Protestant beliefs

[1stcenturylady]

I want to thank everyone for being so open about your denominational beliefs. It has helped a lot in choosing a fellowship of believers to join with. Yesterday, I may have found one at the food bank. (First time I've left the house since Thanksgiving next door.) Now if I can overcome this phobia and get out of my house to go, I might get healed.

 

[PeaceB]

No true Christian would today condone the harsh rhetoric of Luther against the Jews. I won't defend it myself - even though there is much to be said in trying to understand it.

But we are talking here in this thread about the idea of Luther supposedly encouraging Christians to sin in order that grace may increase.

Clearly he did not consider the harsh sanctions he recommended for Christians against the Jews of his time to be sin. In fact - he obviously considered that they would be acts of righteousness and not acts of disobedience to God.

Therefore - Luther's rants in "On the Jews and Their Lies", as interesting as they are to talk about, are not pertinent to our discussion in this thread.

Nonsense. What I posted was exactly relevant to what was being discussed.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Nonsense. What I posted was exactly relevant to what was being discussed.

Nonsense. In what way is it relevant?

Here is the entire comment by Luther we are asked to discuss in this thread. You seem to have forgotten that it was the idea of sinning purposefully that grace may increase, which it is supposed that Luther is advocating in the quote, which we are discussing here.

If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard, for you are quite a sinner.

I explained as clearly as possible that the actions called for against the Jews in his book were obviously not considered by him to be sins but rather righteous acts. Therefore they do not fit into the discussion concerning the concepts in his quote above.

This is a simple matter of reading the two pieces of material, as I have. I understand that you don't want to admit that the piece you refer to isn't relevant to this particular thread. But then I'm not asking you to admit it - even though it is obvious for all to see.

However, I would advise you to not bow your neck in such a way that you double down on you mistake in print. Better to simply admit to yourself that you misspoke in this case and vow to yourself that you will think things through better in future posts.

I see that you are Catholic. Is it possible that your animosity toward Luther and or the Reformation has caused you to lay aside all logic in this case in favor of what seems to be obstinate behavior?

 

[PeaceB]

Nonsense. In what way is it relevant?

Here is the entire comment by Luther we are asked to discuss in this thread. You seem to have forgotten that it was the idea of sinning purposefully that grace may increase, which it is supposed that Luther is advocating in the quote, which we are discussing here.

I explained as clearly as possible that the actions called for against the Jews in his book were obviously not considered by him to be sins but rather righteous acts. Therefore they do not fit into the discussion concerning the concepts in his quote above.

This is a simple matter of reading the two pieces of material, as I have. I understand that you don't want to admit that the piece you refer to isn't relevant to this particular thread. But then I'm not asking you to admit it - even though it is obvious for all to see.

However, I would advise you to not bow your neck in such a way that you double down on you mistake in print. Better to simply admit to yourself that you misspoke in this case and vow to yourself that you will think things through better in future posts.

It is relevant because you wrote that you believed that Martin Luther would never encourage Christians to sin, and in the book he does exactly that.

 

[Vicomte13]

Yes. But it's worth pointing out that in Jer 31 the new covenant is still with Israel. So it would be misleading to say that the old covenant passed away and there was a new one that included Gentiles. Paul deals with question of the inclusion of Gentiles. His approach is that we were grafted into Israel, not that the covenant with Israel was past.

Yes, the Old Covenant remains, but it cannot be kept: no priesthood.
Yes, Paul views the Christians as being grafted on - which is ok as long as one stops at a mystical level.
Once one starts pretending that Gentile Christians are sinners because they violate terms of the Old Covenant (which were not sins to them before they were grafted in), but that the reason they are not all damned for these new sins is because Jesus forgives them - that's not right either.

Nobody can follow the Old Covenant: a priesthood in the Aaronic line is required, and they were all wiped out with the Temple. And the Old Covenant can't be changed, ever, to allow for the making of a new priesthood. So, it's in force, exactly as written, and therefore a dead letter, at God's own hand, because he removed one of the necessary things to carry it out. All that it ever promised was obedient Hebrews a secure farm in Israel. So in the present state of affairs, nobody can get the reward of the Old Covenant - nobody can get a farm in Israel, secured by God - because the Old Covenant cannot be kept (no priests). The best one can do is buy a farm in Israel, which is secured by the Israeli Army, not God.

