Martin Luther : False Prophet or Saint?

Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk who by his defiance to the Catholic Church and its promotion of indulgences to enter the kingdom of God started what is known as the Protestant Reformation. He lived during a very turbulent period in Christian history - from 1483 to 1546 - a time when corruption was rife both in the secular and Christian world.

Many people today, both Catholic and Protestant, have very vague ideas about the origin of the Reformation and about Luther itself. The Catholic Church has had a very chequered history, filled with great stories of marytrdom and glory. It also unfortunately had popes who were great sinners and used the papacy to create wealth for themselves and their families. Nepotism. In the medieval ages, for instance, the popes had extraordinary power and put in cardinals who were related to them, many of whom had no theological training. It was a sad day for the church, it is admitted. Sin crept in and sometimes tradition overwhelmed the true spirit of the Church, which was to live the Gospel, and make its spirit come alive, in ordinary life.

However, Pope John Paul 11 did recognise the sins of the Church and asked the world to forgive the Church for its errors. Nepotism, greed, doctrinal abuse - and cruelty to the pagans, refusal to acknowledge the discoveries of Copernicus and Galileo, the sins of the Spanish Inquisition, etc. He also made "theological mileage" by signing a concord with the Lutheran Church - reaffirming the often forgotten Council of Trent of 1545.

Now who was Martin Luther? He was a brilliant scholar, who one day during a lightning storm, prayed to St Anne [yes, he believed in prayers to the saints and Mary] and asked her to deliver him from the storm, promising to become a monk and serve God if she did. He was saved and then entered a monastery and served God as an Augustinian monk. A trip to Rome however disturbed him greatly as he saw the priests and cardinals living in riches whilst the poor peasants suffered. The pope at that time [the sadly misguided Pope Leo X] was also selling indulgences which he "claimed" would be enough to give one passage to paradise - but was mainly to raise funds for the renovation of St Peter's Basilica. Of course, it was absurd. Buying holy pictures or crosses is mere merchandising. Any fool can see that! But the people of that time were largely peasants, illiterate. Only the clergy and nobility had any education worth speaking of. Luther, being a brilliant scholar, rejected this idea, and posted his 95 thesis objecting to the practice on the doors of Wittenburg Cathedral in Germany, starting off a round of quarrels with the papacy which led to the eventual break of Rome. He argued against what he considered the greed and worldliness of the Church at that time and rejected the use of indulgences as a gateway to paradise.

Protestants should note too that Luther never hated the Virgin Mary. In fact, Luther in his Wittenburg thesis also rejected any blasphemy against the Virgin Mary and said that one should ask for pardon for any evil said and thought about her. In his 1531 Christmas sermon, after leaving the Catholic Church and its authority, he said that Mary was the "highest woman and noblest gem in Christianity after Christ. She is nobility, wisdom and holiness personified. We can never honour her enough. Still honour and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scripture."

In another sermon after his Wittenburg thesis, he said : "The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart."

So Luther had no problems honouring the Virgin Mary or endorsing her veneration. He did however emphasise the teachings of Christ and was against putting Mary on a pedestal to either compete with or dominate the Christian faith. In that, he was right. The problem that seems to confuse Protestants today is their belief that Catholics worship Mary. It would be absurd for Catholics to do so. In any way, what does worship constitute? The Catholic mass on Sundays proclaim the word of God - with two readings, one each from the Old and New Testament. The sermon centres round the Gospel. Catholics don't say the rosary during the Sunday service. The rosary recitation is a purely private matter for those who have a devotion to Mary. If the focus of Sunday mass and the weekday masses are on Christ and his messages - of truth, and unconditional love for God and our neighbour, on forgiveness and the need to avoid hypocrisy of all sorts - if Catholics bow down in reverence to the Cross which is a symbol of Christ's death and resurrection - where is the worship directed to? God and Christ of course. Protestants should be open minded and observe a Catholic service on Sunday to better understand who Catholics worship.

Who did Luther worship? Are his tirades against Jews and the pope of his time Christian in the purest context? Is it not filled with hatred? Christ refrained from condemning even the worst sinner of his time. Zaccheus the tax collector, a sinner till he met Christ, was forgiven and repented without a single condemnatory word. That is the essence of love - not to condemn or love or preach a man-made philosophy that promotes the philosophy of one man's dubious interpretation of the Bible or a book of the Bible or a philosophy based on one single line, that can be quoted out of context.

