Be a Sinner and Sin Boldly

By Walid Shoebat (Shoebat Exclusive)

“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.” (1)

Had this been an instruction of mine, the church would definitely condemn me, but since this is an instruction of someone respected by millions, the moment I will give his name, you might not condemn him, but you would instantly condemn the messenger instead, or better yet, even try to re-interpret the man.

The man who said this is Martin Luther, our Protestant reformer, and since he said it (and not I), many will try to explain it away.

Luther on his death bed

Luther on his death bed

But how can one explain away “Be a sinner and sin boldly,” that “sin does not separate us from God”?

How can we accept a statement like this that does not advocate repentance and turning away from sin?

One theologian, David Clines attempts to clarify our confusion lest we misunderstand the pious Luther:

“Luther here is far from advocating ‘the power of positive sinning’ he is warning from over scrupulousness and charging the young Melanchthon to recognize only genuine sin can be forgiven; he is making a distinction between sin and ‘sin’. (2)

And another writes in Luther’s defense:

“Luther was prone to strong hyperbole. It’s his style.”

And another writes:

“Luther’s point is not to go out and commit multiple amounts of gleeful sin everyday, but rather to believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly despite the sin in our lives.”

So how should I interpret Luther’s troubling statement here?

Well, I don’t.

I simply look at the rest of the evidence to see what Luther really meant. Anyone can find clear statements in which Luther was clearly promoting sin and debauchery:

“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.” (3)

sin-joyofsin

Ok, we might try to explain this away. But how about:

“If the husband is unwilling, there is another who is; if the wife is unwilling, then let the maid come.” (4)

That might sound good for a Saudi Muslim, but a Christian?

sin-caught-with-maid

How about:

“Suppose I should counsel the wife of an impotent man, with his consent, to give herself to another, say her husband’s brother, but to keep this marriage secret and to ascribe the children to the so-called putative father. The question is: Is such a woman in a saved state? I answer, certainly.” (Ibid)

I guess we can be saved regardless if we commit the most horrendous acts of debauchery.

And then this:

“It is not in opposition to the Holy Scriptures for a man to have several wives.”(5)

Isn’t this polygamy? Can I have a harem and still am saved? Maria my wife would kill me.

Bill Paxton and Chloe Sevigny and Ginnifer Goodwin and Jeanne Tripplehorn

Luther then says:

“As to divorce, it is still a debatable question whether it is allowable. For my part I prefer bigamy to it.” (6)

We each have to ask; who is Luther that I should care to interpret his interpretation of Scripture; the Bible should be sufficient without Luther, shouldn’t it?

The question isn’t Luther’s statements, but why so many theologians defend him, especially that there are countless obvious immoral statements in his writings? I gave only three references from some of Luther’s defenders (there are hundreds) who re-interpret Luther’s statements. Many are simply Luther’s sycophants.

We cannot avoid that Scripture has been interpreted in the first century up to the sixteenth and after, without Luther. Why then do we insist on erecting websites and writing books in defense of Luther?

I had lost respect for Luther the day I learned he was an anti-Semite. He wrote regarding the Jews:

“My advice, as I said earlier, is: First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire…Second, that all their books—-their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bible—-be taken from them, not leaving them one leaf, and that these be preserved for those who may be converted … Third, that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country…Fourth, that they be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. For we cannot with a good conscience listen to this or tolerate it…The rulers must act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set in proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them. If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs.” (7)

This sounds more like the works of the Muslim Al-Ghazali rather then a true Christian. Al-Ghazali wrote:

“Jews, Christians, and Majians must pay the jizya [poll tax on non-Muslims]…on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on the protruberant bone beneath his ear [i.e., the mandible]… They are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church bells…their houses may not be higher than the Muslim’s, no matter how low that is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddle [-work] is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public] baths…[dhimmis] must hold their tongue…” (8)

How can someone re-interpret Luther here without sanctioning Al-Ghazali?

Whenever I brought up all the negatives of Luther, especially his anti-Semitism, the response was that these were residues he had picked up from his background in the Catholic Church. But whenever we find all the good about Luther (his genius in translating Scripture) it was because he revolted against the Catholic Church.

But it was from the God of the Jews—-whom Luther hated His people–that was the origin of our faith.

I concluded that I didn’t need the Hitler-like speech with an Islamic tone anti-Semite Luther to teach me issues on faith, which to me having come from the Middle East were simple; tested faith is faith indeed.

By now, you might think “why should I care” “I do not follow Luther”, or you might object, “do not throw the baby with the bathwater”.

But the two, Martin Luther and the Protestant, regardless if he was called evangelical, Messianic, Charismatic or whatever, they are inseparable from Luther’s teachings. It was Luther who coined our two most important theological principles; Sola-Fide and Sola-Scriptura. Dare any of us argue these?

Throughout the years, I asked tons of questions to my mentors, that if we were so intertwined to Luther, the other issue for me was; does my salvation depend on my acceptance or rejection of Luther or my acceptance or rejection of Jesus?

And how could we accept such analogy “do not throw the baby out with the bathwater”, especially that when such a slogan comes from liberals defending Darwin? It was that freak of nature Darwin who penned racist remarks that the “negro” was still evolving?

While the liberal defends Darwin’s racism by countering that we need not throw the baby (evolution theory) out with the bathwater (Darwin’s racism), which Protestants rebuke such an analogy; nevertheless, Protestants make the same arguments in defending Luther.

And we always argue that Protestants are not liberal.

One would counter this argument that while Darwin’s theory was all “bath water,” Luther’s is not.

Indeed, but the bathwater is drowning once we examine the volumes of statements made by Luther from promoting adultery to clear blasphemies.

I hated reading Luther’s interpretations; to me they were the tradition of men. He had convoluted ideas that stemmed from his hatred of Jews, works, and obedience to God. He introduced easy believism and promoted sin. To Luther the matrimonial act is:

“a sin differing in nothing from adultery and fornication.” (9)

What then is the purpose of marriage for Luther you may ask? Luther affirms that it’s simply to satisfy one’s sexual cravings:

“The body asks for a woman and must have it”

“To marry is a remedy for fornication.” (10)

Even when it comes to Christ, Luther blasphemed Him:

“Christ committed adultery first of all with the women at the well about whom St. John tell’s us. Was not everybody about Him saying: ‘Whatever has He been doing with her?’ Secondly, with Mary Magdalen, and thirdly with the women taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus even, Christ who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.” (11)

Luther was a liberal. If Luther was here today, he would probably have written The Da Vinci Code. Even when it came to Christ, Luther himself would not throw Jesus with the non-existing bathwater:

“It does not matter how Christ behaved—what He taught is all that matters.” (12)

Sure, I could understand it, if such statements came from some lunatic Nazi, but to be the Moses of the Protestant movement who had brought us all crossing the Red Sea to flee the bondage of the Pharaoh who was the Pope, was too much to bear.

