Martin Luther and Positive Confession

[SavedByGrace3]

Mark 11:14 (YLT)
and Jesus answering said to it, `No more from thee--to the
age--may any eat fruit;' and his disciples were hearing.


The next day they walked by the tree and saw it dried up from the roots. They were amazed, and that is when He told them to have the "God kind of faith". The "God kind of faith" is faith that believes and speaks. In the next verse, He speaks quite plainly. If you speak to a mountain, and believe you have what you say, then it will happen.

His words are echoed in 1 Cor 13

"... if I have all faith, and could remove mountains..."

God used words to create the universe.

2 Peter 3
5 for this is unobserved by them willingly, that the heavens were
of old, and the earth out of water and through water standing together
**by the word of God***,

Psalms 33
6 By **the word** of Jehovah The heavens have been made,
And by the **breath of His mouth** all their host.

Hebrews 11:3
by faith we understand the ages to have been prepared
**by a saying of God**, in regard to the things seen not
having come out of things appearing;

Here we see the same faith formula that Jesus referred to. Speaking what is believed in the heart. (The speaking is self evident, and the believing is clearly implied... unless you want to say that God spoke things that He did not believe!?)

Look at:

Romans 4:17 (YLT)
who is father of us all (according as it hath been written-- `A father of
many nations I have set thee,') before Him whom he did believe--
God, who is quickening the dead, ***and is calling the things that be
not as being***.

In the great scholarly work "Word Pictures in the New Testament", there is the following entry:

Word Pictures NT - Roma 4:17 "
....{Calleth the things that are not as though they were}
(\kalountos ta onta h sonta\).
"Summons the non-existing as existing."

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Instances of the phrase "in God" in the NT.

Matt 27:43 (KJS)
He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will
have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.
The Greek is "epi ton theon", or "upon God"

Note: Here we see it stated that Jesus trusted in God. Jesus is God, and here it is said that he trusted in God. The verse is a quote from Psalms 22.

Psal 22:8
He trusted on the LORD [that] he would deliver him: let him deliver
him, seeing he delighted in him.
This psalm is universally accepted to be propheticlly speaking of Jesus.


Luke 1:47
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

"epi to theo" =upon God.


John 3:21
But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his
deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought
in God.
"en theo" = in God

John 14:1
Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe
also in me.

"eis ton theon" = into God

Acts 16:34
And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat
before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

"pepisteukos to theo" = believing God

Roma 5:11
And not only [so], but we also joy in God through our Lord
Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

"en to theo"= in God

2Cor 1:9
But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should
not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead:

"epi to theo" = upon God

Ephe 3:9
And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery,
which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who
created all things by Jesus Christ:

"en to theo" = in God

Colo 3:3
For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.

"en to theo" = in God

1The 1:1
Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the
Thessalonians [which is] in God the Father and [in] the Lord
Jesus Christ: Grace [be] unto you, and peace, from God our
Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

"en theo" = in God

2The 1:1
Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of
the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus
Christ:
"en theo" = in God


1Tim 5:5
Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God,
and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day.

"epi ton theon" = upon God

Titu 3:8
[This is] a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou
affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God
might be careful to maintain good works. These things
are good and profitable unto men.
"pepistuko tes to theo" = believed in God

1Pet 1:21
Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the
dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might
be in God.

"en theon" = in God

1Pet 3:5
For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who
trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto
their own husbands:
"epi ton theon" = upon God

1John 4:15
Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God
dwelleth in him, and he in God.

"en to theo" = in God

1John 4:16
And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

"en to theo" = in God

Mark 11:22 (KJV)
And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have
faith in God. {Have...: or, Have the faith of God}

"pistin theou" = faith of God

This is the only instance in the KJV NT where "in God" is translated from "theou". In every other case there is a preposition such as en, eis, or epi in the phrase. As stated before, no-one disputes that we should have faith in God. Yet in this verse the grammer does not support any other translation of the phrase than "have faith of God".
It is a valid point to say that there are many ways to say "in God", and if He had wanted to say "in God" He could have used any of these phrases. But He specifically used the word "theou". He therefore intended to say "of God" and said exactly what He intended to!

