• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Martin Luther and Positive Confession

Status
Not open for further replies.

SavedByGrace3

Jesus is Lord of ALL! (Not asking permission)
Site Supporter
Jun 6, 2002
20,684
4,427
Midlands
Visit site
✟762,756.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Theophilus7 said:
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.
But this logic leaves you in a quandry.
If God does not use faith, then the entire passage falls appart... the whole context of the passage is that Jesus spoke words to a fig tree which then dried up as a result of His speaking. The disciples saw it and were amazed. The passage in question is Jesus speaking to that amazment. If God does not have faith, then why would Jesus(who is God) attribute the event to faith? Who was having the faith to effect the fig tree? And why would He tell us to do the same? If this verse does not mean exactly what it says, then the entire passage is rendered meaningless.
It seems you are doing a great deal of dodging and qualifying in order to avoid the obvious simple truth that He layed out here.
 
Upvote 0

SavedByGrace3

Jesus is Lord of ALL! (Not asking permission)
Site Supporter
Jun 6, 2002
20,684
4,427
Midlands
Visit site
✟762,756.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Quaffer said:
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.
Quite true Q.
And this is one of the main objections to WOF theology: that it has all been derived from "new revelation" in the last 50 years. Whether it is "healing in the atonement", "speaking the word of faith", JDS, or whatever. All of these teachings have very old roots and are by no means the invention of WOF teachers.
 
Upvote 0

victoryword

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
4,000
240
62
Visit site
✟27,870.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Quaffer said:
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 :p
Hey Quaffer

In a sense I understood it in a similar way. Better yet, I understood it to mean that we were God's children and created in His image, and that we were created to be like Him (in a limited sense). I never felt that any of the advocates of this teaching were implying that we were DEITY ourselves. The principles implied within the doctrine were helpful, the term itself bothered me a little, especially after the Faith Movement came under strong attack for its doctrines.

I felt that the use of the phrase "son of God" or even "child of God" has the same implications as the phrase "little god." Nevertheless, Luther's statements are a slap in the face of those critics who desire to slam the faith teachers because they want to refer to themselves that way. If the Faith Teachers be heretics, then so is Martin Luther .... and C. S. Lewis .... and several church fathers of the first three centuries.

Andrew said:
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!


Andrew

Just from my perspective, I always felt that one could teach all that you mention in your post without necessarily using the "little gods" phrase. I felt that we were engagin in unnecessary controversy by the use of this term. Let's admit it, many Faith Teachers seem to enjoy "shock treatment". I myself am a strong defender of Word-Faith beliefs but I have felt that there are some things that we could easily dispense with.

Certainly Jesus David was inspired by the Spirit to use the phrase in Psalm 82:6. Certyainly Jesus reaffirmed this in John 10:34-36. Certainly we find the psalmist again reminding us that we were made only a shade lower than God. However, we do not find the Apostles constantly referring to themselves in this manner and in Paul's epistles it does not come up. Instead, we are referred to as sons of God and children of God.

All I am saying is that we should not overemphasize a phrase that the Bible itself does not overemphasize. Many of the principles taught under the "little gods" phrase can be validly taught without us having to "look in the mirror and saying 'hello god'" (as Eddie Long once taught on TBN).

I do not feel the phrase is wrong since Jesus and David said as much. Contrary to their critics, the Faith Teachers are not guilty of heresy, but they are guilty of overemphasizing a phrase unnecessarily.
 
Upvote 0

victoryword

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
4,000
240
62
Visit site
✟27,870.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
didaskalos said:
Quite true Q.
And this is one of the main objections to WOF theology: that it has all been derived from "new revelation" in the last 50 years. Whether it is "healing in the atonement", "speaking the word of faith", JDS, or whatever. All of these teachings have very old roots and are by no means the invention of WOF teachers.
Well said Diddy
 
Upvote 0

victoryword

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
4,000
240
62
Visit site
✟27,870.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Martin Luther and the "Jesus Died Spiritually" Doctrine

Special thanks to quest2004 (from another forum) for pointing me to the Roman Catholic webpage that gave me even more ammunition

It seems every critics of the Word-Faith movement uses JDS as it's main reason for claiming it to be heretical. Many claim that E. W. Kenyon invented this teaching and passed it down to later Faith advocates. From Jesus being seperated from the Father, to Jesus supposedly taking on a "satanic nature" to "Jesus being dragged into hell by demons and tortured."