The phrase "justification of faith alone" means if one has faith, that alone can save one. It is ludicrous to the ordinary Catholic who has been brought up to perform works of charity and compassion and kindness, acts of love based on his faith in God - as a form of gratitude, and to bring others to sense God. In any case, faith has to be activated in deeds and actions which demonstrate the message of Christ - "unconditional love". A person can be conversant with all the books of the Bible, and be able to memorise and quote large tracts of it, but if his actions are filled with self-righteousness, hatred, and condemnatory statements about every other person or denomination or religion or race, only a fool would associate him with goodness or virtue, or as a disciple of Christ. They would avoid him at all cost!

But Luther was a complex man, often misunderstood, even by the Germans of his time. Was he perfectly Luther right in all he said and wrote?

Luther was right insofar as objecting to the sale of indulgences to gain entry to the kingdom of God. Pope Leo X was clearly wrong. There was corruption and greed amongst the clergy too. Luther had every right to question this. Many clergymen were living lives of luxury, pomp and pageantry as the peasants suffered. It was time for a renaissance in spiritual matters, to make the kingdom of God more real - on earth. The Church had grown too far apart from the sufferings of the common man, who feared God, without actually knowing what the Bible taught. Hence, whatever Rome dictated became obligatory. This was and cannot be the way to convert sinners, or to retain saints or even to live within the confines of society - always perpetually indoctrinated with strange man-made philosophies which do not interpret the Bible with coherence.

Unfortunately, it happened. So Luther had to speak out forcefully, and he did. He was fortunate too. Guttenburg had just invented the printing press - thus making it easier to disseminate his works in a much broader way than in the past.

But what many people do not understand is plainly this. Luther also believed the pope was the Anti-Christ and wrote a tract called 'The Babylonian captivity of the Church.' He interpreted Great Babylon in the book of Revelations as the Catholic Church! Rome was built on seven hills. Well, so is Moscow, and so was the original capital of Babylon, Iraq today! So who is to judge? And Great Babylon today is in ashes, completely ruined. Not Rome. So Luther was wrong historically and factually.

Only Christ is divine and has the authority to judge who is to go to Heaven, and who is to go to hell. And even Christ did not claim to know when Judgement Day was. He said only his Father in Heaven knew! So what is the basis of Luther's prophecy that the pope was the Anti-Christ of the Revelations and the Jesus would come to judge the world in his day, in the 16th century. His prophecy turned out to be false. Jesus Christ did not come to judge the world in the 16th century and cast the Pope into hell. The papacy which he so hated still survives today in fact!

Even if Catholic doctrines appear strange to the Protestants of today, Protestants must understand that their doctrines also appear strange to Catholics today - who find Protestant hatred for the Pope and all things Catholic completely unbiblical. Christ preached a religion that promoted love of God and our neighbour surely, not this form of virulent hatred, which seeks to demean. Moreover, to the ordinary Catholic, it inconceivable that a church can be divided into so many denominations within itself and yet claim to believe in one God! To the Catholics, the true Church should be united, not divided. The Pope may sin or commit crimes or be corrupt, but it is for God to judge, not a mortal man, like Luther. Luther himself will have to face God on Judgement Day. Neither the Pope nor Luther can claim to be infallible or without sin. Luther himself was obsessed with his own sinfulness and wanted very much to be sinless. But he failed. So who was he to say Pope Leo was the anti-Christ.

Luther's hatred for the papacy is also very disturbing. Once, when he blessed a group of believers, he said : "May the Lord fill you with His blessings and with hatred for the Pope."

Was Luther mad? He was asking God to fill the people with hatred for the pope whilst simultaneously asking for his blessings!

It is this strange contradictions in Luther's actions and writings that have confounded Catholics for the past 500 years. His hatred for the papacy has also been responsible for the hatred Protestants have for ALL Catholic Popes, believing ALL of them are the anti-Christ.

It is this kind of severe judgementalism that can prove dangerous and stir up religious animosities, that can cause strife and unhappiness in our Christian communities today, which instead of quarrelling amongst themselves, should be the first to promote peace and unconditional love today, in a very wicked age.


The Muslims and Arabs had a great respect for Pope John Paul 11 - who said nothing bad or inflammatory against their religion, and strove to seek a better understanding of their religion, whilst attempting to build bridges with their leaders in the Middle East, and making peace with the Jews and their leaders in Israel. Did any Protestant leader of the twentieth century even attempt to do that?

