Antinomian, let's talk about a man named John List ...
Donna Kupp
John List was a "Christian".
John List was a Lutheran.
John List believed everything you say.
John List murdered his whole family and sent them to heaven.
According to the doctrines you teach,
John List was theologically correct.
After all, John List believed that "Jesus paid it all",
John was sorry that he had murdered. John knew he had done
wrong and had the faith to believe he could make his
peace with God because Jesus died even for him.
Let me ask you a question:
How many times can John List murder his family and still be
under the blood of Christ? Seventy times seven, you say?
What nonsense!
The thing that you and John List have never grasped is the fact
that forgiveness (justification) is not synonymous with
inheriting eternal life. That is why Paul said to
the (justified) Galatians :
"I warn you as I warned you before that those
who DO such things
shall not inherit the kingdom of God."
Gal 5:21
The Galatians were believers but it was what they DID
that determined whether they would inherit the kingdom of God or not.
The terrible tragedy of John List is that he did not
murder his family in spite of what his church taught him,
he murdered them BECAUSE of what his church taught him!
Martin Luther told John List that murdering
would not separate John from God
"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?
Let Your Sins Be Strong:
A Letter From Luther to Melanchthon
Letter no. 501, 1 August 1521,
"Luther's Correspondence", Lutheran
Publication Society, Philadelphia, 1918, II, p.50
Donna Kupp
http://groups.google.com/group/Freetruth?hl=en,
http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/show.php?i=630302&cat=0
The Seven Deadly Deceptions Of Counterfeit Christianity
http://www.freetruth.info
vince garcia
>
> Antinomian, let's talk about a man named John List...
>
> John List was a "Christian".
So is Spong by THAT definition
>
> John List was a Lutheran.
And a bad one, just like the BTK dude
>
> John List believed everything you say.
Oh, so he believed that murder was a 'sin unto death' that would cause
him to go to hell? Great
>
> John List murdered his whole family and sent them to heaven.
>
> According to the doctrines you teach,
> John List was theologically correct.
Huh? I'm sorry--you lost me there. You said he believes everything I
(we) say. Who here teaches murder is not sin, and will not damn you
unless you repent and seek forgiveness?
Oh, I forgot--YOU teach that so little as one willful sin is blasphemy
of the Spirit, and thus unforgiveable, and that ONLY sins of ignorance
can be forgiven.
Guess David's in hell then, huh?
Donna Kupp
I will talk about David's sin later; but right now, please keep on the
subject of John List.
Thank you.
Donna
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
After Luther had preached in the castle chapel at Dresden, Duke George
inquired of Madam de Ia Sale, "How did you like the sermon?" She
replied, "Could I again hear such a discourse, I could die in peace."
"And I," replied George angrily, "would give a good sum not to have
heard it. Such discourses are good only to make people sin with
confidence."
From that day to this, Luther's enemies have tried to pin the charge
of antinomianism on the great Reformer in particular or on
Protestantism in general. Antinomianism is the doctrine which says
that the gospel releases men from the obligation to obey the law of
God — a sort of "believe and live as you please" philosophy. Anyone
who seriously considers the Reformation, knows that the Reformer
fought against antinomianism as much as against legalism.
Yet we must admit that Protestantism has always been seriously tempted
toward antinomianism. This is not because there is anything inherently
amiss in the doctrine of justification by faith; it is because there
is something inherently wrong with human nature. "The carnal mind is
enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither
indeed can be." Rom. 8:7. An antinomian is simply a sinner—a man in
rebellion against divine law (1 John 3:4). And every man, regenerate
or unregenerate, is a sinner (antinomian) by nature (1 John 1:8). The
crude forms of antinomianism, like the crude forms of legalism, are
generally recognized for what they are by people who have a knowledge
of the Bible. Yet antinomianism, like its opposite error, is able to
dress itself up in the best evangelical attire.
For instance, Paul emphatically declares that we are justified by
faith "without works," or "without the deeds of the law" (Rom. 4:5, 6;
3:28). Many will therefore declare, "Good works are not necessary for
salvation," or, "Obedience to God's law is not necessary for
justification." But such statements are clearly contrary to the Bible
and to the great doctrine of justification by faith. They undermine
the authority of God's law and turn the gospel into a sentimental
platitude.
God's Word must first come to man in the law before it comes in the
gospel. Apart from the law, no one can understand or appreciate what
Christ did for us. At the outset of his epistle to the Romans, the
apostle declares, " . . . the doers of the law shall be justified."