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

You guy's are so smart

I wish I could keep up with ya

 

[victoryword]

Martin Luther's beliefs about Paul's "Thorn in the Flesh"

In 2 Cor. 12:7 and in Gal. 4:13, 14, many people like to use these passages to dispute the belief that we can claim God's promises for healing. They like to teach that Paul was sick and so we must suffer sickness. After all, if Paul was not healed then why should we expect to be healed. Luther disputes this interpretation, providing the historical basis for it and refutation of it. In his commentary on Galatians, Luther says the following:

St. Jerome and others of the ancient fathers allege this infirmity of Paul's to have been some physical defect, or concupiscence. Jerome and the other diagnosticians lived at a time when the Church enjoyed peace and prosperity, when the bishops increased in wealth and standing, when pastors and bishops no longer sat over the Word of God. No wonder they failed to understand Paul.

When Paul speaks of the infirmity of his flesh he does not mean some physical defect or carnal lust, but the sufferings and afflictions which he endured in his body. What these infirmities were he himself explains in II Corinthians 12:9, 10: "Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong." And in the eleventh chapter of the same Epistle the Apostle writes: "In labors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft. Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck," etc. (II Cor. 11:23-25.) By the infirmity of his flesh Paul meant these afflictions and not some chronic disease. He reminds the Galatians how he was always in peril at the hands of the Jews, Gentiles, and false brethren, how he suffered hunger and want.

It is also significant to point out that "healing by faith" detractors like to misinterpret Galatians 6:11 which says, Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand.. From this, they conclude that Paul had "opthalmia" which is supposed to be some oriental eye disease. Where that interpretation came from, I will never know. The claim is that the alphabetical letters in this epistle was due to the fact that Paul had difficulty seeing. However, Luther certainly did not see this as a valid interpretation. Luther says:

With these words the Apostle intends to draw the Galatians on. "I never," he says, "wrote such a long letter with my own hand to any of the other churches." His other epistles he dictated, and only subscribed his greetings and his signature with his own hand.

So as you can see, Martin Luther is not in agreement with many of today's detractors on the issue of Paul and sickness. Luther believed no such thing.

Last night I decided to read the section on Luther in A. J. Gordon's classic book, "The Ministry of Healing". My friends, Melancthon was far from the only person that was healed under Luther's ministry. There are other cases recorded. Luther stood on God's promises for healing when praying for people. He casted out devils when necessary. This book is a must if you want to know the truth about Luther's Charismatic beliefs and not just him but you may be surprised by some of the other well known historical church figures.

Anyway, more to come ....

 

[Theophilus7]

Some brief comments. The original Greek, as we have observed, reads echete pistin theou, which could be rendered “have faith in God” or “have [a] faith of God”, depending on which type of genitive we deem is the correct translation. English translations, with a few exceptions[1], consistently translate this phrase “have faith in God”. The Grammarian A.T. Robertson points us to Galatians 2:26, Romans 3:22 and 3:26 as additional examples of objective genitives in which the Greek word pistin features. The later two are particularly good examples:

22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ (objective genitive) to all who believe…

26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus (objective genitive).

Romans 3:22,26​

Commenting on the 22nd verse, Albert Barnes writes: “By faith of Jesus Christ - That is, by faith in Jesus Christ. Thus, the expression, Mar. 11:22, “Have the faith of God” (margin), means, have faith in God. So Act. 3:16, the “faith of his name” “(Greek),” means, faith in his name. So Gal. 2:20, the “faith of the Son of God” means, faith in the Son of God.” In order to translate the ideas accurately into English, the objective genitive is preferred.