I could understand that Muhammad married A’isha when she was six, sure that was some sinner, but for that pedophile to be a prophet?

Can one accept a Bible interpretation by an anti-Semite madman?

Also, according to Jesus the main instruction He gave us to recognize a true believer was the “fruits of the spirit”. Jesus clearly said that we shall “know them by their fruit”.

Had tyrants written the volumes of Luther’s works, can we expect to follow the Bible According to Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, or Mussolini?

How could it matter not what one feels about Luther, all Protestant denominations adhere in someway or the other to Luther’s interpretations using sola scriptura and sola fide which the evangelical, the messianic, charismatic … no matter what species of Protestant, this is the most major doctrine, which without, you become an anathema.

I must then say that Sola Fide is not Luther’s discovery, it was in fact used all along before him.

To do away with Luther is to have to ignore all Protestant Bible interpretations from the sixteenth century onward and only read commentaries and interpretations from the first century to the fifteenth before Luther showed up at the doorstep challenging Pharaoh to “let my people go”.

Some might argue, “let the one with no sin cast the first stone”.

But we are not speaking of sin, but heresy and blasphemy of the worst kind.

Why not then read the old aged wine; Polycarp, Tertullian, Julius Africanus, Ignatius, Origen, Clement, Jerome, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil and Ambrose instead of Luther?

And so what if these were considered Catholic? Can anyone show me these men’s blasphemies? I know that the Catholic Church of today with all its corruption is not the Catholic Church of yesteryears, but I also see many great Catholics who are fighting a good fight. Do I alienate these just because Luther said so?

And so what if some writers were Protestant; can anyone show me the blasphemies of C.S. Lewis?

And so what if I read the Deuterocanonical books? Should I not read these because Luther decided to take them out?

Prior to Luther, all Christians read these as the Word of God.

What about the Didache? I read this wonderful work, which is the oldest Christian writing after the New Testament. From it I saw how the first Christians conducted their practices and there are many things that have been excluded as a result of Luther and Zwingli. And who is Zwingli anyway that I must obey him? For how long will man elevate man instead of Christ?

And why can’t I use the Didache as a support document with Biblical texts to understand more about 1st Century Christianity?

Must we as Christians be strict Sola Scripturist, to the point that we cannot learn from the ancients on how they viewed Scripture?

Most Evangelicals steer clear of Patristic study since they exercise a strict “Sola Scriptura” that was acquired from Luther. But this I fear is to our detriment in the long run, we should be interested in how those Christians closest to the apostles understood the teaching of the apostles. Isn’t that the reason Evangelicals are attracted the Messianics?

And if Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, why can’t I nail 95 of Luther’s blasphemies on my blog?

REFERENCES
1) Letter to Melanchthon, August 1, 1521, American Edition, Luther’s Works, vol. 48, pp. 281-82. Von Loewenich Walther, Martin Luther: The Man and His Work, P.p. 204. Placher William Carl The Domestication of Transcendence: How Modern Thinking about God Went Wrong, P.p. 89. Bayne Peter Martin Luther, His Life and Work, Volume 2, P.p. 156-157.

(2) Clines David J. A On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays 1967-1998, P.p. 560-561

(3) J. Dollinger, La Reforme et les resultants qu’elle a produits. (Trans. E. Perrot, Paris, Gaume, 1848-49), Vol III, pg. 248*.

(4) Luther, On Married Life

(5) From De Wette, Vol. 2, p. 459

(6) From “On Marriage

(7) Luther, On The Jews And Their Lies

(8) See 53 Al-Ghazali (d. 1111). Kitab al-Wagiz fi fiqh madhab al-imam al-Safi’i, Beirut, 1979, pp. 186, 190-91; 199-200; 202-203. [English translation by Dr. Michael Schub.].

(9) Weimar, Vol 8. Pg. 654. Grisar, “Luther”, vol. iv, pg. 145.

(10) Grisar, “Luther”, vol. iv, pg. 145. Weimar, Vol 8. Pg. 654.

(11) Trishreden, Weimer Edition, Vol. 2, Pg. 107. – What a great blasphemy from a man who is regarded as “great reformer”

(12) Erlangen Vol. 29, Pg. 126

print

, ,

  • Pingback: Be a Sinner and Sin Boldly | Conservative Blogs Central()

  • The deniers come in… three… two… one…

  • Brian Murphy

    Martin Luther is not a member of the Catholic church; he is most likely excommunicated as he would not obey the Pope or the Congregation for the doctrine of the true faith, so I would not believe anything that Luther said; he caused wars and deaths of thousands of Christians as the breakaway Protestants fought with the Catholics in Europe

    • Cynthia Banks

      Brian were there no truths from Luther? Was the church, not practicing, many false doctrines? They were both wrong. Since when can we buy trinkets to cover our sins. Since when do we pray to Mary, rather than to the Father? Why make graven images to bow down and worship it? Is not our God a jealous God and he will not share his glory with any other? Are we told to worship him and him only? Where in scripture do we find the Apostle’s kissing Peter’s ring. These were all manifestations of the Kings of this world. The church was copying their evil ways and it had to stop. We can not mix our faith with false religions and Baby Baal worship. No where was Christmas or Easter celebrated. Let’s the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Let’s quit accusing one and excusing the other for like error. If the blind lead the blind will they not both fall in ditch?

      • shoebat

        Your comment is typical Cynthia, the moment one says anything positive about Catholics or writes something negative about Luther, the first thing that happens is that the other side machine guns all the problems with Catholics, while they completely ignored the main topic.

        Is this how we iron out our differences?

        Machine gun comments is exactly what most do . They bring the issues of Mariology, Prayer to Saints, Icons, Statues, works and the killing of Christians throughout history by the Catholic church. Now if Catholics machine gun back, what have we accomplished? Why not just pick one issue at a time. You ask “where there no truths from Luther”? When Luther says that “Jesus committed adultery” is there anything I should glean from him? Would you buy a book by any Christian writer who says that Jesus had sex? You won’t. But the question is: why do you defend Luther while machine gun talking points about the Catholic Church? Now I know that the Catholic Church has a lot of problems, but name me the church that doesn’t? However, has the Catholic Church ever made outlandish statements like Luther? Never. Find me where in the Catholic Church they permit adultery, polygamy, fornicating with the maid, concubines … like Luther did?

  • michelletherese

    Didn’t Luther write about his farting contests with the devil?

  • yahshua love’s you

    No wonder why Adolf Hitler loved martin luther’s book’s

  • Marcos Filipe Guerra

    “For when we were in the flesh, the evil passions which came into being through the law were working in our bodies to give the fruit of death.
    But now we are free from the law, having been made dead to that which had power over us; so that we are servants in the new way of the spirit, not in the old way of the letter.
    What then is to be said? is the law sin? in no way. But I would not have had knowledge of sin but for the law: for I would not have been conscious of desire if the law had not said, You may not have a desire for what is another’s.”

