Author Says Martin Luther Legend Misrepresents the Real Man

Christians have heard the famous story of Martin Luther nailing the 95 Theses to the door of the closest Catholic Church, kicking off the Protestant Reformation in 1517. But the real story is more complex, according to New York Times-bestselling author Eric Metaxas.

“He was a humble, obedient monk,” Metaxas said. “This was not a firebrand or a rebel of any stripe whatsoever.”

Metaxas, who has written “Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy” and other books about great people throughout history, wanted to get a real look at Luther and his motive for pointing out corruption in the Catholic Church.

Listen to the full clip (above) for more about Luther as we get ready for the 500th anniversary of the Reformation.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

STU: Joining us in the studio, an author, radio host, commentator extravaganza. It's the author of Martin Luther: The Man Who Discovered God and Changed the World. Eric Metaxas.

GLENN: Good friend. I haven't seen you since I left New York.

STU: It's been a while.

ERIC: I think quite possibly.

GLENN: How are you?

ERIC: I may have seen you in Florida at some event. It is great to see you. I love you and admire you from a distance.

GLENN: Well, likewise.

ERIC: And now from a very short distance. Glenn, thanks for having me.

GLENN: Yeah. Good to see you. Your book Bonhoeffer, it just changed me. Fundamentally changed me. And you have -- you have made a career out of going in and highlighting these really amazing people that stood at critical times.

You did Bonhoeffer.

ERIC: Wilburforce.

GLENN: Wilburforce. And now Martin Luther.

ERIC: Yep.

GLENN: Martin Luther seems distant and dusty. Dust him off.

ERIC: You obviously haven't read the book, Glenn.

GLENN: I have not. I just got it today.

ERIC: This book will blow the cobwebs off any dusty recollections you have. I have to say, in all seriousness, as it is with every one of the books I've written, it wasn't my idea. I kind of didn't want to write it.

You know, Bonhoeffer -- you know the story, writing Bonhoeffer was tremendously painful and difficult for me. I had to switch publishers. It was an agony of my life. People think I'm exaggerating. It was hell. But God spoke to me, and he said, "I have my hand on this book." And he did.

But I really wasn't gung-ho to write another biography, I'll be honest with you. But some friends, I dedicate the book to them, twisted my arm and kept saying, Eric, you wrote the Bonhoeffer book. You're the guy to write the Luther book because it's the 500th anniversary. And I actually thought, well, what 500th anniversary? I'm not paying attention.

And they explained to me, 1517 is the moment when he nailed the 95 thesis to the door of the Wittenberg Castle Church. And that's where they trace the beginning of the Reformation, was this moment. Although, talk about blowing the cobwebs off of things. People -- we see that moment in retrospect as a heroic moment, right? He's thundering against the corrupt papacy by nailing this thing. And it's just the opposite. He was like tacking something up to a bulletin board. It was like a notice, hey, you know what, I think we're going to have a little debate, a theological debate.

GLENN: You're kidding me. Really?

ERIC: Oh, yeah. If you read that part in the book, you won't even believe what it really was. In fact, not only was he not tacking something up on a bulletin board, he may have given it to the church custodian to tack it up on the bulletin board, or he may have done it himself and used paste and not a hammer. Like we have this image of him --

GLENN: So what happened? So how did that get --

ERIC: Well, basically -- I mean, to focus on that, this seminal moment 500 years ago, he was somebody who had discovered some things theologically. But let's get it straight, he was a humble, observant monk. This was not a firebrand or rebel of any stripe whatsoever. This was a man devoted to God and devoted to the church. And he saw that what was going on with indulgences -- by the way, he was a priest. So people would come to him in the confessional and say, hey, I got a get out of jail free card. Here you go.

And he would look at this piece of paper that they had bought with their money, which they didn't have, and he would say, what kind of corruption? What kind of confusion -- these people's souls are in danger. They think they can spend money and sin and pay for it. I mean, it had become very corrupt.

But he didn't say, oh, I want to tear the church down. He thought to myself, it is my duty as a theologian, because he was not just a monk and a priest, but a fine theologian, one of the finest.

He said, I need to bring this to the attention to the academic establishment, to other theologians, because if we don't begin to deal with this issue of indulgences, it's going to bring us down.

This is one of the most terrible excesses that we've experienced. And so he said, let's have an academic debate. So in Latin, he prints up 95 statements, which when you wanted to have an academic disputation, that's kind of the way you did it. And you tacked it up some place. And people would say, oh, that's interesting. I'd like to participate. And you would gather and have an academic debate. Maybe in Latin. Probably in Latin.