Nevertheless, even rendering the text with the subjective genitive does not compel us to accept a “God kind of faith”. One Greek scholar who does favour ‘faith of God’ explains that Jesus was teaching about having a faith divinely imparted by God[2]; the gift of faith. The Jewish New Testament favours this idea, adopting the subjective genitive in its translation of Mark 11:22 and rendering it; “Have the kind of trust that comes from God!”. This, of course, does not imply that faith is therefore an attribute of God. Mark 11:22, whether it is translated ‘[a] faith of God’ or ‘faith in God’, does not compel us to believe that God Himself has faith in something. There are no scriptures that support this. The belief that we can possess God’s own faith is not a necessary corollary of Mark 11:22, regardless of which type of genitive we prefer.

All for now,

Theophilus7

---

[1] Young's Literal Translation, Modern King James Version, Literal Translation of the Bible, The Douay Rheims Bible, The Worrell New Testament, The Bible In Basic English, The Jewish New Testament.


[2] Boyce W. Blackwelder, Light from the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1958), p. 146.

 

[victoryword]

This, of course, does not imply that faith is therefore an attribute of God. Mark 11:22, whether it is translated ‘[a] faith of God’ or ‘faith in God’, does not compel us to believe that God Himself has faith in something. There are no scriptures that support this. The belief that we can possess God’s own faith is not a necessary corollary of Mark 11:22, regardless of which type of genitive we prefer.

I believe that your argument above is more philosophical than exegetical. I suppose that is true of all of us in a sense. Our philosophy and/or theology determines how we view Scripture and what we believe can be derived from an interpretation of it.

Now your implication from the above is that God does NOT have faith in anything and no Scriptures even imply such. I would agree that the Bible has no clear statement which says, "God had faith that ...." or "God believed that ..."

Neither do we find any passage in Scripture that says that God is a TRINITY. Yet, from a compilation of several Scriptures we see that the concept is there. We do not read any Scripture that says that God is omnipotent. Yet, we have enough Scripture to make our case for it. We do not have any Scripture with direct statements concerning the use of the words omnipresence, omniscience, immutable, and many other large words we like to use in theological circles. yet we make these implications from a study of Scriptures themselves. We systematize them until we have developed a theology of the above.

So again, one will not find a statement that says that God has faith, but one can certainly draw this implication from a careful study of Scripture.

The first thing we must do is get rid of the unbiblical teaching that God is in some "eternal now" and is not experiencing history as we do. Though God has no beginning nor does He have an end, though He does not age or sleep when it is night on earth, neither do we find anything in Scripture implying that God views the past, present, and future simultaneously. Therefore all of God's interaction with creation is within time.

Once you have rid yourself of that philosophy, you can now see Genesis 1 very clearly as God speaking His Word and expressing complete confidence that what He has spoken will occur. The Bible is clear that there was a time when the heavens and the earth were NOT. God always was, but His creation appeared in some moment of existence. So in order for God to have made an act of creation, He had to believe at some moment that this would be done.

But let us say, for the sake of argument, that God does live in some "eternal now" and time was a creation. At what point in the "eternal now" did He create time? And at what point in the eternal now did God create (or recreate for us "Gap Theorists") in six days? At what point in the "eternal now" did God rest on the seventh day? It seems that Genesis 1 depicts God as experiencing all seven days in succession. Therefore, before something was, God had to believe at some point within those six days that it would be.

Biblically and even logically speaking, an "eternal now" God makes no sense. So if the Bible is to be read literally, minus philosophical and/or theological assumptions, God must be seen to experience succession of moments. From that understanding, God must be seen to believe someting is going to happen since it has not happened yet. Therefore, God must be seen to have faith.

God has complete faith in Himself, His ability, His power, His integrity, and the statements that comes out of His mouth. What He says he will do, will be done. He knows that He can make things happen and He is confident in this.

That's all for now.

 

[Andrew]

But it isn't. Faith and omniscience do not sit well with one another because they both have something different to say about what God can "see". "Faith" is the antithesis of "sight" ("for we walk by faith and not by sight), it is the "evidence of things not seen". The traditional definition of God's all-seeing omniscience refuses to mix with faith in the divine nature because of the implications about future-knowledge.