    Romans 7:5-7 (Basic English)

    “Everyone who is a sinner goes against the law, for sin is going against the law.
    And you have knowledge that he came to take away sin: and in him there is no sin.
    Anyone who is in him does no sin; anyone who is a sinner has not seen him and has no knowledge of him.
    My little children, let no man take you out of the true way: he who does righteousness is upright, even as he is upright;
    The sinner is a child of the Evil One; for the Evil One has been a sinner from the first. And the Son of God was seen on earth so that he might put an end to the works of the Evil One.”

    1 John 3:4-8 (Basic English)

  • Vernon

    Walid,

    You are totally destroying how I view western Christianity…Thank You!

    • shoebat

      Hardly, I would still say read Lewis and Chesterton. The West provided monumental writings for Christianity, even more than the East.

      • Vernon

        Yes of course! I enjoy CS Lewis especially. What I mean is, concerning Christianity, much of the history and prophecy which I have been taught over the years is so western-centric. Luther was considered a hero to the western church after his stand against the catholic church. He was always held in high regard. I’ve never read any of his works, but I (falsely) assumed that a man oft spoken of in such high regard, must surely have been a paragon of Christian virtue and integrity. The excerpts you posted from his writings has left me in total shock.

        • Cynthia Banks

          As Ray, pointed out to me, we cannot be sure that it was Luther who spoke those words against the Jews, etc. But rather the Catholic Church, who was working to destroy the reformation. Just as they have made falsehoods against Walid trying to silence him, they did to Luther. But why would I want to jump from one controlling, lying manipulating religion into another. No more religions, it is a personal relationship, just as Abraham, Mose, Daniel had. We can have today. We don’t need the middle man, who has his golden minerets….he is preaching a false gospel for filthy lucre. Please don’t anyone fall for this foolish reconciliation ploy, it is a trap. Leading to the one world religion.

          • Vernon

            Cynthia, I certainly admire your zeal – I wish we all had such passion in and for the faith of Jesus Christ. But if we cannot be sure – as you say – that Luther said these words, then how can we be any more confident that the catholic church was responsible? It is easy to see today that the catholic church is considerably off doctrinally. There’s no argument there. But just as institutions can shipwreck faith, so can men of great influence do the same, if they have strayed considerably from sound doctrine. If indeed Luther said these things, of what regard should we hold the reformation, if what the catholic church could not accomplish from within, Luther accomplished from without? False doctrine is false doctrine either way. Walid has simply called attention to excerpts of false teachings, purported to be uttered by Luther, in the same manner as Luther did against the catholic church in his time. Unfortunately, Luther is now dead and so therefore cannot defend himself of these comments ascribed to him against the Jews; so either to defend him or judge him, I am absolved of both, because he will stand before the Lord to give an account. But no worries, I personally am not prepared to reconcile (and I use the word loosely) with any church body that teaches false doctrine – catholic or otherwise. And if the catholic church is guilty. I certainly agree and stand with you in your position against it But just one other thing: What is this one world religion that you mentioned?

  • Stephen Dalton

    As a former Lutheran, thanks for telling the truth about this psychotic psychopath. The Lutheran Churches has done a centuries old cover up of the real Luther. When I was a Lutheran, I never heard the story about the real Luther. It was only after I read some stuff independently that I discovered the real Luther of history, rather than the one of Protestant myth.

  • richinnameonly

    As I was reading this, a thought was forming in my mind about Luther, then bingo, it was written right there. Luther was a liberal. He reminds me of liberals today who’s minds just windmill through everything, looking for something to destroy. They throw a lot of mud up on the wall and, unfortunately, some of it sticks.

  • Guest

    Dr. Gene Scott, was an Assemblies of God pastor who quoted Luther often and agreed, with him. Luther was a tormented man, in many ways. He did not obviously receive the grace of God that was so freely given, so he had to go over the top. Luther could not accept, that it is no longer I that sin, but sin the

    • shoebat

      But this “troubled man” was the Moses of the reformation. What other things do we not know about “reformations”?

  • Cynthia Banks

    Dr. Gene Scott, was an Assemblies of God pastor who quoted Luther often and agreed, with him. Luther was a tormented man, in many ways. He did not obviously receive the grace of God that was so freely given, so he had to go over the top. Luther could not accept, that it was no longer he that sin, but sin that dwelleth in him the flesh warring against the Spirit. He couldn’t fight the good fight of faith, and know that the work was completed and he needed to declare it his own. Yes, we will still sin, but we have an advocate with the Father.
    Although the reformation was going to happen, I have no respect for this man. But it doesn’t negate the false teaching he and the church were practicing at the time. We need to stop comparing one evil with another and calling it a wash. It is not.
    His hatred for the Jews was despicable and without cause. The early church was all Jews, how blind could this man be. They desired to keep the feasts and holy days, in rememberance of the Lord, just as we keep communion which goes all the way back to the Exodus.
    When will the church quit throwing out the baby with the bath water.

    • shoebat

      Cynthia, Would you say “don’t throw the baby with the bath water” when it comes to Judas Iscariot? Its a Yes or No answer. So what say you?

      • Cynthia Banks

        It appears I have wasted my time being honest.  You go ahead promote reconciliation with the Catholic Church, and I will say be damned all man made religions.  Paul, Peter John didn’t have religion, they had a relationship.  I am capable of admitting when I am in error.  Too bad it is so one sided.  My fear is you are seeking another pompous religion to replace the one you left.  Peter didn’t go to Rome.  There is no Roman Catholic Church, there is a Roman Catholic Government and God will  not be mocked.  He does not mix governments and religions and then put an earthly man in charge.  Jesus is both Lord and God and I must serve him and him only. Warmest Regards,
        Cindy Banks

        • Lidia

          Cynthia, you are right, the Roman Empire was terrible, especially how they treated other people. Why would we put the name Roman in front of God’s church. You have a good point. This is why I never say that I’m a Roman Catholic, I just say that I’m a Catholic. See, it’s not all one sided.

          • Cynthia Banks

            Lidia are you a Catholic? If so, why?

          • Lidia

            Cindy, I went to all different kinds of churches just because I was curious and adventurous. I went to a Lutheran Church, Episcopal Church, Apostolic Church, United Church of Christ, and Baptist. During my college years, I went to some non-denominational church with my friends. But in the end, I ended up back to the Catholic Church. Why? I believe God is in all the Christian churches. I just feel God’s presence more in the Catholic Church. This is my personal experience. Everybody has their own personal experiences. Because of my Christian adventure, I come to learn a lot about Christians as a whole. We do have a lot in common. I guess, I am a very open minded person.