Rom. 2:13. No man, absolutely no man, will be justified unless he
brings to God an obedience which satisfies the law. When the rich
young ruler inquired of Jesus, "What good thing shall I do, that I may
have eternal life?" Jesus pointed him first to the law: "If thou wilt
enter into life, keep the commandments" (Matt. 19:16-20). And all
through the Bible there are statements which promise life to the
obedient, to the overcomers, to the commandment keepers, to those who
do the will of God (Isa. 1:19; Rev. 3:21;22:14;1 John 2:17).
How Faith Honors the Law
After a man hears the conditions of acceptance with God and eternal
life, and is made sensible of his inability to meet those conditions,
the Word of God comes to him in the gospel. He hears that Christ stood
in his place and kept the law of God for him. By dying on the cross,
Christ satisfied all the law's demands. The Holy Spirit gives the
sinner faith to accept the righteousness of Jesus. Standing now before
the law which says, "I demand a life of perfect conformity to the
commandments," the believing sinner cries in triumph, "Mine are
Christ's living, doing, and speaking, His suffering and dying; mine as
much as if I had lived, done, spoken, and suffered, and died as He
did . . . " (Luther).4 The law is well pleased with Jesus' doing and
dying, which the sinner brings in the hand of faith. Justice is fully
satisfied, and God can truly say: "This man has fulfilled the law. He
is justified."
We say again, Only those are justified who bring to God a life of
perfect obedience to the law of God. This is what faith does—it brings
to God the obedience of Jesus Christ. By faith the law is fulfilled
and the sinner is justified.
On the other hand, the law is dishonored by the man who presumes to
bring to it his own life of obedience. The fact that he thinks the law
will be satisfied with his "rotten stubble and straw" (Luther) shows
what a low estimate he has of the holiness of God and what a high
estimate he has of his own righteousness. Only in Jesus Christ is
there an obedience with which the law is well pleased. Because faith
brings only what Jesus has done, it is the highest honor that can be
paid to the law (Rom. 3:31).
The doctrine of justification by Christ's perfect obedience to the
law, strikes at the very foundation of antinomianism.5 Since faith
brings to God that Life of perfect obedience to the law, no man can
exercise faith which is unto salvation and at the same time despise or
make light of the law. Moreover, faith not only justifies, but it also
brings the renewing power of the Holy Spirit into the heart (Eph.
1:13; John 1:12; 1 John 5:1; Rom. 5:5; Titus 3:5, 6). By the Spirit,
the law is written in the heart and mind (Heb. 8:10) 50 that the
believer's "new obedience" is the same kind of obedience that God
imputes to him for justification. As Melanchthon writes in the Apology
of the Augsburg Confession, " . .. love follows faith, because the
regenerate receive the Holy Ghost, and accordingly begin [to become
friendly to the Law and] to do the works of the Law."—Article XII, Pt.
V (Book of Concord, p.85). The spirit of the justified man is in
harmony with the spirit of Psalm 119. The will of God is his delight,
and the law, which is the expression of that will, becomes his
meditation day and night. Any other sort of justification is mere
fiction, and any other faith is a figment of the imagination, that
"flits across the top of the brain" (Calvin).
In this age of lawlessness, the church is often found aiding and
abetting the spirit of permissiveness by preaching a doctrine of
justification that does not take the law of God seriously. And it is
certain that those who listen to a "gospel" that does not take the law
seriously, will not be moved to take the law seriously themselves.
When the cross of Christ is preached as it should be, it magnifies the
gravity of disobedience; but all too often the offer of "cheap grace"
encourages people to carouse on the mercy of God. We agree with Dr.
Adolf Koberle, who chides Barth for a one-sided attack on legalism;
for while legalism is killing its thousands, antinomianism is killing
its tens of thousands (see Adolf Koberle, The Ouest for Holiness
[Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1964]), pp. 254, 255. The
only hope for the church today is to return to the two-edged sword of
the Word—the law and gospel as seen in the great Reformation message
of justification by faith.
Part III
4 Luther's Works (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press; St. Louis: Concordia
Publishing House, 1955), Vol. xxxi, pp.297,298.