Why not? The phrase for "WE walk by faith not sight" pertains to us believers -- our walk with God on earth while we are still imperfect. It is a teaching given to us to help us grow spiritually. It is not for God to learn. God is not someone who needs to learn to walk by faith. He has perfect faith already and is the source of all faith.

"The evidence of things not seen" has to do with physical manifestation in the natural. God does not need to "see" the way we "see" -- in the natural -- in order to know or 'see' that it is so. eg When God told Abraham he wld have a son, God did not have to see the physical evidence (baby Isaac) (like most of us need to) to know that it was so. In the Spirit realm, he has already seen it. As far as God is concerned, the baby already exists. The spirit realm is more real than the physical.

You are equating the way God sees, with the way humans naturally see. So I do not see how God's 'seeing' is limited if he has perfect faith. If anything, He sees 'even more', based on the fact the the spirit is more real.

 

[Theophilus7]

Hi,

First, let me say that the essential thrust of my previous post was to demonstrate that the decision for interpreting Mark 11:22 as God's own faith (which I shall henceforward refer to as GKoF - The God-Kind-of-Faith) cannot be established just by arguing about the Greek - even if we allow a subjective genitive. And I might possibly concede that I cannot totally exclude GKoF from Mark 11:22 on the same grounds either (though maybe some Greek scholars would disagree with me). In other words, both of us are compelled to appeal to other scriptures and/or to theological/philosophical grounds to strengthen our case. That's an important step in the debate. No more talk about genitives, if you please, folks .

Now your implication from the above is that God does NOT have faith in anything and no Scriptures even imply such. I would agree that the Bible has no clear statement which says, "God had faith that ...." or "God believed that ..."

Which is an important point...

Neither do we find any passage in Scripture that says that God is a TRINITY. Yet, from a compilation of several Scriptures we see that the concept is there...So again, one will not find a statement that says that God has faith, but one can certainly draw this implication from a careful study of Scripture.

That is true. But there are scriptures that clearly teach that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. Compile them carefully, and the doctrine of the Trinity emerges. But is this really the case for the GKoF? It seems to me you will only be drawing out the implication by putting in the assumption in one form or another. Since we cannot find any scriptures that directly attribute faith to God, it would appear that we will only perceive the possibility of a GKoF if we have the right philosophical glasses on, and it will all boil down to an inferential argument in the end, rather like the Calvinists' doctrine of reprobation. I prefer a bit more meat on my theology than that , but perhaps I'm being fussy.

The first thing we must do is get rid of the unbiblical teaching that God is in some "eternal now" and is not experiencing history as we do. Though God has no beginning nor does He have an end, though He does not age or sleep when it is night on earth, neither do we find anything in Scripture implying that God views the past, present, and future simultaneously. Therefore all of God's interaction with creation is within time...
But let us say, for the sake of argument, that God does live in some "eternal now" and time was a creation. At what point in the "eternal now" did He create time? And at what point in the eternal now did God create (or recreate for us "Gap Theorists") in six days? At what point in the "eternal now" did God rest on the seventh day? It seems that Genesis 1 depicts God as experiencing all seven days in succession. Therefore, before something was, God had to believe at some point within those six days that it would be....
Biblically and even logically speaking, an "eternal now" God makes no sense. So if the Bible is to be read literally, minus philosophical and/or theological assumptions, God must be seen to experience succession of moments. From that understanding, God must be seen to believe someting is going to happen since it has not happened yet. Therefore, God must be seen to have faith.