        • Ray

          Cynthia, I think you should read two books. One is free for downloading. Everything is documented. It’s called “The Vatican Assassins” by Eric Jon Phelps. He has spent a lifetime researching this, much more than Walid has. I respect Walid’s expertise on Islam and what’s happening today. Walid is an expert on Islam but maybe not so much on reformation history and the Jesuits. (Sorry Walid, I don’t like to criticise here but the Jesuits are the original KGB, CIA rolled into one)
          The other book is “50 years in the Church of Rome” by Charles Chiniquy – Amazon . It explains the Abraham Lincoln Assassination as a side story. You can not tell me this book is non factual by saying that the Catholic Church rejects this man. Of course the masters of disinformation would. What happened then, matches what is happening today. It’s like what Islam and our media do to Walid by saying that he never was a Palestinian terrorist.
          If what’s in these books is true, Martin Luther never wrote most of what’s in here. The purpose of the Jesuits was to overturn the reformation using any means – the means justifies the end. Wars in Europe were caused by the Catholic states trying to crush Protestantism.

          • Cynthia Banks

            Ray, I hope you receive this response. For some reason, I now cannot respond by clicking Comment to Ray.  I cannot comment to anyone commenting to me for that matter.  Thanks for the recommendations. I will definitely download the first book to my Kindle tonight.  I also love Walid and his teachings and exposes’ on Islam.  It has been very enlightening.  But when it comes to the Catholic Church, I cannot agree with his positions.  There are so many who have supported him over the years, who have a problem with this.  I would love to see him do some open debates on this one.  For me I know there are believers in every church.  The Lord knows his own and calls them.  Some he leaves in those church, as a testimony to his name others he calls out, but one thing for sure, they always show love….You’ll know them by their fruits. Warmest Regards,
            Cindy Banks

          • Ray

            Cindy, sorry I have taken so long. I found my original email which gave me this book some time ago. I assumed it was a download. Actually it was a PDF attachment from a friend. I will contact him to see if he knows more. I do see it as a CD with the 13 supporting books as well for $40. I would need your email to send my copy.

          • Cynthia Banks

            Worry not Ray, I found Eric Phelps website last night and downloaded the PDF for $24.95. He also has videos on Youtube, but the reading is more valuable. I also am reading Chiniquy this morning. Quite good.

          • Cynthia Banks

            Ray, I can’t find a free version of  “The Vatican Assassins” by Eric Jon Phelps, was that an error on my part.  I got the other book, but this one is $682.00 on Amazon.  And yes I am well aware of who the Jesuits are.  And they are not the good guys. Warmest Regards,
            Cindy Banks

          • Cynthia Banks

            Ray, I feel terrible if Luther was accused writing things which were actually a setup of the Catholic Church. I know he was tormented terribly, trying to attain perfection and never being able to reach it. All false religions, trap followers with this lie. I am perfect because Christ is perfect, and he is working his goodness through me, in spite of me. Paul says, Rom 7:14 For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am fleshly, having been sold under sin.
            Rom 7:15 For what I work out, I do not know. For what I do not will, this I do. But what I hate, this I do.
            Rom 7:16 But if I do what I do not will, I agree with the Law, that it is good.
            Rom 7:17 But now I no longer work it out, but the sin dwelling in me.
            Rom 7:18 For I know that in me, that is in my flesh, dwells no good. For to will is present to me, but to work out the good I do not find.
            Rom 7:19 For what good I desire, I do not do. But the evil I do not desire, this I do.
            Rom 7:20 But if I do what I do not desire, it is no longer I working it out, but the sin dwelling in me.
            Rom 7:21 I find then the law, when I desire to do the right, that evil is present with me.
            Rom 7:22 For I delight in the Law of God according to the inward man;
            Rom 7:23 but I see another law in my members having warred against the law of my mind, and taking me captive by the law of sin being in my members.
            Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
            Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then I myself with the mind truly serve the Law of God, and with the flesh the law of sin.
            Unfortunately, there are many who cannot receive the good news, that whom the Son sets free are free indeed.
            Thanks so much for commenting to me, and sharing some good writings. I am praying Walid will see, the last thing to do is to leave Islam and then join the Catholic reconciliation movement. Would you please agree in prayer with me?

          • Cynthia Banks

            As you say, the media is persecuting Walid, just as they
            did Luther, and instead of Walid realizing that millions of millions are not all in error, there was a reason for the Protestant reformation and it wasn’t just Luther involved in it. There were many who were being presecuted and killed, he wants us to join in a false reconciliation. Anyone who takes part in the peace deal, on May 24th, that the Pope is involved with, is not in our Father’s will. Cursed is anyone who gives up land for peace. And When John Kerry a Catholic is again ready to sellout Israel, it is clear we are on the wrong side of history, and America will pay a huge price. A Catholic accusing Israel of an Apartheid State, what a absolute joke…..while he promotes abortion, and the impotent church does nothing.

          • shoebat

            Strange, I always fought Catholics who are anti-Israel. If you notice today most of my posts are regarding standing with Israel. So why are we discussing this?

          • shoebat

            Cynthia, I had though that what is crucial is simply to be a Christian. I never thought it was so important to prove or disprove Luther. I am saved through Jesus and not Luther. So why are you now so defensive of Luther?

            We blame the mormons and say “forget Joseph Smith” and “follow Jesus”. But they refuse. Why, it is because Joseph Smith is their Moses.

            Now, someone is following Luther here and its not me.

            Who is now deviating from the main topic? I say lets follow Jesus and forget Luther, and if you want to condemn me for picking on Luther, just look at the time you devote on picking on the Popes.

            I have no problem with picking on the Popes, but please provide quotes as I do. In other words, do some homework.

            But I am still not sure as to why you bring up the Popes and the Vatican. As I said, I had exposed what happens in the Vatican.

            Or is it that you want to paint me with a certain brush?

          • Cynthia Banks

            I agree, I didn’t bring Luther your blog did. I am not a Lutheran, never was. But I will not forget that Luther and others started the reformation, that set so many free of the dogmas of the Catholic Church. I will not throw out the baby with the bath water, He may not have been perfect, but he moved in the light he had at the time. And he saw more than you or can possibly imagine. And that I am reading some great books and dessertations, it appears he has been falsely accused by the church and literally set up, so that they could try to destroy reformation.
            But again the reformation wasn’t one man.

          • Cynthia Banks

            Walid, . Mormons are not Christians. They believe Satan and Jesus are brothers, co-equals and as much as they like to use Jesus’s name, they don’t know him and they know very little about, just like the Catholics the bible wasn’t good enough so they made up their own books. I know I live in Mormon country, My sister is a Mormon, God help her, another silly woman led astray, thinking her husband is going to call her secret name and raise her from dead. You keep adding one more topic of conversation, this time Mormons. So this is where my comments end and goodbye follows, because my God Is not the author of confusion. You don’t respond to my actual comments and certainly aren’t bringing peace and wisdom to the table.