5 In his great English classic on The Doctrine of Justification
(reprinted by The Banner of Truth Trust, 1961), James Buchanan points
out that antinomians acknowledge no place for the life of Christ in
the sinner's justification. The antinomians try to extol Christ's
death, but they fail to acknowledge the truth that it is the life of
Jesus which is imputed to the believer (Rom. 5:9, 18, 19). And because
they see no great value in Jesus' life of obedience to the law, they
themselves see no value in obeying the law of God. The true Pauline
and Reformation doctrine of justification is related to both the life
and death of Christ—as the Scottish theologians would say, both His
active and passive obedience. While the merit of Christ's death
removes the guilt and condemnation of sin, the merit of Christ's life
is imputed to the believer. Justification must not only be seen
negatively (as absence from sin), but positively (as credited with a
life full of good works and holy deeds). Those who appreciate the
value of Christ's life of obedience to the law, will reflect it in
their own lives.
http://www.presenttruthmag.com/archive/VII/7-2p2.htm
vince garcia
>
> Dear Reader,
>
> I will talk about David's sin later;
Translation: "The stupidity of my false doctrine that only sins
committed in ignorance can be forgiven has now been exposed, and I'll go
off and figure out some equally fallacious argument as to how david can
commit a willing sin of murder but somehow get forgiven.
"Anything but admit I am a false teacher."
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
James S. Gidley
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does James 2:24 require us to modify the Reformation doctrine of
justification by faith alone? It reads, "You see that a person is
justified by works and not by faith alone."
Roman Catholic theologians insist that this text expressly denies the
Reformation doctrine of justification by faith alone, and that
justification is by both faith and works. Reformed theologians have
argued that James, when properly understood, neither modifies nor
contradicts Paul's doctrine of justification by faith alone [see
table]. In a nutshell, James and Paul address two different questions
and are speaking of two different kinds of faith and two different
kinds of justification.
Agreement Between Paul and James
We learn much about the relationship between Paul and James in
Galatians 1�2. In a meeting with the leaders of the Jerusalem church,
Paul tells us, "I ... set before them ... the gospel that I proclaim
among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not
run in vain" (Gal. 2:2). The result of this examination was that
"those who seemed to be influential ... added nothing to me" (2:6),
and that "James and Cephas and John ... gave the right hand of
fellowship to Barnabas and me" (2:9). That is, Paul found that the
apostles and leaders in Jerusalem preached the same gospel that he
did.
Paul wants the Galatians to know that they reached this agreement,
despite Peter's behavior at Antioch (2:11�14). Paul clearly puts the
doctrine of justification by faith, without the works of the law, at
the heart of the gospel. Therefore, the same doctrine of justification
must have been at the heart of the gospel as it was proclaimed at
Jerusalem. If that were not so, then either James or Paul (or both)
was seriously mistaken or dishonest about the agreement reported in
Galatians 2:9.
What was the nature of the agreement between Paul and the leaders at
Jerusalem? The narrative makes it plain that Paul and the Jerusalem
leaders did not reach agreement by working out previously existing
differences. Rather, they discovered that they had been preaching the
same gospel all along. Many evangelical and Reformed theologians would
say that the two sides agreed in substance, but used different
terminology�at least prior to the meeting described in Galatians 2. On
this view, James 2 reflects this earlier terminology, which was used
before Paul's distinctive use of the term justification became common
in the Jerusalem church.
Such a view of Galatians 2 is sufficient to harmonize Paul and James
and to defend the doctrine of justification by faith alone.
Nevertheless, a more natural interpretation of the text is that Paul
and the Jerusalem leaders found that they agreed not only in
substance, but also in terminology. That is, the Jerusalem leaders,
including James, preached and taught the doctrine in its Pauline form,
that "a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith
in Jesus Christ" (Gal. 2:16). Robert Johnstone, a nineteenth-century
Scottish Presbyterian, puts it this way in his commentary on James
(pp. 203�4):
The great cardinal doctrine that justification is by faith alone, was,
beyond reasonable question, well known and ... fully received by the
readers of this Epistle [James], as by all others of the primitive
Christians.... That the full theological expression "justification by
faith" was current in its well-defined sense at a very early period in
the history of the church ... is shown by the language which, in
Galatians [2:15�16], Paul mentions his having addressed to Peter at
Antioch.
Paradoxical Terminology
But if James in fact taught the doctrine of justification by faith,
without the works of the law, in the same terms as Paul did, then how
could he possibly speak as he does in James 2? James assumes that his
readers are quite familiar with Paul's formulation of the doctrine.
But some of James's hearers were using the doctrine of justification
by faith alone as a pretext for being complacent about ungodly living.