The Old Covenant promised the Hebrews (later the Jews) a country and place in the country. If offered nothing in terms of life after death.

THAT is the other problem with the idea that the Old Covenant applies to Christians through the grafting. Not only can't we get the farm, but the Old Covenant never promises hell for eating bacon, or for homosexual sodomy or murder, for that matter. It promises the Hebrews that they will be executed by men, if caught in the latter two of those things (and cast out for the first). And it promises them no farm in Israel. But it says nothing about being thrown into Hell. Hell, Gehenna, the Lake of Fire: those are not revealed in the Mosaic Covenant, and they are not threatened as punishment for sin.

It is Jesus who reveals those things directly. The Hebrews had their legends and myths and their inspirations about Gehenna and the like, but there is not one word about any of that revealed in the Old Covenant. If you broke all 19 Commandments, men might put you to death, and you would not get your farm in Israel, but God never threatened Hell, or even revealed it at all.

The New Covenant reveals a new promised land: Paradise and the City of God after the resurrection, to any who will follow Jesus - which includes not doing certain things he said not to do. The Old Covenant only promises Hebrews in Israel a farm in Israel.

These are strikingly different things. Christians try far too hard to bootstrap the Old Covenant into the New, and to put Christians under fusty rules that Jesus never imposed on anybody.

And Paul? When he was alive, it was still possible to keep the Old Covenant. The Temple was still up, the priesthood was still intact, the sacrifices were still being made. It was perfectly logical for him to think that God would go on protecting his people. Remember, Paul never saw Jesus in the flesh, never heard him speak, and had no New Testament: Paul's letters are the oldest part of the New Testament. So, WE have Jesus in the Temple area, telling everybody that it would all be pulled down and destroyed in that generation, but Paul did not have that history, or any of the Gospel other than what he got by word of mouth. He was mostly running on the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in what he taught, and did not have the detailed history of Jesus that we have.

WE know that Jesus' condemnation of the Temple to utter destruction would indeed be carried out that generation. Paul didn't know any of that, and probably did not even know the specifics of the condemnation. Paul was a Jewish Pharisee, writing to converts in a Christianity that was still heavily Jewish at root, and that still had a Temple, priests, sacrifices. Paul gives no inkling of realizing that all of that will be swept away - that the Temple and the Priesthood and the Jewish religion of the Bible WOULD have its visitation and be removed from the earth very soon, but that this would not herald the end of the world at all. It would, rather, remove Temple Judaism as a viable competitor for attention with the Christianity of the Apostles.

In Paul's day, there was a choice for being absolved of sin for a Jewish Christian: prayer to Jesus, or sacrificing an animal on the altar. Paul did not foresee that the Judaism of Moses would be destroyed forever.

The Judaism of the synagogue, which has gone on after the Temple, is nothing like the Judaism of the Temple. There are no sacrifices for atonement. There are no priests as prophetic lawgivers. There are no Sadduccees and Essenes. All there are, are Pharisees, and all they can do is read a text, all of the rites and rituals and ability to perform them having been wiped out.

Paul never faced that, and he never contemplated it. Paul, a Pharisee, had to try to reconcile and rectify his own Pharisaic Judaism with the Jewish Messiah, who was very different than expected. He never conceived that God would actually ANNHILATE Mosaic Judaism by erasing the Temple and the priesthood completely.

The Mosaic Covenant, exactly as written, goes on forever, unchangeable. Which MEANS that when God sent the Roman Army to blot out the Temple and exterminate the Aaronic line of priests, God removed Templar Judaism from the world forever. There is no competitor left to Jesus' New Covenant. The Old Covenant is intact, but it is physically impossible to keep it. There is no Temple. There are no priests. And the Covenant can't be changed to make a new way. The old way has to be followed, and God killed all the priests so it CAN'T be. Which means that the Old Covenant is alive and intact, but the religion it structures has been dead since 69 AD and cannot be resurrected unless an Aaronic priest can be resurrected. Only God can do that, and he didn't.