First, I do not see the need to put God in time in order to facilitate God's interaction with creation. That God acts within time and acts differently at different points in time I gladly affirm (Acts 17:30-31). Surely what we need to do is distinguish between what God is (timeless in His own being, existing without beginning or end or succession of moments) and what He does outside of Himself (creating in time, and acting in other ways in time). He is the Lord of time. Perhaps we can look at it like this: God isn't in time, and God isn't outside of time. Time is in God! And aren't you taking time a little too seriously anyway? The study of modern Physics reveals that time is inseparably connected with space and matter. When God created the universe, He also created and continues to uphold time. I find it hard to see a time dimension stretching backwards for eternity without adding space and matter into the 'uncreated' box as well, and then where are we...? It is difficult, I grant you, to conceive of a "before" time too, but philosophers do it (even if we can't quite understand it!). God's act of creation comes under the heading of 'simultaneous causation'. You may perhaps have heard of the example of a weight resting on a cushion and simultaneously causing a depression in it. As one philosopher explained it, "The first moment of time is the moment of God's creative act and of creation's simultaneous coming to be." This would seem to be more consistent with what the Physicists tell us about time too. However, I don't pretend to know a great deal about the Physics or Philosophy involved here. For a fuller explanation of the philosophical details, I must point you to my betters.

Once you have rid yourself of that philosophy, you can now see Genesis 1 very clearly as God speaking His Word and expressing complete confidence that what He has spoken will occur. The Bible is clear that there was a time when the heavens and the earth were NOT. God always was, but His creation appeared in some moment of existence. So in order for God to have made an act of creation, He had to believe at some moment that this would be done.

Don't forget, you are asserting something more than confidence. You are inserting an element of the unknown - a necessary element in order for God's belief to qualify as "faith", according to the biblical definition (Heb. 11:1). But you already know that, or you wouldn't be advocating OV to support your interpretation of Mk. 11:22. I mention this for the benefit of any skimming readers vaguely following the debate.

Thanks once again for your thoughts, victoryword. I think after this we should probably be in agreement about the following:

1. With the possible exception of Mk. 11:22, the Bible never directly attributes faith to God.

2. Linguistic arguments for the GKoF in Mk. 11:22 are singularly inadequate.

3. However, we may be able to conceive of a GKoF within the context of Open Theism, thus:
a. possibly enabling us to consider various actions of God as an exercise of GKoF
b. removing at least some of the theological/philosophical objections to interpreting Mk. 11:22 as GKoF

However:

c. Granted OV, a GKoF in Mark 11:22 must still be contended for on a contextual/exegitical level, and may still be dismissed on that level for a one of the alternatives, if we find that the alternative offers more satisfactory credentials within that sphere of argument. In other words, if OV is true, it doesn't automatically follow that GKoF is the correct translation of Mk. 11:22.

​

I hope we are more or less in agreement on this much.


Theophilus7

 

[Theophilus7]

Why not? The phrase for "WE walk by faith not sight" pertains to us believers -- our walk with God on earth while we are still imperfect. It is a teaching given to us to help us grow spiritually. It is not for God to learn. God is not someone who needs to learn to walk by faith..."The evidence of things not seen" has to do with physical manifestation in the natural. God does not need to "see" the way we "see" -- in the natural -- in order to know or 'see' that it is so. eg When God told Abraham he wld have a son, God did not have to see the physical evidence (baby Isaac) (like most of us need to) to know that it was so...

I think you have pretty much put the nails in your own coffin with the above statements, Andrew . As long as you retain the traditional view of God's omniscience and omnipotence, faith remains a creaturely, human thing appropriate for those who don't see everything and can't do everything, and therefore have to trust in someone else. Let me try and put a bit of meat on that:

