also argued that one does not know for sure that the infants who are baptized do not have faith already. In doing so, Luther sounds like the Jews who opposed Jesus in the Gospels which claimed that the blind man Jesus healed was born blind because of his own sin (see John 9:34).

The Bible rather teaches that baptism is for those with faith in Christ, that faith in Christ is obedient, that faith requires much understanding to exercise, and faith which qualifies for baptism is evident and discernable. Look at the following Scriptures on faith and baptism. Consider whether one who teaches and defends infant baptism could really be submitted to the Bible’s authority.

Mark 16:16: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”

Acts 8:35-37: “Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

Romans 10:16-17: “But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias (Isaiah) saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”

1 Peter 3:21 (I’ll note before I read it that “the like figure” is referring to the salvation from the flood for those on the ark Noah built) : “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ…”

Like the Roman Catholic Church, it is no wonder that the Reformed churches also brutally persecuted the people who saw from Scripture that their infant baptism was invalid and got baptized again as a statement that they were intent on following Jesus under the authority of His Word.

And speaking of religious persecution, Martin Luther did the same to another group which really highlights the hypocrisy of many who polish his grave today.

We live in a time where many are so overly sensitive to antisemitism and have such a broad definition of antisemitism that simply saying that Jews who reject Jesus are under God’s wrath is called antisemitism, simply saying Jews don’t have a right to have their own nation when that involves murdering and stealing from others to get it is called antisemitism, and simply stating the obvious about the international banking cartel running society being filled with Jews is called antisemitism.

It’s not like saying any or all of these things is advocating going out and attacking Jews and burning down their synagogues. But guess who did advocate this? That’s right- Martin Luther indeed advocated not letting Jews have safe travel and he advocated burning down their synagogues. For all of the over-sensitivity out there about antisemitism, there are a small percent of cases where the charge is valid- including the case of Martin Luther.

And yet today, there are churches where Martin Luther is quoted as some hero of the Christian faith where the very same people are lovers of modern Israel who would call someone an antisemite for simply saying that Jews who reject Jesus Christ are cut off from God’s covenant with Abraham and have no right to the land which God promised to Abraham’s seed.

That inconsistency is great hypocrisy; that inconsistency is a blatant double-standard.