 

[Marvin Knox]

It is relevant because you wrote that you believed that Martin Luther would never encourage Christians to sin, and in the book he does exactly that.

No - he encourages them to do what he considers righteous acts. That they may indeed be sinful acts in the eyes of God at the Judgment Seat of Christ is of no import to the discussion at hand.

The discussion has to do with Luther's supposed belief that we are to sin mightily that grace may increase mightily.

My point to you was the obvious fact that encouraging Christians to do what he considered righteous acts in order to further the Kingdom of God is not the same as encouraging Christians to do what he considers sin that we may show forth the grace of God.

 

[PeaceB]

No - he encourages them to do what he considers righteous acts. That they may indeed be sinful acts in the eyes of God at the Judgment Seat of Christ is of no import to the discussion at hand.

The discussion has to do with Luther's supposed belief that we are to sin mightily that grace may increase mightily.

My point to you was the obvious fact that encouraging Christians to do what he considered righteous acts in order to further the Kingdom of God is not the same as encouraging Christians to do what he considers sin that we may show forth the grace of God.

Again, you wrote that Martin Luther would never encourage Christians to sin. Here is exactly what you wrote:

I don’t believe that Luther is encouraging God’s people to sin. He would never do that IMO. Perhaps something is lost in translation.

And that is exactly what I responded to.

If I order my son to burn down my neighbor's house, because I think that arson is a fine and dandy thing for a Christian to do, I have encouraged my son to sin, because arson is sin. And likewise Martin Luther encouraged Christians to sin, regardless of what his motives may have been.

You wrote that you believed that Luther would never encourage Christians to sin, and in his book he encourages Christians to sin. So what I wrote is directly relevant to your statement.

If you had written "I don't believe that Luther teaches a doctrine of sinning so that grace may abound" that would be a different thing, but that is not what you wrote.

And note that a motive to encourage people to commit sinful acts does not come from God. Even a four year old knows that arson is wrong. So that excuse simply does not work in any event. The argument that Luther does not know that the things that he advocates for in the book are evil is lame, as they are plainly evil to any person with any basic sense of morality.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Can you be absolutely 100% certain that you would never do anything in the future. Of course not.

Yes. Of course I can be 100% sure

Didn't Peter have the same mindset as you have in thinking that he would never deny Christ. We know what happened to Peter in that he denied Christ not just once but three times. Fortunately for Peter, he had the opportunity to repent.

Yes in some ways it was the same mindset.

Yes it was fortunate for Peter that he had an opportunity to repent. That’s exactly why the two cases are not the same. Those who take the mark of the beast will have no opportunity to repent.

I know with almost 100% certainty that I am likely to deny Christ in various sinful ways in my future life just as I have in the past. If you are sure you won’t then you are a better man than I am and more power to you.

I also know with 100% certainty that He who began a good work in me will complete it. That work does not include drinking of, “the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.” Revelation 14:10

If you have no such certainty I suggest that you do what the scriptures admonish you to do. “Cast “all your anxiety on Him, because He cares for you.” 1 Peter 5:7

I find it sad that you do not have the assurance that Jesus is the author and finisher of your faith and that you will never come into condemnation since you believed on Him for salvation.

It seems that you do not believe that you were given to the Son by the Father and that, having come to Him, He will raise you up on that day.

I’ll probably not argue with you any more here.

But I will invite you with all of my heart to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and His accomplishments at Calvary on your behalf as your only hope of salvation.

Unless the Holy Spirit convict you of your errors it would do me no good to discuss and argue for what is assuredly told to every believer – that we are even now raised up and seated with Him in Heaven.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Again, you wrote that Martin Luther would never encourage Christians to sin. Here is exactly what you wrote:


And that is exactly what I responded to.

