Martin Luther and Positive Confession

victoryword · Jan 5, 2004

Yep, that's right ya'll, Martin Luther was into POSITIVE CONFESSION!!!! The proof is found in his commentary on Galatian (chapter 3, verse 13) which can be found online on several websites. However, check this out:

When we hear that Christ was made a curse for us, let us believe it with joy and assurance. By faith Christ changes places with us. He gets our sins, we get His holiness.

By faith alone can we become righteous, for faith invests us with the sinlessness of Christ. The more fully we believe this, the fuller will be our joy. If you believe that sin, death, and the curse are void, why, they are null, zero. Whenever sin and death make you nervous write it down as an illusion of the devil. There is no sin now, no curse, no death, no devil because Christ has done away with them. This fact is sure. There is nothing wrong with the fact. The defect lies in our lack of faith.

In the Apostolic Creed we confess: "I believe in the holy Christian Church." That means, I believe that there is no sin, no curse, no evil in the Church of God. Faith says: "I believe that." But if you want to believe your eyes you will find many shortcomings and offenses in the members of the holy Church. You see them succumb to temptation, you see them weak in faith, you see them giving way to anger, envy, and other evil dispositions. "How can the Church be holy?" you ask. It is with the Christian Church as it is with the individual Christian. If I examine myself I find enough unholiness to shock me. But when I look at Christ in me I find that I am altogether holy. And so it is with the Church.

Holy Writ does not say that Christ was under the curse. It says directly that Christ was made a curse. In II Corinthians 5:21 Paul writes: "For he (God) hath made him (Christ) to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." Although this and similar passages may be properly explained by saying that Christ was made a sacrifice for the curse and for sin, yet in my judgment it is better to leave these passages stand as they read: Christ was made sin itself; Christ was made the curse itself. When a sinner gets wise to himself he does not only feel miserable, he feels like misery personified; he does not only feel like a sinner, he feels like sin itself.

]

Some who believe that positive confession is heresy may want to make excuses for Luther's "heresy" here. They may "squirm" about how Luther doesn't really mean the same thing that Word-faithers mean when they use similar language. They will probably make attempts to exonerate their hero.

Is luther influenced by Christian Science and other metaphysical cults (even though he died long before Ms. Eddy's garbage became influential)?

Let me leave you with one more quote from Luther: "Through faith in Christ, therefore, Christs righteousness becomes our righteousness and all that he has becomes ours; rather, he himself becomes ours." (from Two Kinds of Righteousness)

Andrew · Jan 5, 2004

thanks for the post VW!

Hey God is into positive confession too:

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Man it was dark. Thank God He didnt say: "Whao! It's so dark!!!". If He said that, things would have gotten so much darker! But our human tendency is just that. When things are bad/go wrong, we talk/complain/confess about how bad it is! But God spoke: "LIGHT BE!!!" and so we should do likewise, and speak forth positively words like "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me", "By his stripes I am healed!" etc.

There was the Spirit, there was the water, and there was speaking forth: 3 elements to create!

Today, we have the Spirit, we have the water (Word) but we also need to open our mouths and speak forth -- not speak negative words but positive words that line up with what God has said in his Word. IOW positive confession is simply agreeing with God (not the world) in the way you speak. And if that's 'heresy', lets have more of it!

victoryword · Jan 6, 2004

Hi Andrew

I agree with you 100% but here are the obstacles you are bound to run into when making such statements about God and positive confession:

You know of course, that quoting from the BIBLE is insufficient when it comes to Word-Faith theology because people will tell you that you are interpreting it incorrectly. (Of course I am being a little sarcastic here because the BIBLE should be the only book we need to prove our beliefs as correct. Unfortunately, it seems to be insufficient to opponents of Word-Faith theology).

They will tell you that God has the POWER to create because He is God and will dispute with you concerning whether or not God was using the "power of positive confession" or some kind of "faith force". Furthermore, they will tell you that because God is omnipotent, omniscient, has exhaustive foreknowledge, and lives in the "eternal now" vortex, that it required no faith on His part to create the universe.

Just forewarning you since these are the very arguments I have run accross in my discussions with others concerning this same matter, and also what has led me to doing extensive research on these issues.

victoryword · Jan 6, 2004

Martin Luther and the Prayer of Authority

As told by John Ruthven in his excellent article, "Answering the Cessationists Case against Continuing Spiritual Gifts":

Martin Luther was never a shrinking violet, but at one point he sounds bolder than Kenneth Hagin! After snatching his friend, Melanchthon from deaths arms, Luther describes his incredibly aggressive prayer: In this instance our Lord God had to pay me; for I threw the bag of concerns before his door and I dinned his ears with allof his promises as to how he desired to favorably hear our prayer promises which I well knew how to documentin Scripture! I put it to him that he had to grant my request if he expected me to continue to trust his promises!