I leave the reader to answer that question himself. When Pope John Paul 11 went to forgive his assassin in his prison cell in 1981, the world saw how an act of forgiveness for one's enemy should be done - for Christ himself has asked us to forgive our enemy. This is what I mean when I say Luther's philosophy 'justification by faith alone' becomes meaningless when it is not followed by acts of love or forgiveness. We can all memorise the entire Bible, and even work miracles in the name of Christ - but without love - it is meaningless. It is hypocritical. Faith must be the prelude of acts of love - and love includes charity and compassion and forgiveness and kindness, the fruits of the Holy Spirit. Love is not self-righteous, judgemental, nor proud. Love is eternal. St Paul makes it clear that love is more important than the working of miracles. St Paul also warns us as Christians not to criticise one another, to be united. In fact, Christ himself wanted us to be one Church - and not divided amongst ourselves. It was one of his last prayers to his tiny flock two thousand years ago. How many of us remember his humble prayer for unity?



Instead of memorising Scripture and then professing to be "perfect believers and interpreters" of God's holy words, we should more importantly be forgiving to one another, regardless of race, language and religion -instead of perpetually stirring hatred against one another because of doctrinal beliefs which may for all we know be completely erroneous. The doctrines and philosophies of man, even if they claim to be from the Bible, can be wrongly interpreted. Any fool can make statements and claim to know God!

We should all look at the historical facts during Martin Luther's time. Hatred of the papacy and hatred of the Jews was also Luther's gravest sins - and despite his love of God - it contradicts him in many ways. Luther hated the Jews because they did not convert to Christianity in his time, because they did not believe in Jesus as their Messiah. His hatred was unbiblical. It is for God to judge the Jews, not for Luther or the Catholic Church for that matter.

Luther's hatred for the pope of his time is understandable, for Pope Leo was a corrupt and foolishly misguided man. He made the issue of papal infallibility a non-issue. Thankfully however, his belief in indulgences was later repudiated by the Catholic Church in 1545 at the Council of Trent. But how many Protestants know of this? Do they really care about this historical fact? Many still think Catholics sell indulgences today apparently!

It should be noted too that Pope John Paul 11 signed a concordance with the Lutheran Church in Germany before he died, both sides agreeing that faith has to be supported by acts - hence ending 500 years of bitter denominational differences in part at least. It is now for us as fellow Christians to try to concentrate on being less hypocritical and judgmental, and more forgiving to one another. Only God has the authority to judge who goes to heaven and who does not - and which Church follows the Bible more truthfully. It's as simple as that.

Protestants may argue about the origins of the Catholic Church, but it was St Peter himself who chose Linus as his successor in AD 66 before he died. St Peter, the "rock" upon which Jesus founded the Church. Without hallowed halls or grand basilicas. From Linus, the next popes were chosen, all in a continuous line, right up to Pope John Paul 11 - 2,000 years of unbroken history! Many were saintly men of God who did their best to preach the word of God. It was due to their efforts largely that the whole of Europe became Christian. If the popes were anti-Christ, what was the logic of converting the pagan tribes of old Europe, and defending the Catholic Church against the idol worship of the early pagans like the Visigoths? What was the purpose in building cathedrals in Europe? It doesn't make sense historically, theologically or even logically! The early Catholic saints, when persecuted by the Roman Emperors before the Roman Empire fell all died for Jesus Christ, and for the glory of his kingdom. None died for the Virgin Mary, and none died for their popes! So when Protestants insist that Catholics worship the Pope or the Virgin Mary as idols, they may wish to remember this - and perhaps look at the history of the early Catholic Church. St Augustine gave us a life of debauchery for God - and he promoted the philosophy of Jesus Christ in his writings - not the philosophy of the pope of his time.

Martin Luther was not againt the veneration of Mary - what he was against was putting Mary above Jesus - and he warned against giving too high a place to the Virgin Mary. He believed Mary should be honoured, because it was from her womb that Christ was born. Protestants today seem to despise the Virgin Mary. Is this theologically correct?

What is the difference between veneration and worship? The Chinese have an ancient custom. They venerate their ancestors. They honour them. They believe that they should not despise their parents. They believe in filial piety.

It is when we bow down and worship a statue of gold or wood or marble or clay - an idol that has no power - that real idolatry comes into the picture. It is when we dabble with the occult and promise to serve an idol and abandon God or his teachings - and serve the Devil - and ask for his favours - that true idolatry - which is actually demon possession at its worst - can be said to have intruded into our life. Not veneration of the Virgin Mary surely.

The life of subsequent popes who promoted God after Luther brought the Church back to its original focus, to preach the Word of God. The life of the great Pope John Paul 11 itself clearly shows that Luther was wrong insofar as he believed that the pope was the Anti-Christ, insofar as he believed that Rome was Great Babylon. Rome is not Great Babylon. Maybe in some ways Moscow and communism was anti-Christ. Moscow is after all, like Rome, built on seven hills. But Russia is no longer communist, and cannot be perenially considered 'Babylonian.' With the fall of Iraq, we may in fact be witnessing the fall of the true Great Babylon. Iraq is historically Babylonia. And the Babylon of old did persecute the Jews and destroy the temple of Solomon. Is this the vengeance of God we are witnesssing today?