          • shoebat

            Ray, its easy to instruct and say read this book and that, but it is more difficult to deal with the quotes and correct them proving beyond doubt that these were forgeries. What is a forgery is your reference to read the works of Phelps. Here is what Phelps had to say that is so factually erroneous:

            “Islam was created by the evil Roman Catholic Church !! so the Pope can kill all the true Christians and Jews. The Quran was a doctrine from the Roman Empire brought to muhammed by North African augustinian monks. During the Second Vatican Council, Dr. Rivera was taken deep beneath the Vatican to the Secret Archives, where all the history of the world for the past 2000 years is stored.”

            And to prove that this is simply untrue, here is my challenge. Give me on reputable historian who would agree with the remark by Phelps above and I would recant everything. Do it not, then forever hold your peace. Everyone knows that Revera was a crook who was caught and prosecuted and everyone knows that there is no evidence whatsoever that Muhammad brought his doctrine from North African augustinian monks.

            Now, I have no time to search a miraj, you either start doing your homework or be silent.

      • Cynthia Banks

        Walid, Judas Iscariot, is not Martin Luther, Luther may have made error, he did not betray our Lord, and set him up for crucifixion, but was rather exposing the false teachings within the catholic church, How do you make such leap? And to spend into the wee hours of the morning to find that It may not have been all Luther’s writings, but actually forgeries he did not write, sickens me even more. That is why I don’t through out the baby with the bath water, because there is always truth we might have missed.
        Now you’re real topic is reconciliation of the Protestants and Catholics, and that requires, complete and ultimate truth, not white washing centuries of history. Forgive me Walid, I cannot follow your reasoning.

        • shoebat

          Cynthia, when someone shows a quote with reference is different from someone who claims these references as “forgeries”. Also, I did not compare Luther with Judas. I had made the case that Luther was not simply a “sinner” but a “blasphemer”. This seems to upset you, but if I am wrong, please correct. I am open for correction, but not without proof.

          I still ask: do we throw Judas with the bath water? Its a Yes or No?

          Here is why I ask: The use “do not throw the baby with the bath water” is not Scripture, but the sayings of men.

          Also, reconciliation is when we confess our sins and not point to the others, let them confess their own sin.

          I say this because you had posted a comment that “Catholics need to confess their errors”.

          And I ask, what are our errors? Can you confess them?

          Isn’t this what Jesus wanted us to do? To look at the log in our eye before we point the spec in our brother’s?

          Contemplate before you reply.

  • momprayn

    I guess I’m among the fortunate minority of “Protestants” that wasn’t raised in the way depicted here with Walid’s mentors & experiences – not in any of the “mainline” ones. It was “nondenominational” that focused on just trying to obey the Scriptures as close as we could like the early church. They made mistakes too, as I learned much later in life. But I’ll credit them with great Bible studies, Sunday schools – closest to the meanings and actually trying to live their lives accordingly I have found – after visiting and finding out about all the others. So I didn’t pay any attention to his or any other man’s teachings and just researched myself. I think that’s the best way.

    I also noticed they would recommend that everyone do this – even about what THEY taught. I haven’t heard that from most ministers. If they really want you to know the real Truth & are humble as they should be, they will recommend that.

    The people in NT would check for themselves what the apostles were preaching and admonishes us to study and be ready to give good reasons why we believe, and so should we.

    “These were more fair-minded….in that they received the Word with all
    readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things
    were so.” Acts 17:11

    Unfortunately, people are people and super bad at…..”balance”, among other vices. They let themselves get caught up in ego/arrogance, not really trusting God/Holy Spirit to handle bringing people to Christ, etc. Once they have decided they “know”, they close their minds. So often I’ve found that I think I know & actually taught it but when rechecked, I saw another way of taking it that I misinterpreted and changes a lot. It can be just one little word. We are prone to see what we want to see and what our preconceived notions are and you have to be be super careful and try to stay open to other views. They all can’t be “right” – only one.

    I wonder how many really wonder why other “faiths” believe what they do and then go about checking it out and see if they could be wrong after all? Apparently not many – and that’s why we have all our denominations and divisions – which Christ prayed against. If it’s correct, it will withstand all scrutiny and will agree with ALL other scriptures on that subject, since we believe all Scripture is inspired of God. Forget any “traditions of men”, etc. no matter how “good”, educated, respected they may seem to you.

    “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God (Believer) may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:16,17

  • Pingback: Martin Luther | oogenhand()

  • Kkdgrace

    This is all I will say on the subject…I think : ). Initially, when articles appeared on this site that *seemed* to bash Protestantism while promoting the Catholic Church, I was initially upset and dismayed…especially after reading comments that contained SO much dissension, confrontation, and even outright hostility. I personally don’t think I can ever get passed the most recent church doctrines concerning Mary- her “assumption” into heaven, her immaculate conception, et all, in order to accept Roman Catholicism. What I WILL admit to is the fact that, instead of outright denouncing the writings (AND this site, as some seem to have done)…I have been really spurred into an ongoing investigation- much, much deeper than ever before in my Christian life- of the history of the Church, the writings of the early Church Fathers, and the practice of the Faith in light of those early writings. This is causing me to examine my beliefs, especially in light of all that I’m learning. I have found a wealth of material- snippets of which I had heard previously and simply accepted on faith, not bothering to delve deeper into the context of the writings nor the social and cultural upheavals, questions,& concerns taking place at the time they were written. This has kinda led me into a much deeper investigation of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. I’m very fascinated with what I’m learning and have listened to several Orthodox debates regarding Protestantism and Orthodoxy (and Roman Catholicism). I still feel “nervous” when it comes to the practice of the veneration of saints, use of icons, and the prayers to the saints and to Mary- especially after having been “soaked” in Protestant belief for over 50 years (and even that has undergone some transformation as I have been exposed to more in depth study throughout the years)- but I believe it is worth my while to continue in my investigation. I have found that I’m attracted to Orthodoxy, if only for the deep reverence that seems to infuse the faith. You just don’t find that sense of reverence or that sense of the unknowable awesomeness of God in most of today’s Protestant church… And that has been a particular area of despair for me. I don’t know what my final “conclusions” shall be…but I am in prayer for the Lord’s leading and guidance in this matter. I SO do not want to be deceived nor to be led astray!!

    • shoebat

      Kkdgrace, when I first began to investigate seeking the truth, I was Muslim, then the truth led me to become Christian. This happened from the overwhelming evidence in Scripture. Then I entered the Church to only be molded to think on many aspects to what they said was biblical when truth was it was the tradition of men. But the journey of truth seekers doesn’t end when we first believe. It continues until we die, always refining and molding to the ways of God and not of man. Therefore, always keep in mind one thing, Christ said “by their fruits you shall know them”. The key then is history. Which Christians produced fruit? Which Christians were slandered the most? Which Christians chose to die for their faith? Which Christians fought heresy? Which Christians stood against tyranny with truth in hand and sword in the other defending Christian civilization? Which Christians who had the courage of David, Abraham, Moses, Elijah and Gideon? It is these whom you should seek and not what you see today, in a church that is lazy and is falling away. We must always keep oil in our lamps. We must be the servants who took the talents and multiplied them. Keep on the marathon and do not stop.