Biblical faith is a trust that believes something is, even though it cannot see it, or that something will work out a certain way, even though it cannot perceive just exactly how it will work out that way, and even though there may be good human reasons for why it wouldn’t work out that way! (See Hebrews 11). For example: “By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going” (Heb. 11:8). For the believer, faith is his ‘evidence’ or ‘conviction’ of the things he cannot see yet. While we cannot see the Lord as we live our lives on the earth, ‘we walk by faith and not by sight’ (2Cor. 5:7) – Paul sets the one against the other, ‘faith’ against ‘sight’. But there will come a time when we will see the Lord ‘face to face’. Then, in that regard, we will no longer need any evidence of things unseen! Perfect sight, or perfect knowledge, replaces faith. Conversely, faith must be exercised where there is no perfect knowledge and there exists no perfect proof (Heb. 11:6). Faith therefore contains an unseen element – an unknown; it is being ‘certain of what we do not see’. But God, if He exists in eternity, and if nothing is veiled to His eyes, past or present, sees and knows everything (Heb. 4:13); therefore He cannot have faith. He doesn't need it. The logic is simple, but inescapable. You can't put the biblical, Hebrews 11:1-kinda-faith in your theology of the nature of God, as it stands.

It should be clear from this discourse that faith is very much a ‘human thing’, even though it may be divinely imparted. Biblical faith is trust in a higher power, necessitated by the absence of strength, the absence of perfect knowledge and the absence of perfect foresight in the subject who exercises it. God chooses faith as a saving quality because it forces us to depend on something outside of ourselves (a reverse of the Fall, in fact cf. Gen. 3). A supernatural faith is certainly in God’s gift, but it is not in His nature. It is an appropriate quality for finite beings in their relationship with an infinite, omnipotent and omniscient God (using the word omniscient in the traditional sense), but not for the all-powerful, all-seeing God-of-the-Bible.
I think victoryword recognises most if not all of these problems, and seeks to resolve the conflicts by advocating a form of Open Theism. In our debate together, I have admitted that, as far as I can see, within the context of Open Theism, a God with faith may be possible, because of the way the open view defines His omniscience.

Hopefully this has made the debate a little clearer for you. Its the best I can do. If you're still not convinced there's an issue here, talk to victoryword. He's been cogitating these problems too, and seems convinced that WoF theology needs to go open view if it wants to keep "the God-kind of faith".

God bless,

Theophilus7

 

[Andrew]

As long as you retain the traditional view of God's omniscience and omnipotence, faith remains a creaturely, human thing appropriate for those who don't see everything and can't do everything, and therefore have to trust in someone else.

Well, that's just where I disagree. Faith is one of the gifts of God and the Holy Spirit -- God is the source of all faith. He cannot give out what he himself does not have. It is not just a "creaturely, human thing" for the weak. Whether this is a traditional view or not is not important to me, and it does not change the fact that Christians must use their faith, mixing it with the Word of God, which is essentially the essence of WOF.

 

[victoryword]

Martin Luther on the origin of Sickness

Martin Luther believed that sickness and disease originates with the devil. Luther does not seem to believfe that God gives sickness though He may send it as a means of discipline:

Martin Luther wrote:God sends no sickness into the world but through the devil. All sadness and sickness are of the devil, not of God. For God permits the devil to harm us because he receives little regard from us (Ac 10:38; Lu 13:11). Whatever, therefore, pertains to death is the handiwork of the devil; and conversely, whatever pertains to life is the blessed work of God.... The Devil must be our Lord God's executioner.(From "What Luther Says" as recorded in Dr. Ken Chant's book, Healing in the Whole Bible)

While there are some slight differences, it seems that Luther's beliefs concerning God, the devil, and sickness was more consistent with WoF theology than, say, another reformer of this time, namely John Calvin. Calvin taught that God was the source of everything and everything occurred as a result of some divine decree. Many heresy hunters today seem to follow Calvin's theology more than they do Luther's.

