Error, lies, and foolishness are always excellent motivators for me to blog.
The particular embarrassing morass of propaganda to which I am referring is John Ankerberg’s interview with Norman Geisler. The interview is such a collection of Protestant fantasy that I hardly know where to start.
However, start I will.
Geisler doesn’t believe in Purgatory. Fair enough. I don’t either.
To Geisler, however, it appears that means he can pick any parts of church history he wants and say that they don’t either. In his case, he picks Luther’s 95 theses, and then he tells us:
Luther … tacked up his 95 theses and said, â€œThere is no purgatory. There are no prayers for the dead. You canâ€™t buy people out of purgatory.â€
That’s nice. Norman Geisler passes himself off–and is believed to be by a multitude of the ignorant sheep that will always, and should, constitute the majority of the church–an expert on “the historic Christian faith.” Yet, it is apparent from this interview that he makes up his own historic Christian faith.
Martin Luther’s 95 Theses
I have Luther’s 95 theses up on my Christian history web site. Try going there and taking a look at number 26. There Luther suggests that the pope, rather than offering to remit sins through keys of the kingdom that he does not possess, ought to seek remission by praying. The obvious context, as is clear from the rest of the theses, is that the pope ought to be praying for souls in purgatory rather than claiming the ability to release them.
Nothing in the 95 theses denies purgatory. Luther was still a Catholic priest at the time, somewhat under the delusion that the pope was going to support him in his ideas. Thesis 50, for example, says:
Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the pardon-preachers, he would rather that St. Peter’s church should go to ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh and bones of his sheep.
I’m pretty sure Luther would deny purgatory later, though I’ve never looked it up, and I can’t be certain of it. But during the time of the 95 theses, he was a good Roman Catholic monk.
This is history. History is where you read what a person said, and then you tell people what that person said.
History is not taking your own words and wishes and putting them in the mouths of historical figures. Doing that is blasphemy, lying, and deceit, and it will cause God to send you to hell.
Read it for yourself. The Bible says that all liars will have their part in the lake of fire.
Beware, Norman Geisler and John Ankerberg. I don’t care what service you think you are rendering to people by defending them from Jehovah’s Witnesses, Way missionaries, Mormons, and Roman Catholics. If you defend them by lying, you will have your part in the lake of fire. If you create a new gospel, a new Christian history, and a way that is contrary to the apostolic way–no matter how much you defend it with the Bible–then you are to be anathametized by all true Christians.
Geisler also presents an imaginary history of the Bible in that interview. Almost nothing he says is true. I don’t have time to go into it here, nor time to research all the quotes I’d have to research for you, but I have a page on it and I can highly recommend A High View of Scripture? on the subject. A High View of Scripture? is an Evangelical book published by a well-respected Evangelical publisher, Baker Books.
‘Nuff said, as the saying goes.