      • Kkdgrace

        So true. Something that really “struck” me…and not something to which I had ever given much, having been raised in the tradition of “Sola Scriptura”- is the fact that although Protestants often decry “traditions”, it is in the New Testament that we see much of the tradition of the very early church- first oral, then written, then canonized. I don’t think we can divorce their tradition with our written New Testament. Does this make any sense? (I so often become convoluted when trying to express myself). I don’t know why I never saw it that way before- probably because I’ve been stuck in a paradigm that has been completely hostile to “the traditions of men”….and not fully understanding what that meant in this particular case. Additionally, I now see more clearly that much- especially in terms of interpretation of these early writings- might be better expounded upon/explained by those whose ancient faith tradition initially held to and subsequently decided what is consistent with the faith vs what isn’t. This whole journey has been a bit of an “eye opener” for me….and I feel foolish and stubborn for not giving it the least consideration previously. In any case, as “controversial” as these topics have been, I believe that they are good for ALL of us…especially if they cause us to examine long-held beliefs….most of which we hold without question.

        • Kkdgrace

          Second line should be “much thought” . Not so very good with editing skills : (

  • Lidia

    Walid, I think you should rename your blog, Catholics vs. Protestants. Despite are differences, which there are many (according to these comments here and elsewhere), we will come together one day. We will both share a common enemy (or enemies).

  • I am not a Lutheran. I am not even a Protestant (and am I also not a Catholic).

    I do find Luther’s anti-Semitic stance regrettable (as I do Paul’s wish that the Judaizers would castrate themselves). It is clearly controversial and from this distance (in time), rather inexplicable. However, because I have not walked in their shoes I rest in the sure knowledge that God who knows us and our circumstances better than we know ourselves, will be the Judge of all on the day of Judgement.

    I am nevertheless impressed by the bold stand these men took for the Faith against the blatant and sickening corruption perpetrated by the enemies of the cross of Christ of their day – I am furthermore convinced that the grace of God which they so boldly proclaimed will stand them in good stead on the day of Judgement, and that their respective testimonies of Faith will not go unrewarded.

    With regard to Luther’s controversial encouragement to “sin boldly”:

    Clearly Luther understood what Paul was trying to explain in his letter to the Romans, namely that “the Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” (Romans 5:20). Just as sin ruled over all people and brought them to death, now God’s wonderful grace rules instead, resulting in our righteous standing with God and resulting in eternal life through Jesus Christ (Romans 5:21). In other words, as it was through one offense for all mankind for condemnation, thus also it is through one just award for all mankind for justifying of life. For even as, through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners, thus also, through the obedience of the One, the many shall be constituted righteous (Romans 5:18,19). This passage of scripture brings into view two persons, two acts, and two results that affect the entire human race. Adam’s disobedience and its race-wide, life-destroying result presents a dark and distressing situation. The obedience of Jesus Christ and its life-giving result is bright and glorious.

    However, Paul and Luther seem to provide a rather different answer to his subsequent rhetorical question: “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?” Paul’s advice: “Certainly not!” Luther’s answer to this question seems to be: “go and sin boldly!”

    If Luther’s advice is a simplistic encouragement to commit sin because grace supposedly gives us some kind of ‘indulgence’, then he would be guilty of promoting the same despicable practices of his adversaries which he so vehemently opposed. If Luther’s intention was to encourage sin so that grace may abound, then certainly we should heed Paul and not Luther.

    However, when considered against the context of his life and works, it seems to me that the point Luther was making was that in the boldness of our confidence in the Grace of God lies the roots of Faith. This Grace being the consequence of the cross of Christ. I believe Luther was on to something profound. Perhaps his choice of words was poor in that it can be misconstrued to think he was encouraging sin. Maybe he got a bit carried away by the passion of his absolute conviction regarding the sufficiency of the completed work of the cross. If he really meant that we should go out and commit sin, then obviously his point should be rejected. But I do not believe that to be the case.

    Consider the full context:

    “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, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world…Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins by so great a Lamb is too small?”

    This is very much in line with Paul’s reckoning himself to be “the greatest sinner of all”. Was Paul just delusional when he made this claim, or was it perhaps because he was the bearer of “a true and not a fictitious sin”? Clearly his heart-rending cry: “oh wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death!?” is that of a man who is truly aware of the hopelessness of his own condition.

    Paul had no hope for himself – the only option left to him was Christ: “thanks be to God who delivers me through Jesus Christ our lord! (Romans 7:25)”.

    Clearly this is the point Luther was trying to make. Unless you bear true sin – and therefore the absolute conviction of your hopeless condition – you would still have hope in yourself (that is, in your own ability to overcome sin).

    Christ came for sinners. To save the lost.

    It should therefore be no surprise that the 1st and 2nd century church was made up of former drunkards, adulterers, thieves, murderers, liars, idolaters, and sinners of every kind. About the early Church K. Holl makes the following comment (about a certain Celsus’ objections regarding Christianity): “Every other religion has some regard for itself, and admits only the respectable, cultivated, irreproachable people into its fellowship; but Christianity runs after the riffraff of the streets. As if it were positively a bad thing to have committed no sin, or as if God were a robber chief who gathered criminals around him!” (K. Holl Urchristentum und Religionsgeschilte – 1925). Why was it that the Gospel found such an eager audience among the riffraff of society? Because they were bearers of real sin – this world had given up on them and to them this world offered no more hope. When the Gospel was presented to them they gladly received it and became new creatures (2 Cor. 5:17).

    The crux of Luther’s statement is found in the middle of the sentence: “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… Christ’s victory over sin means that His grace is sufficient to cover our sins. We should no longer cower before the prospect of an angry God. Instead, we should rejoice that the cross of Christ dealt with it all. “Where sin abounded, grace abounded even more” (Rom.5:20). Because His eternal purpose was carried out in Christ Jesus, through faith we may approach God with freedom and confidence (Eph. 3:12) despite the sin we know to be inside of us.

    Consider Paul’s statement in Romans 8:24: “Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity…” Does Paul imply that God makes us sin!? No, certainly not. It means that where we reckon ourselves able to deal with sin ourselves (in other words “worshiping the creature rather than the Creator”), God would leave us to our own sinful devices, with sin consequently manifesting in our lives.

    What Luther is thus saying is that we should become bold in the confidence we have in God’s grace. Such boldness is the foundation of our testimony of Faith: we do not stop sinning by conjuring a desire to stop sinning. We stop sinning by acknowledging the Lordship of Christ and the sufficiency of His Grace. The victory over sin is Christ’s victory. To the extent that we acknowledge His victory is the extent to which God keeps us from sin.

    Helmut Thielike wrote:

    “That is the curse of those who wish to justify themselves by works. They overcome temptation with the great bravery of Pharisees—and yet remain tempted, remain men in whom the abyss yawns and the wound bleeds and the chain with which they are fettered rattles. No man can leap over his own shadow.”