However, while Faith critics harp on these things, we can assure the reader that the Faith teachers were NOT the first to tyeach on them. Martin Luther taught many of these things unashamedly. For example, Luther believed that Matthew 27:46 was a literal seperation between the Father and Son. It is said that Martin Luther sat contemplating the words of this Scripture passage many years ago. After a long time he rose from his chair and exclaimed,

"God forsaken of God! Who can understand that?"
But unless that remains unclear, here is more commentary from Luther on Psalms 22, the verse that Jesus is quoting upon the cross:

Christ was and remains just and did not commit any sins ....

But at the moment in which he suffered, he took upon himself everything that is ours as if it were truly his, suffering even for that which we should have borne because of our sins and which the ****** already suffer....

The punishment of God which strikes because of sins is not only the pains of death but also the fear and horror of the troubled conscience which experiences the eternal wrath and as if it were eternally abandoned and driven far from the face of God ....(p. 603)

In the eyes (of God) also, Christ was like one abandoned, one accursed, a sinner, a blasphemer, one ******, even if he is without sin and without guilt. The fact that he says "you have abandoned me" is certainly not a joke, a game, or hypocrisy. He is truly abandoned in all, as is the sinner when he sins...(p. 605)
In other words, Luther believed that Christ died spirituall, since the basic meaning of spiritual death is seperation from God (see Eph. 2:1-6; Isa. 59:1-2). While critics have a difficult time with JDS, they have a more difficult time with the belief that Christ took on a satanic nature. I truly sympathize with the critic on this aspect even if I disagree with him on his vile criticism of it.

However, Luther is nearly as guilty as can be seen above when he says, "Christ was like one abandoned, one accursed, a sinner, a blasphemer, one ****** ..." Far from being an isolated statement, Luther uses even stronger language in his commentary on Galatians 3:13:

And this, no doubt, all the prophets did forsee in spirit, that Christ should be accounted the greatest transgressor that could be, having all sins imputed to Him. For He being made a sacrifice for sin, yea for the sins of the whole world, is not now the Son of God born of the virgin Mary, but a sinner who hath and carrieth the sin of Paul, who was a blasphemer and a persecutor; of Peter who denied Him; of David who was an adulterer and a murderer; and briefly, who hath and beareth all the sins of all men in His body; not that He is Himself guilty of any, but that He received them, being committed or done by us, and laid upon His own body, that He might make satisfaction for them with His own blood (Isa. 53:5).

But some men will say, it is absurd and slanderous to call the Son of God a cursed sinner. I answer, if thou be wilt deny Him to be a sinner and accursed, deny also that He was crucified and dead. For it is no less absurd to say that the Son of God (as our faith professesth and believeth) was crucified and suffered the pains of sin and death, than to say that He is a sinner and accursed. But if it be not absurd to confess and believe that Christ was crucified between two thieves, then it is not absurd to say also that He was accursed, and of all sinners the greatest.
Need we say more? This is very strong language, stronger language than any Faith Teacher that I have read thus far. Nevertheless, it does not stop here. Luther is strongly criticized by some Roman Catholic theologians for what they believe is a departure from the church fathers and orthodox Catholic doctrine. One commentator in his criticism of Luther says:

. . . God is at once completely above and completely below. He is the creator and the Lord and yet at the same time the lowest creature and a servant subject to all men, yes, even to the devil. This man Jesus who bears the wrath of God, the sin of the world, all earthly trouble, yes, hell itself, is at the same time the highest God. The mystery of Christ cannot be expressed without these paradoxes. This is especially true of Christ's sufferings on the cross . . . Luther had to come to terms with Christ's assertion on the cross that he was forsaken by God. In a sermon in 1537, he understands it in this way: The deity has certainly not departed from the humanity (deity and humanity are inseparably united in Christ); but 'the deity withdrew and hid . . . the humanity was left alone, the devil had free access to Christ, and the deity withdrew its power and let the humanity fight alone.' Elsewhere Luther says that Christ on the cross did not feel his deity but suffered purely as a man. - from The Theology of Martin Luther (translated by Robert C. Schultz, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966, 197-198),
If what the commentary states is true, how does this compare to some Faith Teacher's assertions about Jesus having a "wormy spirit", Jesus being tormented by the devil, Jesus being dragged into hell by the devil, etc.? Whether one truly agrees or disagrees, Luther's theology of Christ's redemptive work is no better or worse than any extreme Word-Faith JDS advocate.