Until recently, as in Augustines time, most Christians in the West have been conditioned, even by churchleaders, to disbelieve and discount any contemporary miracle stories. Now, with the advent of primarilycharismatic television ministries and a knee-jerk reaction against the sterile Enlightenment rationalism that hasdominated Western thought, many more Americans are believing in the power of God. Thirty percent of Americanadults reported that they had experienced a remarkable healing in their lives", while a total of 78% ofAmericans either believe (27%) or strongly believe (51%) that even today miracles are performed by the power of God," only 15% somewhat disagreed or 6% strongly disagreed.

By the way, A. J. Gordon also records this testimony concerning Luther in his excellent classic book, The Ministry of Healing. Not only was Luther a positive confessor, but he also taught practiced name it and claim it. He taught prayer prayed with authority.

Like Ruthven said, Luther could be even BOLDER than the average faith teacher in his practices.

More later ....

Andrew · Jan 7, 2004

They will tell you that God has the POWER to create because He is God and will dispute with you concerning whether or not God was using the "power of positive confession" or some kind of "faith force".

Yes but they should realise that with all the power, He still SPOKE things into being. He didn't just use his mind and go "eeeerrmmmmmmmmmm!" or snap his fingers. He SPOKE, He DECLARED out loud.

They will tell you that God has the POWER to create because He is God and will dispute with you concerning whether or not God was using the "power of positive confession" or some kind of "faith force". Furthermore, they will tell you that because God is omnipotent, omniscient, has exhaustive foreknowledge, and lives in the "eternal now" vortex, that it required no faith on His part to create the universe.

Jesus himself confessed what or who He knew He was: "I am the way, the truth and the life" "I am the good sheperd".... Jesus used faith when He cursed the fig tree, when He healed and raised the dead.

And we are gods made in the image of God. And if God told us to have faith and use our faith, then we ought to.

victoryword · Jan 7, 2004

Andrew said:
Yes but they should realise that with all the power, He still SPOKE things into being. He didn't just use his mind and go "eeeerrmmmmmmmmmm!" or snap his fingers. He SPOKE, He DECLARED out loud.

Jesus himself confessed what or who He knew He was: "I am the way, the truth and the life" "I am the good sheperd".... Jesus used faith when He cursed the fig tree, when He healed and raised the dead.

And we are gods made in the image of God. And if God told us to have faith and use our faith, then we ought to.

Andrew

The "little gods" heresy? GASP!!! After reading that article on your webpage I should have known that you would bring this up. You are really in trouble now. I will be reporting you to the CRI secret police el pronto. You will be tried and burned for heresy

On a serious note, Jesus certainly made "positive confessions" about Himself.

victoryword · Jan 7, 2004

Martin Luther and Divine Healing by Faith Guaranteed

Some of ya'll know the passage that says, "Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up." (James 5:14,15).

My friend, Derek Vreeland, did some research and found a comment by Martin Luther on this passage. Read below:

In The Pagan Servitude of the Church, Luther dismisses Extreme Unction as a sacrament, but he does comment on the need to pray for the sick. He writes, "But in Extreme Unction as practiced in our day, there is no prayer of faith. No one prays in faith over the sick, confidently expecting their restoration. Yet James describes that kind of faith in this passage (in James 5).. There is no doubt at all that if, at the present day, this kind of prayer were offered over the sick, i.e., by the older and graver men, men saintlike and full of faith, as many as we desired would be healed. Nothing is impossible for faith." [Martin Luther: Selection from His Writings, John Dillenberger, ed. (New York: Anchor Books, 1962), 354.]

Click to expand...

Martin Luther believed in "faith healing" (as some would like to call it) or divine healing received by faith. Man, you can't beat that with a baseball bat. Martin Luther was "Word-Faith" before their ever was a "Word-Faith" movement.

More coming soon .....

TheScottsMen · Jan 7, 2004

Great Post VW!!!
While I sit here drinking my coffee I wonder where all the WoF bashers have gone? I guess when something isn't pulled out of context its hard to scream and shout at us huh?