 

[victoryword]

Martin Luther and the "little gods" doctrine

In our continuing discussion of Martin Luther's Word-Faith beliefs, we now turn over to some more controversial aspects of his teachings. As demonstrated earlier, Martin Luther held to healing (we still have more evidence to present on this), authority over the devil, positive confession, and claiming promises and answers to prayer (again, more proof is available than what we have given here thus far). Along with these particular WoF "heresies", Martin Luther also taught that we were "gods". Ouch. It hurts but it is true. From a sermon that is available online, Luther says the following:

7. This is what I have often said, that faith makes of us lords, and love makes of us servants. Indeed, by faith we become gods and partakers of the divine nature and name, as is said in Psalms 82,6: "I said, Ye are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High." But through love we become equal to the poorest. According to faith we are in need of nothing, and have an abundance; according to love we are servants of all. By faith we receive blessings from above, from God; through love we give them out below, to our neighbor. Even as Christ in his divinity stood in need of nothing, but in his humanity served everybody who had need of him. Of this we have spoken often enough, namely, that we also must by faith be born God's sons and gods, lords and kings, even as Christ is born true God of the Father in eternity; and again, come out of ourselves by love and help our neighbors with kind deeds, even as Christ became man to help us all. And as Christ is not God, because he first merited divinity by his works or attained to it through his incarnation, but has it by birth, without any works, even before he became man; so we also have not merited by works or love sonship with God, so that our sins are forgiven, and death and hell cannot injure us; but without works and before our love, we have received it in the Gospel by grace through faith. And as Christ first became man to serve us after being God from eternity; so we also do good and exercise love to our neighbor, after we have become pious, free from sin, alive, saved, and sons of God by faith. Let this suffice concerning the first example, the leper.

In case anyone questions the integrity of my post, please read the sermon yourself from which I am quoting:

http://users.rcn.com/tlclcms/mlsema08.htm

Ah yes, Martin Luther, the Word-Faither. Say it isn't so!!!! Well, it is so, and this is far from all of his Word-Faith quotes. But, I will give you more at a later time. Ta-ta for now.

 

[Jim B]

Has it occurred to anyone on this thread that Martin Luther may not be the source or final authority of Truth. Could the guy have been wrong? Ever?

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

Jim B,

No one is claiming that Luther is the final authority. . .if I'm understanding correctly, it's a thread showing that the WOF people are not the first to teach this message as they have been accused.

 

[victoryword]

Martin Luther was wrong about a lot of things. He taught anti-semitism after the Jews rejected the gospel. He endorsed the drowning of Anabaptists. He denied the teaching of "free-will", instead embracing the Augustinian (and later Calvinistic) doctrine of "total deprabity" (inability). He still held to infant baptism and I am even told that he still venerated Mary as a virgin. We could find many things that are WRONG about Luther.

However, the point of my posts is to show how wrong some heresy hunters have been in claiming that (1)Most Word-Faith doctrine has no historical basis and was not advocated by the reformers, (2)Their belief that E. W. Kenyon, whom they claim was the "father" of the Faith Movement, received all of his teachings from Gnostics, Universalists, Metaphysical cults, etc., and (3)Luther, who is a hero due to having been used by God to bring the church from under the "salvation by works" and the "Pope" dictatorship was a great man and nothing like the current Word-Faith teachers. They act as if Luther were here he would join them in their crusade against Word-Faith doctrine.

Luther had failings. E. W. Kenyon had failings. Some current WoF teachers have faults. However, if we can remove the lie concerning Word-Faith's so called "metaphysical cult" origins then we are well on our way to debating the SCRIPTURAL merits of Word-Faith teaching vice having to refute the lies about it's origins.

Luther (and others) will help us to do just that.

 

[victoryword]

Jim B,

No one is claiming that Luther is the final authority. . .if I'm understanding correctly, it's a thread showing that the WOF people are not the first to teach this message as they have been accused.

That's it in a nutshell Quaffer

 

[Follower of Christ too]

Martin Luther was wrong about a lot of things. He taught anti-semitism after the Jews rejected the gospel. He endorsed the drowning of Anabaptists. He denied the teaching of "free-will", instead embracing the Augustinian (and later Calvinistic) doctrine of "total deprabity" (inability). He still held to infant baptism and I am even told that he still venerated Mary as a virgin. We could find many things that are WRONG about Luther.