So he tacks this up, having no clue that in retrospect it will look like, you know, Neil Armstrong planting the flag on the moon, Columbus planting the flag in the American soil. I mean, it's a moment in history that has grown out of all proportion. Because in retrospect, we understand the significance. That moment led to everything that followed.

GLENN: So that is bizarre. Because it is -- you do look at that as a moment of courage.

When did the moment of courage hit him?

ERIC: Well, I would say there are -- as with anybody of true courage and faith, that they're -- it's a continuum of courage. In other words, it's not like at one moment, he girds his loins and is --

GLENN: Yes.

ERIC: He is a man who -- what I talk about is that before this moment, when he had become a monk, for example -- why did he become a monk? He became a monk because he took the idea of salvation and heaven and hell so seriously that he said, I need to devote my whole life to this. And this was against his father's wishes. His father had sent him to the finest schools, wanted him to become a lawyer. And just as he begins law school, it all kind of gets to him. This is in 1505. He's 23 years old. And he kind of realizes, I don't know where I'm going to spend eternity.

Some lawyers had just died and had shared on their deathbeds, I wish I had become a monk. Where am I going now? Really, he was rattled. I think a lot of people were rattled. But he was a very intense, passionate person. Brilliant.

So he decides in a moment that -- that's his own story, that he's the middle of a lightning storm. And he fears for his life. And he blurts out to St. Anne, who is the patron saint of miners -- his father was in the mining business.

He says, St. Anne, if you save me, I'll become a monk.

But it wasn't like he just blurted it out and hadn't been think about this. Let's face it, he had been thinking about this for years. So he becomes a monk and devotes his life in the monastery to praying harder, to confessing more, to fasting more. He was skin and bones. The whole experience was, how do I earn my way?

GLENN: He must have -- he must have hated the popes.

ERIC: Well, no. Not until later.

GLENN: How? It was before Leo.

ERIC: All.

GLENN: And the one before him was also nasty.

ERIC: These dudes, they were -- I mean, every educated, devoted Catholic is properly ashamed of this period of the papacy?

GLENN: Yeah.

ERIC: It's like the church -- and people know I'm a very pro-Catholic non-Catholic. I didn't write this book to bash the Catholic Church. When you look at this history. You see, what this is the tendency? And this all goes back to what we believe about freedom and the nature of man.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

ERIC: What is the nature of any institution? It is the nature of power. It is to consolidate more power. How can I get more power?

GLENN: Yeah, yeah.

ERIC: And the church had become hugely powerful. So Luther, while he's a monk, he's not thinking about this. He is a devoted monk. He's thinking about his own salvation. All that other stuff comes later. But at this point, he's devoted to saving himself, in a way, right? And a lot of people think that's what Christianity is. You save yourself.

You work hard, you don't sin, you keep your nose clean. Don't screw it up, and you might get into heaven. So he's working the program -- right? To use a 12 steps reference, harder than anyone who ever lived, and he's becoming more miserable. He's not getting closer to God. And so he starts cracking up. Why -- if I am doing everything right.

He would confess -- at one point, he confessed six hours straight. His father confessor Staupitz, who was in the book, literally says to him at some point, enough. Bring me adultery. Bring me murder. Otherwise, get out. Leave me alone. You're torturing me.

He would confess a moment of pride. I prayed so hard, that I had a moment of pride for having prayed so hard, and I have to confess my pride.

He was driving everyone insane. So long story short, Luther kind of realizes, this is not working. I'm not getting closer to God. Do I love God? No, I hate God. God is a judge who scares me, and I'm trying to jump through these hoops to please him.

And his father Confessor Staupitz says to him, you don't think that God loves you. You think God hates you. But he loves you. I mean, it was this real conundrum.

So Luther eventually realizes that nobody is studying the Scriptures. Because as you know, the printing press wasn't invented until very recently at that point.

So Luther does what no one else is doing, almost no one else. He starts digging, digging into the scriptures. And I think of it like a guy who has a disease. And he says, I have to find the cure to the disease.

So I don't want food. I don't want phone calls. I'm just going to be looking into the scriptures because I'm trying to find the key to my problem. And so he effectively finds it around 1517. All these things coalesce. And he realizes, oh, my goodness, it's kind of like somebody tells you that, you know, you're racing up a ladder, and it's like the ladder is leaning up against the wrong building. You can come down now. You've been wasting your time. He says, what I've been looking for is given to me freely by God as a gift of grace.