Theophilus7 · Jan 7, 2004

Andrew said:
Yes but they should realise that with all the power, He still SPOKE things into being. He didn't just use his mind and go "eeeerrmmmmmmmmmm!" or snap his fingers. He SPOKE, He DECLARED out loud.

There is a difficulty in asserting that God literally spoke words in the Genesis account. At the very least, his first few commandments could not have been spoken words, I think. A spoken word is a disturbance of a created medium, specifically air. If God has to speak to create, He's in a bit of a "catch 22" situation, since He needs to create air before He can create...

How would a WoF expositor handle this dilemma, out of curiosity?

Theophilus7

Theophilus7 · Jan 7, 2004

TheScottsMen said:
Great Post VW!!!
While I sit here drinking my coffee I wonder where all the WoF bashers have gone? I guess when something isn't pulled out of context its hard to scream and shout at us huh?

Whilst I hope you, Andrew and victoryword know that I'm not a WoF basher, I shall be making a few comments, my friend.

All for now,

Theophilus7

SpiritPsalmist · Jan 7, 2004

Hmmmm! I'm not sure that God "has" to speak it. . .but you see that He did the majority of the time. At least from what I understand.

Andrew · Jan 7, 2004

There is a difficulty in asserting that God literally spoke words in the Genesis account.

Why is there a "difficulty" in believing God spoke when the scriptures say he did?

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

I hope we dont go into the discussion of whether Genesis was literal or just some fable. I take the creation account literally so I believe God really did speak, ie he wasn't using psychic power or something.

Quaffer,

It's not so much whether God being God had to or not, I'm just saying that that is HIS way of doing things. As you already know, the Bible has so much to say about speaking, the tongue etc. Life and death is in the power of the tongue, Calling forth things that are not as though they are, the gifts of tongues, prophesying, interpretation etc all have to do with speaking, -- it is just God's way of doing things. And if he said it in his word, He cannot contradict his Word and do his own thing. His Word and him are one.

Theophilus7 · Jan 8, 2004

Andrew said:
Why is there a "difficulty" in believing God spoke when the scriptures say he did?...I hope we dont go into the discussion of whether Genesis was literal or just some fable. I take the creation account literally so I believe God really did speak, ie he wasn't using psychic power or something.

Andrew,

I'm not challenging the historicity of the creation account. Genesis 1 is, as far as I'm concerned, written in historical narrative, and therefore intended to be taken as real history. And the six days were probably six 24-hour periods, not six ages.

Nevertheless, the problem in literally interpreting God's commands in creatio ex nihilo as spoken words remains for the reason I offered in the earlier post. There is such a thing as anthropomorphism, you know . Evidently, the Holy Spirit did not consider the expression, "God thought", an adequate one to describe God's actions, and the closest analogy was human speech.

The fact that there are anthropomorphisms is the Genesis account does not, I think, compel us to take a less literal view of the other details of the account, since anthropomorphisms surely occur in other parts of biblical historical narrative when they describe God's person and actions. They are unavoidable.

God bless,

Theophilus7

Theophilus7 · Jan 8, 2004

victoryword said:
They will tell you that God has the POWER to create because He is God and will dispute with you concerning whether or not God was using the "power of positive confession" or some kind of "faith force".

Are their above assertions so unreasonable, victoryword?

Furthermore, they will tell you that because God is omnipotent, omniscient, has exhaustive foreknowledge, and lives in the "eternal now" vortex, that it required no faith on His part to create the universe.

If I may ask this respectfully, how would you explain God's faith in the light of His omniscience, victoryword?As far as I can see, since "faith is the evidence of things unseen" and "we walk by faith and not by sight", a being who knows everything and sees everything has no need for any "evidence of things unseen". So I don't see how you can accept the assertion that God has faith without compromising on His omniscience, in some respects. (I also find it difficult to reconcile with God's omnipotence too, but I'll leave that for the moment). You strike me as an intelligent Christian, victoryword, so I'm sure you must have thought about this issue. Has it led you to reject God's omniscience, I wonder? Certainly, I can find no room for a faith God in my theology of God.

God bless,

Theophilus7

Andrew · Jan 8, 2004

There is such a thing as anthropomorphism, you know . Evidently, the Holy Spirit did not consider the expression, "God thought", an adequate one to describe God's actions, and the closest analogy was human speech.

Firstly, we are assuming that "God thought" instead of spoke as the Bible has written. Secondly, we are assuming that the Holy Spirit did not consider the expression "God thought" as adequate for human understnding (why inadequate I do not know).

These are just man-made assumptions becos some refuse to believe the Bible when it simply says "God said/spoke/called".