However, the point of my posts is to show how wrong some heresy hunters have been in claiming that (1)Most Word-Faith doctrine has no historical basis and was not advocated by the reformers, (2)Their belief that E. W. Kenyon, whom they claim was the "father" of the Faith Movement, received all of his teachings from Gnostics, Universalists, Metaphysical cults, etc., and (3)Luther, who is a hero due to having been used by God to bring the church from under the "salvation by works" and the "Pope" dictatorship was a great man and nothing like the current Word-Faith teachers. They act as if Luther were here he would join them in their crusade against Word-Faith doctrine.

Luther had failings. E. W. Kenyon had failings. Some current WoF teachers have faults. However, if we can remove the lie concerning Word-Faith's so called "metaphysical cult" origins then we are well on our way to debating the SCRIPTURAL merits of Word-Faith teaching vice having to refute the lies about it's origins.

Luther (and others) will help us to do just that.

After recalling what I have read of Martin Luther in the past and studying in the word I have now converted to the old Bibical belief of the WOF

 

[victoryword]

After recalling what I have read of Martin Luther in the past and studying in the word I have now converted to the old Bibical belief of the WOF

Amazing, isn't it?

While I have always been uncomfortable with the "little gods" label, I have always believed in the principles taught, i.e. the believers authority, Christ dwelling in us, enthroned with Christ, ruling and reigning with Him, the new creation, etc.

To read Martin Luther himself unashamedly stating that Christians are "gods" in the sense that he says it makes this teaching even more interesting.

I found this on another webpage written by a woman named Sylvia Pearce. Though she does not give a book or sermon refernce, I still find the quote interesting:

Martin Luther, the father of the Reformation, once said, “It was God's intention to have a race of Christs. Nothing less than this is true holiness and the Gospel in operation. Holiness stands for Christ in you, the fullness of the Holy Spirit, the baptism of the Spirit and identification with Christ in His death and resurrection."

I wish I could find the actual sermon or reference for this quote. Nevertheless, after reading the earlier statement by Luther, I no longer doubt that the above is a genuine statement by him.

Oh there is so much more. Much, much more. I am trying to get all of this together to prepare an article on my webpage.

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

Amazing, isn't it?

While I have always been uncomfortable with the "little gods" label, I have always believed in the principles taught, i.e. the believers authority, Christ dwelling in us, enthroned with Christ, ruling and reigning with Him, the new creation, etc.

To read Martin Luther himself unashamedly stating that Christians are "gods" in the sense that he says it makes this teaching even more interesting.

I found this on another webpage written by a woman named Sylvia Pearce. Though she does not give a book or sermon refernce, I still find the quote interesting:

Martin Luther, the father of the Reformation, once said, “It was God's intention to have a race of Christs. Nothing less than this is true holiness and the Gospel in operation. Holiness stands for Christ in you, the fullness of the Holy Spirit, the baptism of the Spirit and identification with Christ in His death and resurrection."

I wish I could find the actual sermon or reference for this quote. Nevertheless, after reading the earlier statement by Luther, I no longer doubt that the above is a genuine statement by him.

Oh there is so much more. Much, much more. I am trying to get all of this together to prepare an article on my webpage.

When I first heard someone say that we were little gods, I immediately understood that meant I could be so full of God, that even the devils would not know the difference between me and Jesus. Unless of course I opened my mouth and spoke something that was contrary to His Word

 

[Andrew]

I was never really troubled by the little gods doctrine. I think a lot of Christians are so down-trodden by the devil and traditions that they need to hear something like that to show them whose 'boss'. Stop being bossed around by other demon gods. Step up to what and who Christ has made you. As He is so are we in this world.

We are in Christ, we are seated with him in heavenly places, we are joint heirs with Christ, we are the righteousness of God in Christ. We redeemed ones have a position that is better than Adam b4 the fall (and Adam had dominion over the earth). So How can we not be little gods?

If only Christians will rise up to that truth, we wld stop the devil from stepping all over us!