If I order my son to burn down my neighbor's house, because I think that arson is a fine and dandy thing for a Christian to do, I have encouraged my son to sin, because arson is sin. And likewise Martin Luther encouraged Christians to sin, regardless of what his motives may have been.

You wrote that you believed that Luther would never encourage Christians to sin, and in his book he encourages Christians to sin. So what I wrote is directly relevant to your statement.

If you had written "I don't believe that Luther teaches a doctrine of sinning so that grace may abound" that would be a different thing, but that is not what you wrote.

And note that a motive to encourage people to commit sinful acts does not come from God. Even a four year old knows that arson is wrong. So that excuse simply does not work in any event. The argument that Luther does not know that the things that he advocates for in the book are evil is lame, as they are plainly evil to any person with any basic sense of morality.

As you wish.

 

[Oldmantook]

Yes. Of course I can be 100% sure

Yes in some ways it was the same mindset.

Yes it was fortunate for Peter that he had an opportunity to repent. That’s exactly why the two cases are not the same. Those who take the mark of the beast will have no opportunity to repent.

I know with almost 100% certainty that I am likely to deny Christ in various sinful ways in my future life just as I have in the past. If you are sure you won’t then you are a better man than I am and more power to you.

I also know with 100% certainty that He who began a good work in me will complete it. That work does not include drinking of, “the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.” Revelation 14:10

If you have no such certainty I suggest that you do what the scriptures admonish you to do. “Cast “all your anxiety on Him, because He cares for you.” 1 Peter 5:7

I find it sad that you do not have the assurance that Jesus is the author and finisher of your faith and that you will never come into condemnation since you believed on Him for salvation.

It seems that you do not believe that you were given to the Son by the Father and that, having come to Him, He will raise you up on that day.

I’ll probably not argue with you any more here.

But I will invite you with all of my heart to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and His accomplishments at Calvary on your behalf as your only hope of salvation.

Unless the Holy Spirit convict you of your errors it would do me no good to discuss and argue for what is assuredly told to every believer – that we are even now raised up and seated with Him in Heaven.

It is your prerogative of course to hold to your belief. However as I pointed out Jude 12 does not align itself with your view which curiously you have not even addressed. All scripture must align with one's doctrine since scripture does not contradict itself. We are not arguing but discussing our views so I'll wait for your reply; otherwise I'll just assume you don't want to deal with it in order to keep your view.

 

[Marvin Knox]

It is your prerogative of course to hold to your belief. However as I pointed out Jude 12 does not align itself with your view which curiously you have not even addressed. All scripture must align with one's doctrine since scripture does not contradict itself. We are not arguing but discussing our views so I'll wait for your reply; otherwise I'll just assume you don't want to deal with it in order to keep your view.

I don't have the time right now for an in depth discussion of the source of our salvation. That is the crux of the matter as I see it - the difference between you and I as to who began our salvation by grace and who will carry it through to the end through faith by that same indwelling grace.

I wouldn't be so rash as to comment on whether you are saved or not. You haven't listed your belief "denomination" so I can't even use that as any kind of rough guide concerning that.

But I will say that you have obviously not rested in Christ as your only hope of salvation. That's completely up to you and the Holy Spirit in the end.

I hope to see you on the other side.

As you probably remember, we have discussed these things quite a bit in the past .

 

[hedrick]

Once one starts pretending that Gentile Christians are sinners because they violate terms of the Old Covenant (which were not sins to them before they were grafted in), but that the reason they are not all damned for these new sins is because Jesus forgives them - that's not right either.

Jesus effectively replaced the Law, replacing the letter of the 10 commandments with intent, and rejecting the kosher laws (Mark 7:19). But he was talking to Jews when he said these things. The new covenant in Jeremiah was intended for Jews. Hence I'm not convinced that the old covenant is morally binding on anyone, even Jews.

I should note that Jewish interpreters understand that there's an intent behind the laws, and do pay attention to that. I think they're still more committed to the letter of the law than necessary. But as long as they follow the intent, and choose to obey the letter as well as a way to honor God, I have no problem with that.

Nobody can follow the Old Covenant: a priesthood in the Aaronic line is required, and they were all wiped out with the Temple.