The righteousness of God, which I was scared of, is God gives that to me as a loving gift. I don't need to do anything. He gave it to me.

It's in a -- in an account in my name, all I have to do is go get it. But nobody told me that it was there. You want to talk about a mind blower. This blew the mind of Luther. But this kind of was like the bomb. The explosion from this creates the future in which we live. Freedom. Everything that we take for granted in the modern world comes from that.

GLENN: And we'll get into that here in a second.

STU: He's @EricMetaxas on Twitter. And EricMetaxas.com. The book is Martin Luther. The man who rediscovered God and changed the world.

GLENN: I am so thrilled to have Eric Metaxas not only on the show, but in the studio with us. He wrote a game-changing book for me, called Bonhoeffer. If you haven't read that, you need to.

And I just last week finished some books, and I thought, I'm only going to start reading stuff that will fill me up with good, solid, rock solid information. So this couldn't come at a better time for me. Martin Luther is his latest book. The Man Who Rediscovered God and Changed the World. Tell me how he's relatable today.

ERIC: Oh. This is the funny thing. I take kind of a perverse pride in going into these book projects, pretty darn ignorant. And I have friends, the guys I dedicated the book to, Marcus Speaker (phonetic) and my buddy Greg Thornbury, the president of The King's College in New York City was explaining to me -- because he's a theologian -- why I need to write the book, because Luther is significant in all these ways.

And the more I went into it, the more I thought, how do we not all know this? And it happens with every one of these books I write, how did I not know this?

Luther, what he did, exactly 500 years ago, opened the door to the future. I -- I titled the epilogue, where I kind of explain all this in the book, the man who discovered the future. Because this seminal moment, after 15 years of neglect in a way, that tradition -- the accretions of history and so on and so forth, had obscured the central issue, which is called the gospel. The free gift of Jesus, which makes us all be able to have a direct relationship to God. It doesn't need to be through an institution or whatever.

It's exactly what Whitfield was preaching, you know, 200 years later, which created America. Without that, you don't have anything like freedom, the freedom of the individual to stand against the state.

GLENN: It's crazy. Last week or two weeks ago, we had two people in the media, one Meet the Press and the other on NBC that said, you know, your rights don't come from God. That's this. It's direct --

ERIC: Listen -- look, somebody interviewed me recently about what Margaret Feinstein said and whatever. Our leaders -- things are so bad that our leaders in the Senate, on the Senate level, do not understand the basics. It's like trying to write a book and you don't know the alphabet. They don't understand the concept of what freedom is. Where it comes from, that it comes from God.

That at the heart of freedom is religious liberties, this idea that I can think any dumb thought I want. And it's protected. God said you have a right to think your own thoughts.

I mean, it's so fundamental. But, as you know, for 40 or so years, we have not been teaching this in schools, so even our elite journalists and our senators don't understand the building blocks of how we have everything that we have.

And this issue of having a direct relationship to God, being all equal before God -- I mean, when Whitfield preached this throughout the 18th century, up and down the 13 colonies, it was a revolution. People thought, really?

You mean if the minister is preaching something that's not right, I have the right to go to another church or to object? Or if the magistrate or the governor or the king is behaving in a way that's not right, according to God, I have the right to protest or something? This was an earth-shattering thing. And it began for sure with Luther.

And as we know, freedom comes with a price, right? Freedom is not always good in the sense that you are now free to do the wrong thing, okay? You're free to start a crazy church. You're free to start the Church of Scientology. Not just a good Protestant Church. You're free to start loony stuff and cults. That's the price of freedom. But which of us would trade that freedom --

GLENN: You have 30 seconds.

ERIC: -- for the slavery of being under an institution, that's going to tell you the meaning of truth and you cannot dissent?

GLENN: I think more and more people are getting to that point to where they're willing to do that. They're willing to trade -- they take their freedoms so for granted, they don't even really understand it. They won't until they lose it, until they lose it.

The name of the book is Martin Luther: The Man Who Rediscovered God and Changed the World. Eric Metaxas, the best-selling author of Bonhoeffer. Always good to have you in, Eric.

ERIC: My joy. Thanks, Glenn. Appreciate it.

GLENN: God bless.

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is America’s next generation trading freedom for equity?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Do you think the Gen Z support for Trump is an opportunity for conservatives to win them over with anti-establishment reforms that preserve liberty?