Protestants often speak of the greatness of Luther and the idolatry of Catholics. But they have to be open minded and consider the weaknesses of Martin Luther itself - and what idolatry is all about.

Luther hated the Jews. It's a simple historical fact, based on his own writings.

In his pamphlet, "The Jews and their Lies" - published in 1543, three years before his death, he wrote that Jewish synagogues should be set on fire, prayerbooks destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes "smashed and destroyed", property seized, money confiscated, and the Jews forced into slave labour or expelled for "all time." He despised them, and was the first theologian to be also anti-Semitic in the extreme. It is dangerous when a man who claims to receive visions from God, who claims there is corruption in the Church, to be so filled with dubious beliefs himself. How can he enlighten the Church, which he also hates? How can be bring the Church to a greater theological renaissance, if he is so possessed of hatred for both the Church he lives in, for the chosen race of the Bible, the Jews? What was the message of Jesus Christ? Hatred for Jews? Or "unconditional love" for all? Judgementalism and bigotry - or faith and acts of love and charity, across all boundaries?

In fact, Hitler and the Nazis used this anti-Semitic belief of Luther to justify the Holocaust in World War 2. Hitler called Luther a 'great protaganist' and goaded the Germans into obliterating the Jews, conditioning them to believe that their great religious leader Luther "sanctified" Jewish obliteration. The Germans, blinded by the perverse genius and oratorical skills of Hitler, believed him. The Holocaust took place. All because of one man's blind hatred of the Jews, and another megalomaniac's ability to captivate his people into believing in this diabolical deceit.

So Luther was not a great lover of the Jews. His belief in their necessary extermination must be held partly responsible for Hitler's justification of the Jewish extermination. Rightly or wrongly,
Luther justified it. One only has to look at a misguided Pope Leo X, and a very racist anti-Semitic Adolft Hitler to see who is the "preferable anti-Christ." Pope Leo X, despite his intellectual languour, never called for the extermination of God's chosen race. Luther did. And his views of the Jews, resurrected from obscurity during the last century by Hitler, nearly obliterated the entire Jewish population of Europe.

Thankfully, some good came out of it. The Jews clamoured for a return to their original homeland - and in 1948 - Israel became theirs. Without Hitler's persecution, it might not have happened.

Hatred of any race is anti-Christ, and anybody who is consumed by hatred, eithr of a race or a denomination, cannot claim to be speaking for God or for the Messiah. It is a ludicrous way of justifying one's sins. And it is a sin to hate. It's as simple as that. You don't need a theological degree to understand the incongruity of it all.

Jesus Christ promoted two basic beliefs : unconditional love - firstly to God, and then to our neighbour, which means practically everybody we meet. He never promoted racism or chauvinism. He never promoted anti-Semitism. How could he? He was a Jew himself. He was against the self-righteousness of the Pharisees and the Saducees. He hated judgementalism. The story of Mary Magdalene, the adulterer who was nearly stoned to death by self-righteous Jews for her sins illustrates this clearly. 'Let the one who has not sinned cast the first stone.' Anybody who takes pride in casting judgement on others, [even if they sin], is not of God, and cannot speak of God. It is for God to judge, not sinful men. And no man, not even Luther, not even the saintliest pope of his time, can claim to judge on God's behalf. It's as simple as that.

So was Luther acting like a little Pharisee in judging the Pope, calling him the Anti-Christ - and condemning the Jews, as if he were God himself?

I leave the reader to look at Luther's original writings in a more balanced and open way. Martin Luther, despite his genius, was no saint either. He was full of flaws and bigotry. But his words have all been translated from the original German and can be historically proven to be true. The dates can also be verified. So there's no dispute on what he said at all. The dispute is only whether all he said was perfectly true, or inspired by God.

It is not as far as I am concerned.
Much of what Luther said was in fact contradictory and against the spirit of love and forgiveness that the Bible teaches. The hatred Luther had for the pope and the Jews has come down the centuries. Surely, Jesus Christ would not want us to hate the Jews. Surely he wouldn't want the Protestants to hate the Catholics.

It is againt his philosophy of unconditional love for our neighbour!