    Paul explains that if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new (2 Corinthians 5:17). We were made righteous through Jesus, just as we were once made sinners through Adam (Rom.5:19). Just as righteous acts did not change the fact that we were sinners before Christ, sinful acts do not change the fact that we are now the righteousness of God in Jesus Christ. You do not have to “get” God to forgive you. You don’t make forgiveness happen by religiously parroting prayers. Your being forgiven has been taken care of by Christ, independent of, and in spite of, you.

    How do we deal with sin then? Faith takes hold of the forgiveness as something already accomplished. The power of His blood by far exceeds the power of our sin. Receive it in boldness – through a proper appropriation of the blood of Christ our conscience is cleaned from dead work works to serve the living God (Hebrews 9:14).

    As sure as faith pleases God, a guilty conscience offends Him – a guilty conscience denies the sufficiency of the Christ's sacrifice on the cross.

  • Ray

    We are not talking about the Vatican or the Catholic church. We’re talking about the Jesuits. I could write a thousand pages but let’s review part of the famous intercepted letter written by King Louis XIV’s Jesuit confessor, Pere La Chaise, to Priest Peters, the Jesuit confessor of England’s King James II.
    “It cost me many threats and promises, before I could bring it thus far, our King being a long time very unwilling. But at last I got him on the hip, for he had lain with his daughter-in-law, for which I would by no means give him absolution, till he had given me an instrument under his own hand and seal, to sacrifice all the heretics [Hughenots] in one day. Now, as soon as I had my desired commission, I appointed the day when this should be done; and in the meantime made ready some thousands of letters to be sent into all parts of France in one post night . . . And many a time since, when I have had him at confession, I have shook hell about his ears, and made him sigh, fear, and tremble, before I would give him absolution. Nay, more than that, I have made him beg for it on his knees before I would consent to absolve him.”
    This is how as I had my desired commission, I appointed the day when this should be done; and in the meantime made ready some thousands of letters to be sent into all parts of France in one post night . . . And many a time since, when I have had him at confession, I have shook hell about his ears, and made him sigh, fear, and tremble, before I would give him absolution. Nay, more than that, I have made him beg for it on his knees before I would consent to absolve him.”
    This is how King Louis XIV was coerced into signing the Edict of Nantes which resulted in the massacre of most protestants in France. It demonstrates how the confession was used in high places. The Vatican and kings of Catholic European states often outlawed the Jesuits. Unfortunately Lutheran states protected them as being opponents of the Vatican. Like the parts of the church and liberals supporting Islam.
    I have not personally seen the letter so with all this we rely on history.
    Is infiltration of Lutheran institutions and rewriting of some of Luther’s work possible – it is. The KGB and CIA are masters of this too. That’s not to say that Luther didn’t write some stupid things. Unlike our Catholic friends, he never claimed to be a saint. Did he say all the things Walid says? I don’t really know but I doubt it. It would take much more research. I do know that today, most churches, including the Lutheran and Catholic church, seem to be filled with this fawning love love love, turning the other cheek, Jesus loves you all, and all cowardice so it is good to see Walid’s fearlessness on all issues.

  • billobillo54

    Polycarp taught Sola fide: Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians 1:3: “In whom though ye see Him not, ye believe, and ‘believing, rejoice with joy unspeakable full of glory’ into which joy many desire to enter, knowing that ‘by grace ye are saved and not of works’ but by the will of God through Jesus Christ.” So did the Apostle Paul. Paul taught it with great emphasis and conviction. Citing the errors and sins of Luther means NOTHING. It means as much as citing the sins and errors of Catholic Popes throughout Church history. How does the theology compare to the plain meaning of the scripture? Also, the “Church Fathers” are filled with error.

    • shoebat

      shoebat Mod billobillo54 • a few seconds ago

      You quoted Polycarp as stating: “‘by grace ye are saved and not of works'”.

      This would be “Sola Gratia”, which has been taught also by the Catholic Church from time immemorial.

      It is “God’s Grace” that saves, yet you stated that Polycarp taught Luther’s “Sola Fide”.

      While I have no problem with this, it is important to note that such teaching was there from time immemorial way prior to Luther.

      Now to your other statement: “Citing the errors and sins of Luther means NOTHING. It means as much as citing the sins and errors of Catholic Popes throughout Church history.”

      My response: To compare Luther who accused Christ of committing adultery is a far-fetched attempt to promote moral equivalency by comparing him to the Church Fathers of the faith. We are not speaking of “sins” but “blasphemies”. Huge difference.

      Ok, and since you challenge, I ask: when it comes to Judas Iscariot, do we throw the baby with the bath water?

      I hope you contemplate my question and answer wisely. Walid Shoebat.

      • billobillo54

        I’m not aware of Luther’s accusing Christ of committing adultery. However, if he did, Jesus said that the only sin that would not be forgiven was the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. If you want to accuse Luther of such that is your business. I wouldn’t know. However, I do know for certain that Peter was guilty of falling from grace according to Paul’s analysis of his and other’s behavior in the Church at Antioch as recorded in Galatians. Another thing I realize is this: Paul wrote this in Galatians Chapter 1: “If we or even an angel from heaven preach another gospel other than the one you received let him be accursed.” Of course Paul repeated this warning for emphasis in his typically Hebrew style. So, either both Catholics and Protestants or one of us are under this curse. Both cannot be free from this. I believe that Jesus Christ has completely delivered me from sin and condemnation according to Paul’s (not Luther’s or Rome’s) gospel (Romans 2:16) which is also referred to as “The gospel of God.” So how I answer you has no bearing on my justification. How I obey Jesus is everything.

  • AnthonyM

    I started reading with some trepidation, not sure where it would go. But good for you Walid. I was aware Luther called the epistle of James “an epistle of straw”, but not these other quotes. He also added the word (in his German translation) only in Romans 3:20 and Romans 4:15, and he inserted the word alone in Romans 3:28. In his New Testament of 1522 he placed the Epistle to Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation apart at the end. ‘Sola Scripture’ as long as scripture says what you want to hear. If not, out it goes.

    • shoebat

      You know AnthonyM I feel ashamed and at the same time I feel elated. I feel ashamed because at times I pay too much attention to squeaking noisy wheels that type up a storm of nonsense and I sit here at times paying too much attention to these squeaky wheels while I ignored so many comments made by others who have a word of encouragement. Not only that, as I was perusing your comments I found that you brought a dilemma I always hear from the squeaky wheels who keep trumpeting the mantra that the Pope was “kissing the Quran”. Now that I looked at the photos and there is no way to determine from the photos that it was a Quran. No one knows for certain, but I haven’t heard that the Pope converted to Islam, have you? So many conspiracy theorists out there that I began to ask; how do millions conjure up so many conspiracy theories and call themselves “Christians”? You also corrected my error “seized vs. ceased” in one of my articles. Good man. I will be looking out for you from now on. Thank you and God Bless.