These same Roman Catholic critics quote a passage from Luther's commentary to the Romans in which Luther explains Christ's descent into hell:

He found Himself in a state of condemnation and abandonment . . . He actually and in truth offered Himself to the eternal Father to be consigned to eternal damnation for us. His human nature did not behave differently from that of a man who is to be condemned eternally to hell. On account of this love of God, God at once raised Him from death and hell, and so He overcame hell. -from Commentary on Romans (1515-1516); edition of J. Ficker, Leipzig: 1908, 218 ff)
If the critic of the Faith Teachers would like to call Word-Faith a heretical teaching/movement due to its JDS, then let him do the same with Martin Luther, the great reformer of the 16th century. However, the critic should not stop at Luther since we can find a number of so called "heresies" amongst those who are otherwise considered to be "heroes of the faith." Unfortunately, when the critic has completed his task, he will find that he and a few others are the only ones on their way to heaven while the majority of the church is destined for hell because we are in heresy (as the critic defines heresy)

1. All info on the Catholic dispute with Luther is taken from this webpage: http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ499.HTM
Thanks to my friend, quest2004, for the info
 
Upvote 0

Andrew

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2002
4,974
24
✟21,360.00
Faith
Non-Denom
I do not feel the phrase is wrong since Jesus and David said as much. Contrary to their critics, the Faith Teachers are not guilty of heresy, but they are guilty of overemphasizing a phrase unnecessarily.

Hmmm, very wise and I'd have to agree with you. My Pastor once said the same thing, but he was refering to topics/doctrines. Sometimes, we also overemphasise doctrines/teachings that are not emphasised in the NT/epistles to the churches.
 
Upvote 0

victoryword

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
4,000
240
62
Visit site
✟27,870.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
More on Luther and JDS

Some will now probably side with the Roman Catholics and proclaim Luther a heretic. I am sure that they could tolerate most of Luther's Word-Faith heresies, but JDS? That's unpardonable!!!

And it ain't even the end. As I was reading another sermon by Luther on Philippians 2, I ran accross this statement concerning Jesus on the cross:

He not only made himself subject to men, but also to sin, death and the devil, and bore it all for us. He accepted the most ignominious death, the death on the cross, dying not as a man but as a worm (Ps 22, 6); yes as an arch-knave, a knave above all knaves, in that he lost even what favor, recognition and honor were due to the assumed servant form in which he had revealed himself, and perished altogether.
How much different is that from Kenneth Copeland's "wormy spirit" statement that his critics like to harp on. Oh, but this ain't even the finish. All the fuss about Jesus being tormented in hell by demons; while I am not in agreement with Copeland on such statements, he certainly was NOT the first to make them. In this same sermon, Martin Luther says the following:

As Christ was cast to the lowest depths and subjected to all devils, in obeying God and serving us, so has God exalted him Lord over all angels and creatures, and over death and hell. Christ now has completely divested himself of the servant form -- laid it aside. Henceforth he exists in the divine form, glorified, proclaimed, confessed, honored and recognized as God.
Can it get any WORSE? We shall see. Based on this, Copeland should begin losing his status as the world's greatest false teacher. Either that or Word-Faith critics should admit that they are just wrong about the so called heresies in the Word-Faith Movement. I am sure that ice water will be served in hell before that happens.

Excerpts taken from A Sermon for Palm Sunday; Philippians 2:5-11 Full sermon can be found here:

http://users.rcn.com/tlclcms/mlsepalm.html
 
Upvote 0

victoryword

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
4,000
240
62
Visit site
✟27,870.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
More of Luther on Health and Prosperity

Martin Luther was indeed a "Health and wealth" preacher (in the moderate sense). In his "The Large Catechism" Luther comments on the Scriptures teaching the necessity to obey their parents. Expounding on the promises that come with such, Luther makes the following statements:

Over and above all this, another great reason that should incite us the more (to obedience to this commandment) is that God attaches to this commandment a temporal promise and says: That thou mayest live long upon the land which the Lord, thy God, giveth thee.

Here you can see yourself how much God is in earnest in respect to this commandment, inasmuch as He not only declares that it is well pleasing to Him, and that He has joy and delight therein; but also that it shall be for our prosperity and promote our highest good; so that we may have a pleasant and agreeable life, furnished with every good thing. Therefore also St. Paul greatly emphasizes the same and rejoices in it when he says, Eph. 6, 2. 3: This is the first commandment with promise: That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. For although the rest also have their promises contained in them, yet in none is it so plainly and explicitly stated.