What many people also do not realise is that Martin Luther himself sinned in many ways. He took out the epistle of St James, calling it 'an epistle of straw' - for a simple reason. It went against his central philosophy - 'justification by faith alone.' Luther believed that faith alone could save. He was wrong. St James makes it abundantly clear that faith without works [or action] is dead. One's faith must be validated by one's actions - be it love, acts of mercy, prayer and a life of kindness and goodness, not one of debauchery or deceit. Hence, St James was a threat. Well, I leave the reader to decide between St James, who died a martyr incidentally, and Luther, who died naturally, who loved God more, and whose words reflect the genuine spirit of the Bible.

The book of Revelations makes it clear that anybody who takes out books or chapters or even a verse from the Bible will bring on himself the wrath of God. Luther took out an entire book! So when Protestants go around condemning the Catholic Church for idolatry and all kinds of historical sins - they may want to first look at the beam in the eye of their beloved patron - Martin Luther. Hatred against Jews, throwing out a canonical book of the Bible, proclaimaing the pope as anti-Christ - and eventually breaking his vow of celibacy to marry a nun - Cathyrina von Bovra - were these "acts of God" - or the sins of a great man - who despite himself could not remain completely sinless himself. Can such a man then judge an entire Church, and hope history will not find out the flaws of his so-called theological beliefs one day. The fruits of the Holy Spirit are love, not hate and its roots, division, bigotry, war.

Perhap Mother Teresa best embodied the true spirit of the Catholic Church. A good but simple understanding of the Bible, and living out its true meaning in action. Serving the poor, seeing the image of Christ in the lowliest of God's people, the lepers of society, and forgiving everybody who wronged her.

So was Martin Luther a false prophet or a saint?

I will leave the reader to judge for himself.

I will not condemn Luther completely. Whatever sins he had, he was still a man who desired to know God fully and serve him as much as he could. His thorn of the flesh was lust, which he himself acknowledged several times. But Luther need not have worried. God has not called us to be sinless completely. It is impossible for the majority of mankind.

God only calls us to do one thing : to love one another "unconditionally" as Jesus did. To love "unconditionally" is to love without conditions - to give of oneself not just to one's race or dialect group exclusively - but to love all those who come our way - not to convert to Christianity. Conversion is a complex and long process. To cultivate a friendship with the sole desire to convert a person and then abandon him, is a deceptive way of conversion. To convert by fear, ie. to say that one will go to hell if one is not a Christian is also not quite right. Who has gone to hell and seen what hell is? This kind of conversion is a primitive one. To convert by condemning another sect or denomination and accusing it of false doctrine is also wrong. All denominations have strange and ambiguous beliefs created by man, sometimes dating back centuries. We have to evolve and remain close to the spirit of the Bible, if we are to remain relevant in the modern age. Tradition cannot supplant Biblical truths, and if found wanting, should be dispensed with eventually. One man's vision cannot and should not deviate from the context of the Bible and focus narrowly on a single word to embody a new theology of bigotry or hatred towards another denomination. It is perverse.

We can only convert the world by love - by acts of kindnes, and especially by acts of forgiveness, by gentleness, and kindness. Pope John Paul 11 did it during his long papacy, making peace with the former enemies of the Church - the Lutherans, the Muslims, the communists. And he did it not by judgementalism. He asked for forgiveness for the past sins of the Catholic Church.

We should all learn from his magnificient example. It was his moral and spiritual strength that gave the Polish people the courage to shake off the yoke of communist Russia. Communism fell in Poland largely because the Poles knew that with a Polish pope, Russia could not invade Poland without international outrage.

So was Luther right? He was in many ways - but mainly in his desire to see the end of the sale of indulgences. What many Protestants do not understand is this : the sale of indulgences was discontinued after the pope and his cardinals met at the Council of Trent in 1545 subsequently.

Today, Catholics do not buy indulgences to enter paradise. Protestants will have to understand why Luther took out the book of St James to justify his theory of 'justification by faith alone' theory. Interestingly, the Catholic Bible says 'justification by faith' by St Paul. The German bible as translated by Luther puts it as 'justification by faith alone.' Luther cleverly inserted the word 'alone' so that the necessity of action to substantiate faith was unnecessary. Luther was wrong to do that. But I leave the Protestants to look at Luther with an open mind today. Too much hatred has been spawned by religious bigotry - and we should all put an end to this name-calling and concentrate on just one thing : "unconditional love" and also look at the history of how the Protestant church had its roots.

Neither the Protestant churches nor the Catholic Church of today can claim to be superior. We both have our strengths and in these darks days of terrorism, should in fact be working and praying together as brothers in Christ, instead of taunting one another, without any idea of what happened in 16th century Europe. Ignorance may be bliss, but not in this case I'm afraid.