Sure, there are ceremonies that require a priest. But the prophets already in the OT said that that wasn't required for forgiveness. Ps 51:16 and a number of parallels. The basic requirement in both OT and NT is repentance. It's certainly possible that there were varying schools of thought during OT times, so that the authors of Lev. thought differently. But I'd accept the prophets over them.

I do accept that some provisions of the OT were more temporary. Israel was a nation, and had a legal code and procedures for enforcing it. They also had specific worship practices. But those weren't the key elements of the covenant. The covenant was God's commitment to Israel. The specifics can change without affecting the covenant.

I'm not convinced that there's no one from the line of Aaron left, though that discussion goes too far afield from this subject.

THAT is the other problem with the idea that the Old Covenant applies to Christians through the grafting.

The covenant is really God's commitment to Israel. We join that covenant people. We don't inherit all the details of the law, but Jeremiah already envisioned that kind of change even for the Jews, and Jesus seems to have preached it to his Jewish audience.

But it says nothing about being thrown into Hell. Hell, Gehenna, the Lake of Fire: those are not revealed in the Mosaic Covenant, and they are not threatened as punishment for sin.

Jesus is a lot more specific about hell than the OT. But remember, he's teaching to Jews. And by his time the Jewish people had adopted those ideas. It would be a bit weird to claim that only non-Jews are subject to hell.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Nonsense. In what way is it relevant?

Here is the entire comment by Luther we are asked to discuss in this thread. You seem to have forgotten that it was the idea of sinning purposefully that grace may increase, which it is supposed that Luther is advocating in the quote, which we are discussing here.

I explained as clearly as possible that the actions called for against the Jews in his book were obviously not considered by him to be sins but rather righteous acts. Therefore they do not fit into the discussion concerning the concepts in his quote above.

This is a simple matter of reading the two pieces of material, as I have. I understand that you don't want to admit that the piece you refer to isn't relevant to this particular thread. But then I'm not asking you to admit it - even though it is obvious for all to see.

However, I would advise you to not bow your neck in such a way that you double down on you mistake in print. Better to simply admit to yourself that you misspoke in this case and vow to yourself that you will think things through better in future posts.

I see that you are Catholic. Is it possible that your animosity toward Luther and or the Reformation has caused you to lay aside all logic in this case in favor of what seems to be obstinate behavior?

I'm not Catholic. Are you talking to me?

 

[Marvin Knox]

I'm not Catholic. Are you talking to me?

No - I was talking to "PeaceB".

But I'd much rather talk to you.

 

[PeaceB]

No - I was talking to "PeaceB".

But I'd much rather talk to you.

I would much rather you talk to her as well.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I would much rather you talk to her as well.

Good. Go for it.

Try to keep your posts related to the OP. That's what I did in my first post to her and every post to her thereafter.

 

[PeaceB]

Good. Go for it.

Try to keep your posts related to the OP. That's what I did in my first post to her and every post to her thereafter.

I will post whatever I like. You don’t get to tell me what to post, and to decide what is relevant.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I will post whatever I like. You don’t get to tell me what to post, and to decide what is relevant.

I know you are, but what am I?

 

[PeaceB]

I know you are, but what am I?

You are PeeWee Herman, apparently.

 

[Oldmantook]

I don't have the time right now for an in depth discussion of the source of our salvation. That is the crux of the matter as I see it - the difference between you and I as to who began our salvation by grace and who will carry it through to the end through faith by that same indwelling grace.

I wouldn't be so rash as to comment on whether you are saved or not. You haven't listed your belief "denomination" so I can't even use that as any kind of rough guide concerning that.

But I will say that you have obviously not rested in Christ as your only hope of salvation. That's completely up to you and the Holy Spirit in the end.

I hope to see you on the other side.

As you probably remember, we have discussed these things quite a bit in the past .

Yes we have, and thank you for the discussion! And if you ever get around to resolving Jude 12 with your position please do me a favor and let me know as I would like to know if I am mistaken in my interpretation/view as iron sharpens iron. Peace be upon you.