  • Rexlion

    From Martin Luther’s sermon, “On Faith and Coming to Christ”:
    ====
    “What is the proof by which one may know that
    this heavenly bread is his and that he is invited to such a spiritual supper? He
    needs only to look at his own heart. If he finds it so disposed that it is
    softened and cheered by God’s promises and is firm in the conviction that it may
    appropriate this bread of life, then he may be assured that he is
    one of the invited; for as one believes, even so is it done unto him. >From that
    moment on, he loves his neighbor and helps him as his brother; he rescues him,
    gives to him, loans to him and does nothing for him but that which he would
    desire his neighbor to do for himself. All this is attributable to the fact that
    Christ’s kindness to him has leavened his heart with sweetness and love, so that
    he has pleasure and joy in serving his neighbor; yea, he is even in misery if he
    has no one to whom to show kindness. Besides all this, he is gently and humbly
    disposed toward everybody; he does not highly esteem the transient pomps of the
    world; he accepts everyone as he is, speaks evil of no one, interprets all
    things for the best where he sees things are not going right. When his neighbors
    are lacking in faith, in love, in life, then he prays for them, and he is
    heartily sorry when anyone gives offense to God or to his neighbor. To sum up
    all, with him the root and sap are good, for he is grafted into a rich and
    fruitful vine, in Christ; therefore, such fruits must come forth.

    “But if one has not faith and is not taught of
    God–if he never eats of this bread from heaven–he surely never brings forth
    these fruits. For where such fruits are not produced, there is certainly no true
    faith. St. Peter teaches us in 2 Peter 1:10 that we should make our calling unto
    salvation sure by good works; there he is really speaking of the works of love,
    of serving one’s neighbor and treating him as one’s own flesh and blood.”
    ====
    Does this sound like the same person who wrote the disgusting things quoted by Walid? To me, it does not. I am skeptical of the validity of the quotes Walid has located. While I have no way of being absolutely certain, it seems incredibly unlikely that the person who quoted Peter and who said that failing to bring forth good fruits is evidence of false faith could also be the person to have advocated willful sinning and brazen denial of conscience. Something smells rotten…..

    • shoebat

      Rexilion, it’s not fair to shed doubt without evidence. Secondly, I can show very biblically sound arguments from Charles Taze Russell, Joseph Smith, David Koresh, Jim Jones and a multiple of blasphemers.

      Also, if you thin the quotes are fraudulent, I have showed references from Protestant theologians who try to explain them away. None of them said “wait a minute, these are fraudulent”. But despite all that, “The Jews and Their Lies” should be sufficient to declare him mad. So, you are defending a mad man. My question is why? This type of thing proves that so many follow Luther. Why else defend him so much?

      • Rexlion

        I took a look for the “Christ committed adultery” quote. This turns out to be a scrap of casual talk around a table with friends, with no context provided. We don’t know if Luther was recounting to his friends a ridiculous claim he’d heard from some atheist, or if he was going into “left field” with a wild illustration to make some point, or what. However, an examination of Luther’s sermons and thoughtful writings will reveal that he regarded Christ as sinless and as no fornicator.

        It’s just like in Bible interpretation: one must never lift a scripture out of its context and build something out of it. Citing these wild “quotes” of Luther is like saying that we all should go around weeping because the Bible says, “Jesus wept.”
        A google search turns up a good many Catholics’ websites repeating these slanderous things with immense glee. But it also turns up enough well-reasoned information to see the slander for what it is.

  • Pingback: What Every Christian Needs To Answer Regarding The Great Apostasy of The Church - Walid Shoebat()

  • shoebat

    Well, Will, do you think that when Kingdom comes that Jesus will say what you say here? Or do you think that you will be surprised to know that God was and is in control of His church?
    For you have not fully examined everything, have you? Do you or I know everything? Why then not reason with me, indeed, that I cared for you all these years to teach the truth, now that you suspect I have it not, you simply send me a warning that I am wrong, and not go the extra mile to prove it?

  • shoebat

    If I was so hateful, why would I approve your hateful comment? I mean look at it “pitiful little man …” “get some help” “I feel sorry for you … ” that I have sunk deeper into “psychosis” as if I am mentally ill?

    “have watched you sink deeper and deeper into a psychosis of hate towards the Western Christian Church.”

    Hate towards the Western Church? What type of nonsense is this? The Western Church is comprised of Catholic centered in (Italy) and an amalgamation of different denominations that stemmed from Protestant denominations.

    But since you are suggesting that I read Scripture, a thing you most likely lack, since if you read it it tells you clearly that if you bring a charge against your brother that you need to make sure you have evidence. Yet you sent this nasty comment calling the other side “nasty”.

    “I am a simple Christian that reads the Bible and tries to adhere to scriptures I read. Maybe you should do the same my friend. You have become a very bitter and nasty person. Believing that the whole world owes you something.”

    Did I ever ask you for anything? Did I ever say you owed me something?

    Or is it that I was correct (yes I like to be right most of the time, don’t you?) that your type starts off with flattery and ends up throwing rocks. Look at these rocks you threw already.

    Why don’t you stop your hatred and be specific, what do you want, besides giving me a nasty opinion about me?

    Or should I not pat attention to your tirades and put you on complete ignore? Which is it Mr. Kenneth Mahurien?

  • Dawn Creter Strykr

    Incredible how you cut and paste Martin Luther’s writing to make them “fit” (as I see other Catholic website have done the exact same thing). Why didn’t you post the entire context of his writing?

    But you Shoebat, are a divider. You will not find the true church in major churches, be it the Jezebel gnostic Catholic or Protestant – though, through great tribulation, they will be purified and understand and thus, saved.

    Proverbs 6:16
    These six things doth the LORD hate : yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

    17
    A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

    18
    An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,

    19
    A false witness that speaketh lies,

    >>>>and he that soweth discord among brethren<<>>>Strive<<< then, to enter the narrow gate, for broad is the gate (of hell – which is about to open upon the earth – Rev 12:7-10, Psalm 78:49) to destruction (tribulation).

    • shoebat

      “But you Shoebat, are a divider.” (Dawn 3:15)

      I don’t know Dawn (or should I say double Dawn, I see two of you), but perhaps your the one who came to set me straight and I have been so crooked all these years; but wasn’t Luther a “divider”? I mean why would God want another Church? The Seven Churches in Revelation were no denominations, they were simply different locations. I mean Hill Creek was better the North Creek if you know what I mean. So why the thousand denominations? And while Luther divided, why am I getting accusing of his crap? I got my own crap to deal with besides getting slapped with Luther’s. Or is it perhaps, you two with em cowboy hats have the spirit of the accuser?

      “There is only ONE church out of the seven (Rev 3:7-10) who is promised to go through the gate of heaven to escape all these things.”

      Yes I know, its the Cowboy Church.