Americans expose Supreme Court’s flag ruling as a failed relic

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

In a nation where the Stars and Stripes symbolize the blood-soaked sacrifices of our heroes, President Trump's executive order to crack down on flag desecration amid violent protests has ignited fierce debate. But in a recent poll, Glenn asked the tough question: Can Trump protect the Flag without TRAMPLING free speech? Glenn asked, and you answered—thousands weighed in on this pressing clash between free speech and sacred symbols.

The results paint a picture of resounding distrust toward institutional leniency. A staggering 85% of respondents support banning the burning of American flags when it incites violence or disturbs the peace, a bold rejection of the chaos we've seen from George Floyd riots to pro-Palestinian torchings. Meanwhile, 90% insist that protections for burning other flags—like Pride or foreign banners—should not be treated the same as Old Glory under the First Amendment, exposing the hypocrisy in equating our nation's emblem with fleeting symbols. And 82% believe the Supreme Court's Texas v. Johnson ruling, shielding flag burning as "symbolic speech," should not stand without revision—can the official story survive such resounding doubt from everyday Americans weary of government inaction?

Your verdict sends a thunderous message: In this divided era, the flag demands defense against those who exploit freedoms to sow disorder, without trampling the liberties it represents. It's a catastrophic failure of the establishment to ignore this groundswell.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

Labor Day EXPOSED: The Marxist roots you weren’t told about

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

During your time off this holiday, remember the man who started it: Peter J. McGuire, a racist Marxist who co-founded America’s first socialist party.

Labor Day didn’t begin as a noble tribute to American workers. It began as a negotiation with ideological terrorists.

In the late 1800s, factory and mine conditions were brutal. Workers endured 12-to-15-hour days, often seven days a week, in filthy, dangerous environments. Wages were low, injuries went uncompensated, and benefits didn’t exist. Out of desperation, Americans turned to labor unions. Basic protections had to be fought for because none were guaranteed.

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

That era marked a seismic shift — much like today. The Industrial Revolution, like our current digital and political upheaval, left millions behind. And wherever people get left behind, Marxists see an opening.

A revolutionary wedge

This was Marxism’s moment.

Economic suffering created fertile ground for revolutionary agitation. Marxists, socialists, and anarchists stepped in to stoke class resentment. Their goal was to turn the downtrodden into a revolutionary class, tear down the existing system, and redistribute wealth by force.

Among the most influential agitators was Peter J. McGuire, a devout Irish Marxist from New York. In 1874, he co-founded the Social Democratic Workingmens Party of North America, the first Marxist political party in the United States. He was also a vice president of the American Federation of Labor, which would become the most powerful union in America.

McGuire’s mission wasn’t hidden. He wanted to transform the U.S. into a socialist nation through labor unions.

That mission soon found a useful symbol.

In the 1880s, labor leaders in Toronto invited McGuire to attend their annual labor festival. Inspired, he returned to New York and launched a similar parade on Sept. 5 — chosen because it fell halfway between Independence Day and Thanksgiving.

The first parade drew over 30,000 marchers who skipped work to hear speeches about eight-hour workdays and the alleged promise of Marxism. The parade caught on across the country.

Negotiating with radicals

By 1894, Labor Day had been adopted by 30 states. But the federal government had yet to make it a national holiday. A major strike changed everything.

In Pullman, Illinois, home of the Pullman railroad car company, tensions exploded. The economy tanked. George Pullman laid off hundreds of workers and slashed wages for those who remained — yet refused to lower the rent on company-owned homes.

That injustice opened the door for Marxist agitators to mobilize.

Sympathetic railroad workers joined the strike. Riots broke out. Hundreds of railcars were torched. Mail service was disrupted. The nation’s rail system ground to a halt.

President Grover Cleveland — under pressure in a midterm election year — panicked. He sent 12,000 federal troops to Chicago. Two strikers were killed in the resulting clashes.

With the crisis spiraling and Democrats desperate to avoid political fallout, Cleveland struck a deal. Within six days of breaking the strike, Congress rushed through legislation making Labor Day a federal holiday.

It was the first of many concessions Democrats would make to organized labor in exchange for political power.

What we really celebrated

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

Kean Collection / Staff | Getty Images

What we celebrated was a Canadian idea, brought to America by the founder of the American Socialist Party, endorsed by racially exclusionary unions, and made law by a president and Congress eager to save face.

It was the first of many bones thrown by the Democratic Party to union power brokers. And it marked the beginning of a long, costly compromise with ideologues who wanted to dismantle the American way of life — from the inside out.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.