Here, then, you have the fruit and the reward, that whoever observes this commandment shall have happy days, fortune, and prosperity; and on the other hand, the punishment, that whoever is disobedient shall the sooner perish, and never enjoy life. For to have long life in the sense of the Scriptures is not only to become old, but to have everything which belongs to long life, such as health, wife, and children, livelihood, peace, good government, etc., without which this life can neither be enjoyed in cheerfulness nor long endure. If, therefore, you will not obey father and mother and submit to their discipline, then obey the hangman; if you will not obey him, then submit to the skeleton-man, i.e., death [death the all-subduer, the teacher of wicked children]. For on this God insists peremptorily: Either if you obey Him rendering love and service, He will reward you abundantly with all good, or if you offend Him, He will send upon you both death and the hangman.
From http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/catechism/web/cat-06.html

Thank God that Luther did not fall into the fatalistic trap that his predecessors, the RC church, did with their "poverty vows". On the contrary, Luther refutes the false poverty teaching of his time:

Finally, you see in this Gospel that Christ, though he held Gospel poverty in the highest esteem and was not anxious about the morrow, as he teaches in Matthew 6, 34, had still some provisions, as the two hundred shillings, the five loaves and the two fishes; in order that we may learn how such poverty and freedom from care consist not in having nothing at all, as the barefooted fanatics and monks profess, and yet they themselves do not hold to it; but it consists in a free heart and a poor spirit. For even Abraham and Isaac had great possessions, and yet they lived without worry and in poverty, like the best Christians do.
from http://users.rcn.com/tlclcms/mlsejn06.html

So Luther explains what it means to be "poor in spirit". It is NOT being without material possessions, but simply relying on Christ. Thank God that Luther did not take with him the RC's povert gospel upon his freedom. Neither did he fall into the trap of later protestants who taught that both fortune and misfortune was the result of some mysterious sovereign decree.

Obedience to God brings material as well as spiritual blessings. This is not true because Luther taught it, it is true because this is taught in God's Word. However, we thank God that Luther confirms this without compromising the Word.
 
Upvote 0

look

A New Species of Man®
Mar 15, 2003
814
9
69
Daytona Beach, Florida
Visit site
✟16,110.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Thank you Brother Victoryword...Keep it coming, this stuff edifies me greatly!!!
hugginsmileys.gif
I wonder if Brother Copeland is hearing any of this??? :)
 
Upvote 0

victoryword

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
4,000
240
62
Visit site
✟27,870.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
look said:
Thank you Brother Victoryword...Keep it coming, this stuff edifies me greatly!!!
hugginsmileys.gif
I wonder if Brother Copeland is hearing any of this??? :)
Hi Look

I plan to put all of this together in an article and place it on my webpage. I will probably also make it available in Acrobat and Word doc form. Of course I want to make it more coherent than the way I have been presenting it here.

I have been reading even more stuff by Luther on prayer and having our physical needs met and I have come to realize that I have barely touched the surface. Add that to reports of Luther and his deliverance and healing ministry. These are not so widely distributed on the net so I will have to search my library to find books that deal with these subjects. But I will be getting more of this stuff together - and perhaps I will send the Copeland ministries a copy upon completion. ;)
 
Upvote 0

Theophilus7

Senior Member
Sep 21, 2003
725
22
England
Visit site
✟15,972.00
Faith
Christian
I'm sorry for taking a while to get back to you.

didaskalos said:
But this logic leaves you in a quandry. If God does not use faith, then the entire passage falls appart...
Does it?

the whole context of the passage is that Jesus spoke words to a fig tree which then dried up as a result of His speaking. The disciples saw it and were amazed. The passage in question is Jesus speaking to that amazment. If God does not have faith, then why would Jesus(who is God) attribute the event to faith? Who was having the faith to effect the fig tree? And why would He tell us to do the same? If this verse does not mean exactly what it says, then the entire passage is rendered meaningless.
You are quite right to say that the passage is in the context of Jesus speaking to the fig tree, and that essentially Jesus was saying, 'have faith and you can do the same'. I think you confuse the issue, however, when you say "Jesus has faith", therefore "God has faith" because Jesus is God. You are forgetting that Jesus is also a man, that the divine Logos took upon Himself our humanity. A pantheistic philosopher once said, "when the absolute descends into the sea it becomes a fish". A similar principle applies here. When God becomes man, He is seen to have perfect faith. He depends upon his Father (as we are to do) and learns obedience through what He suffers. Indeed, no man, no real man, certainly no good man, could be without faith. If by "the God-kind of faith" you mean Jesus' faith in God, if that is how you understand Mark 11:22, we're not that different, except in our translation.

God bless,

Theophilus7
 
Upvote 0

victoryword

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
4,000
240
62
Visit site
✟27,870.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Godz Marine said:
Besides Martin Luther being a WOF man, Mary the mother of Jesus was a tongue talker!!!! Acts 1:14 and Acts 2:1-4. :clap: :wave: :amen:

Wow, good point. I never thought about that. She certainly was. Surely I will have to remember this in my next class when I teach on receiving the Holy Spirit baptism.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.