The fact that there are anthropomorphisms is the Genesis account does not, I think, compel us to take a less literal view of the other details of the account

Then arent we just picking and choosing what is an anthropomorphism to fit into our own theology?

Such reasoning is similar to those who do not take the six-day creation as six days. They say its symbolical so that it can fit with their theology of evolution. Then, in other places in the OT, when "day" is mentioned, they take it as literal a 24-hr day becos it does not contradict their theology so no need to modify the meaning. In the end, there is no consistency in interpretation.

I find it rather odd that God was actually communicating with Adam & Eve through his mind or that through out the creation account in Genesis, He did not speak at all but just 'thought' things into existence or snapped his fingers.

Ro 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

It does say he "calleth" things, not "thinketh". That's just God's way of creating, and I do not believe He overides/contradicts his own Word.

Andrew · Jan 8, 2004

Mark 11
22***And Jesus answering saith to them, `Have faith of God; [YLT]

I belive the Greek construction here is faith OF God, as explained b4 by disdaskalos.

So I don't see how you can accept the assertion that God has faith without compromising on His omniscience,

Why should there be a compromise? If we say that God has perfect faith, does it make him less omnipotent, omniscience, omniwhatever? It is like saying that if God has love or joy, he is no longer omniscience.

Andrew · Jan 8, 2004

Ps 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

word {Strong's}:

01697 rbd dabar {daw-baw'}

from 01696; TWOT - 399a; n m

AV - word 807, thing 231, matter 63, acts 51, chronicles 38,
saying 25, commandment 20, misc 204; 1439

1) speech, word, speaking, thing
1a) speech
1b) saying, utterance
1c) word, words
1d) business, occupation, acts, matter, case, something, manner
(by extension)

victoryword · Jan 8, 2004

TheScottsMen said:
Great Post VW!!!
While I sit here drinking my coffee I wonder where all the WoF bashers have gone? I guess when something isn't pulled out of context its hard to scream and shout at us huh?

I was waiting for the "Martin Luther" fans to cream me. However, I have posted this same info on two other forums and most people who would normally have come to Luther's defense (so to speak) have sidestepped this in way or the other. At least this is the case with one forum.

I have received positive feedback on this forum and one other forum I spend time at.

victoryword · Jan 8, 2004

Theophilus7 said:
Whilst I hope you, Andrew and victoryword know that I'm not a WoF basher, I shall be making a few comments, my friend.

All for now,

Theophilus7

Theophilus7

I don't think of you as a WoF basher at all. I usually enjoy your posts though I know that we disagree on some things. I also enjoy your challenges to my beliefs. I personally need them because they will either cause me to be more grounded as I confront your questions or I will have to chuck them when I have no valid Scriptural defense for them.

victoryword · Jan 8, 2004

Theophilus7 said:
Are their above assertions so unreasonable, victoryword?

If I may ask this respectfully, how would you explain God's faith in the light of His omniscience, victoryword?As far as I can see, since "faith is the evidence of things unseen" and "we walk by faith and not by sight", a being who knows everything and sees everything has no need for any "evidence of things unseen". So I don't see how you can accept the assertion that God has faith without compromising on His omniscience, in some respects. (I also find it difficult to reconcile with God's omnipotence too, but I'll leave that for the moment). You strike me as an intelligent Christian, victoryword, so I'm sure you must have thought about this issue. Has it led you to reject God's omniscience, I wonder? Certainly, I can find no room for a faith God in my theology of God.

God bless,

Theophilus7

Theophilus7, you should know by now that I lean towards OPen Theism. Sorry if that shocks you (hehehehehehee).

Disclaimer: Not all, probably not even most Word-Faithers are Open Theist. Nevertheless, their theology, as Theophilus7 well points out, contradicts with their Arminian views. I find that much of the teaching with Open Theism is consistent with the Word-Faith model of God and faith and is very much in line with the LITERAL rendering of Scripture.

Now if you are familiar with OV (and you seemed to indicate that in your comments on The A. B. Simpson thread) then you should know what responses I would give to your questions. Are you still wanting me to answer this is is this sufficient for you?

For those unfamiliar with OV let me add that contrary to popular opinion, the Open View is not a rejection of omnicience. It only rejects EXHAUSTIVE FOREKNOWLEDGE. God knows everything that there is to be known. Since the future is not in existence yet, it cannot be known except that which God has stated would happen.

Martin Luther and Positive Confession

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Veteran

Senior Member

Senior Member

Heavy lean toward Messianic

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency