Quote:

---

They cannot have taken church traditions seriously or they would be Orthodox or Catholic. The entire rift of Protestantism was because 1. bad people in the church were doing bad things, 2. Luther's understanding of scripture didn't mesh with the historical witness of the church.

---

So much wrong with that.

First, they couldn't be Catholic. Luther wanted to remain Catholic but the RCC kicked him out. The early Reformers also reached out to the EO but were rejected.

Second, based on your statement, the RCC must not be taking traditions seriously or they would be Orthodox.

Finally, taking traditions seriously is not the same thing as viewing traditions as authoritative. You conflate the two concepts.

KingofHazor said:

---

Quote:

---

They cannot have taken church traditions seriously or they would be Orthodox or Catholic. The entire rift of Protestantism was because 1. bad people in the church were doing bad things, 2. Luther's understanding of scripture didn't mesh with the historical witness of the church.

---

So much wrong with that.

First, they couldn't be Catholic. Luther wanted to remain Catholic but the RCC kicked him out. The early Reformers also reached out to the EO but were rejected.

Second, based on your statement, the RCC must not be taking traditions seriously or they would be Orthodox.

Finally, taking traditions seriously is not the same thing as viewing traditions as authoritative. You conflate the two concepts.

---

It's like wanting to be a Vegan and eating meat. There are expectations with being Catholic and Orthodox, if you don't agree to the belief systems, why would you want to be a member?

The RCC is Orthodox. The Orthodox are Catholic. Welcome to the redpill.

Tradition is the pillar and buttress of the church. It illuminates and explains scripture.

Severian the Torturer said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

I have a protestant friend who says I shouldn't do good works. Why? Because then I could boast about them. I explained to him that in the Catholic Church, Jesus is the vine and we are His branches, so the good works I do are really Jesus working through me. He still said I shouldn't do them.

I was reminded of the words of Jesus...John 10:32
Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these do you stone me?"

---

I don't actually believe this story. You seemingly have unending "protestant friends" for every example you want to make to show whatever strawman you want to make about Protestantism.

But, lets see what Luther says. He in fact coined the term "anti-nomianism" which was the very view that if I have faith, then I I don't have to do good works:

Antinomianism - Wikipedia

Luther in his preface to Romans:

" a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn't stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever ... Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!"

The issue that I see most often is that Rome either willfully or not misunderstands the entire argument.

---

Would you please for context also include the part where he says to "sin boldly"

I'll hang up and listen

---

Please enlighten us all with the context of who Luther was talking to and what the issues were.

Or are you the kind of person who just looks for surface-level claims that fall apart immediately at the mildest scrutiny?

Severian the Torturer said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

I have a protestant friend who says I shouldn't do good works. Why? Because then I could boast about them. I explained to him that in the Catholic Church, Jesus is the vine and we are His branches, so the good works I do are really Jesus working through me. He still said I shouldn't do them.

I was reminded of the words of Jesus...John 10:32
Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these do you stone me?"

---

I don't actually believe this story. You seemingly have unending "protestant friends" for every example you want to make to show whatever strawman you want to make about Protestantism.

But, lets see what Luther says. He in fact coined the term "anti-nomianism" which was the very view that if I have faith, then I I don't have to do good works:

Antinomianism - Wikipedia

Luther in his preface to Romans:

" a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn't stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever ... Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!"

The issue that I see most often is that Rome either willfully or not misunderstands the entire argument.

---

Would you please for context also include the part where he says to "sin boldly"

I'll hang up and listen

---

Please enlighten us all with the context of who Luther was talking to and what the issues were.

Or are you the kind of person who just looks for surface-level claims that fall apart immediately at the mildest scrutiny?

---

I'm the kind of person that realizes a spiritual adviser telling someone to "sin boldly" is damning regardless of context

---

Gotcha..so you really don't know what you're talking about. Just surface level pop nonsense.

I was not aware of that statement by Luther and was intrigued by it and your legitimate question. Here's what Google AI says about it (I bolded the last paragraph to emphasize it):

Quote:

---

Yes, Martin Luther told Philipp Melanchthon to "sin boldly" (pecca fortiter) in a letter dated August 1, 1521, but it was not an invitation to engage in immorality. Instead, it was pastoral encouragement to recognize human helplessness and rely entirely on God's grace, with the full phrase being: "Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly".

Context of the "Sin Boldly" Advice

• Encouragement to a Scrupulous Friend: Luther was writing to his colleague Philipp Melanchthon, who was deeply anxious about his own sinfulness and inability to live up to God's standards.
• Against Self-Righteousness: Luther argued against trying to become "so holy that you are not a sinner," arguing that true faith requires recognizing oneself as a genuine sinner rather than pretending to be righteous.
• The Power of Grace: Luther emphasized that because salvation is based on Christ's victory over sinnot on human effortsone can be bold in faith, even when admitting to, and dealing with, serious, real sin.
• The Full Meaning: The statement meant, "Be honest about your sins, do not hide them, but trust in the far greater grace of Christ".

The phrase, found in The Scriptorium Daily and Luther's Letters, is generally understood by theologians not as a license for immorality, but as a call for radical,, faith-filled dependence on divine mercy over human works.

---

It just depends on how one wants to judge history.

Another great video by @gavinortlund, to be deep in history *is to be Protestant.*https://t.co/DbkKFnIolj

— Wes Huff (@WesleyLHuff) February 9, 2026

Luther also claimed this:

"Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: "Whatever has he been doing with her?" Secondly, with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery whom he dismissed so lightly. Thus even Christ, who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died."

(D. Martin Luthers Werke, kritische Gesamtausgabe [Hermann Bohlau Verlag, 1893], vol. 2, no. 1472, April 7 May 1, 1532, p. 33)

nortex97 said:

---

It just depends on how one wants to judge history.

Another great video by @gavinortlund, to be deep in history *is to be Protestant.*https://t.co/DbkKFnIolj

— Wes Huff (@WesleyLHuff) February 9, 2026

---

Enjoyed the video, thanks for posting.
Honestly it gets me more fired up at fellow Protestants whom have a complete lack of knowledge for Church History. Coming from someone guilty of it up until recently.

Appreciated the depth vs mainstream argument as well as I thought it was very helpful. Also the idea of the gates of hell not prevailing….in no way should we expect perfection but as with a tough battle, the bride of Christ will win the day.

nortex97 said:

---

It just depends on how one wants to judge history.

Another great video by @gavinortlund, to be deep in history *is to be Protestant.*https://t.co/DbkKFnIolj

— Wes Huff (@WesleyLHuff) February 9, 2026

---

I don't mean to be rude, but it's actually one of the least accurate videos Ortland has ever made, taking passages out of context and not reading primary sources. Doctrinal development has been a part of the Church from the beginning.

Pro Sandy said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Luther also claimed this:

"Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: "Whatever has he been doing with her?" Secondly, with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery whom he dismissed so lightly. Thus even Christ, who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died."

(D. Martin Luthers Werke, kritische Gesamtausgabe [Hermann Bohlau Verlag, 1893], vol. 2, no. 1472, April 7 May 1, 1532, p. 33)

---

Quite a tough passage as it has no context, wasn't written by Luther, and some of the words are not readable so the translation probably has issues.

https://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/PiepkornDidLutherTeachChristCommittedAdultery.pdf

Without context, it might be on par with claiming the Bible says there is no god. (Psalm 14:1). Further, claiming Luther thought Christ sinned does not match his Christology that is well documented with context and legible.

As to this thread

"Teacher," said John, "we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us."

"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward. (Mark 9:38-41).

The gospel of Christ is proclaimed in protestant churches. Praise be to God. The gospel is proclaimed in Catholic churches. Praise be to God.

---

Yes. Thaddeus has tried this nonsense before. He's being disingenuous.

The best guess is that "IF" Luther said this, it was during his "Table Talks" which were literally him, his friends, and his students sitting around a table discussing theology.

It is well documented that Luther would often take extreme or even incorrects views to force students to debate properly, as a good teacher would do.

If this was actually something he said, note that this was not a lecture, a sermon, or an actual book written by him, but notes taken by students.

The point he was most likely making would be related to Galatians 3:

Quote:

---

10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them." 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for "The righteous shall live by faith." 12 But the law is not of faith, rather "The one who does them shall live by them." 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for usfor it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree" 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

---

The point is never that Jesus Himself sinned. Luther is explicitly clear in his actual Treatise on Galatians that:

Quote:

---

But here we must make a distinction, as the words of Paul plainly show. For he saith not that Christ was made a curse for Himself, but for us. Therefore all the weight of the matter standeth in this word "for us." For Christ is innocent as concerning His own person, and therefore He ought not to have been hanged on a tree: but because, according to the law of Moses, every thief and malefactor ought to be hanged, therefore Christ also, according to the law, ought to be hanged, for He sustained the person of a sinner and a thief, not of one, but of all sinners and thieves. For we are sinners and thieves, and therefore guilty of death and everlasting damnation. But Christ took our sins upon Him, and for them died upon the Cross; therefore it behoveth that He should become a transgressor, and (as Isaiah saith, chapter liii.) "be reckoned among the transgressors."
Martin Luther, Commentary on Galatians (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 270.

---

It's clear then that by taking on our sin. He became sin FOR US. Our sins have been imputed to Him, such that on judgement day, all who believe are judged righteous.

------------------
Unfortunately Thaddeus won't even attempt to understand this, so it will come up again.