What better way is there to awaken them than by using words that at
first glance seem to be a shocking departure from what they have been
taught? James 2 is a bombshell that explodes carnal confidence at its
foundation. The complacent can scarcely be moved by anything less.
In other words, James is deliberately using paradox. Paradox is a
feature of biblical wisdom literature; perhaps the clearest example is
Proverbs 26:4�5:
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him
yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his
own eyes.
The Letter of James is also wisdom literature, and James puts us on
notice from the very beginning of his letter to watch out for paradox:
"Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various
kinds" (James 1:2). Perhaps these words have become so familiar to us
that we forget how absurd they sound on first reading. How can we
rejoice about trials? But James provides the resolution in the
following two verses, and the wise will not miss his meaning.
All this is helpful in understanding James 2. We should expect the
unexpected from James! Resolving the paradox of James 2 leads to the
classic Reformed position: James is not speaking of the same faith as
Paul, nor is he speaking of the same justification.
In James 2:14, we read of one who "says he has faith." This is not
genuine faith, but a bare profession of faith. So when James asks,
"Can that faith save him?" he is saying nothing against genuine faith,
but only against an empty profession of faith. James gives us the test
for genuine faith: like the faith of Abraham, it works. As J. Gresham
Machen puts it, "The faith that James is condemning is not the faith
that Paul is commending" (Notes on Galatians, p. 220).
It is also true that the justification of which James speaks is not
the justification of which Paul speaks. One indication of this is the
timing. Abraham was justified by works "when he offered up his son
Isaac on the altar" (James 2:21). This was about thirty years after he
had been justified by faith (Gen. 15:6). James shows that he is
sensitive to timing when he says in 2:23 that Abraham's justification
by works "fulfilled" Genesis 15:6. He speaks of Genesis 15:6 as a
prophecy, and of Genesis 22 as its fulfillment. Prophecy and
fulfillment do not occur at the same time and are not the same thing.
What then is the nature of justification in James? James indicates
this plainly in 2:18: "Show me your faith apart from your works, and I
will show you my faith by my works." He is speaking about
demonstrating the genuineness of faith.
In Romans 4, Paul addresses the question, How was Abraham justified?
In this question, "justified" means "reckoned righteous before God,"
and Paul's answer is: by the imputation of Christ's righteousness,
received by faith alone. But when James asks how Abraham was
justified, he is assuming that Abraham already had faith. So his
question really is, How was Abraham justified in claiming to have
faith? In this question, justified means "judged to have made a valid
claim," and James's answer is: by producing good works. The questions
are different, the answers are different, the justifications are
different.
Paul speaks of a justification that comes by faith and not by works,
while James speaks of a justification that comes by works and not by
faith. Paul teaches us that we are constituted righteous before God by
faith alone. James teaches us that the genuineness of our faith is
demonstrated by our works.
Faith Completed by Works
I will not attempt to answer all the remaining questions that arise
from James 2, but there are two that require some comment. First, what
does James mean in 2:22 when he says that Abraham's "faith was
completed by his works"? In the Roman Catholic interpretation, this is
taken to mean that there is a deficiency in faith as a means of
justification that must be compensated for by works.
But this interpretation rests on a misunderstanding of the verb that
James uses, translated "completed" by the ESV. It means "to bring
something to its conclusion" or "to bring it to fruition." James is
not saying that faith is deficient as the means of justification, but
that it comes to its intended goal when we produce good works. This is
exactly the thought that follows when James explains the completion of
faith in verse 23.
Justification by Works
There remains the text with which we began, James 2:24�the classic
text for all who wish to deny the doctrine of justification by faith
alone: "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith
alone." By now, it should be clear that the whole context drives us
away from thinking that this verse is speaking of the same
justification of which Paul speaks.
But a closer look at the verse itself will show that, even when it is
taken out of context, it does not say what Roman Catholic interpreters
wish it to say. The key to this verse is the word "alone." In the
English translations, this may look like an adjective modifying the
word "faith." It is not. It is quite clear from the Greek text that it
is an adverb.
At first glance, this might appear to be a grammatical quibble. But it
is much more than that. If "alone" were an adjective modifying
"faith," then the most straightforward interpretation of the text
would be that there is one justification, but that more than one thing
is needed as the means to obtain it. But "alone" here is an adverb,
modifying either the phrase "by faith" or the verb "justified."
Thus, the most straightforward interpretation of the text is that the
justification that occurs by faith is not the only justification. We
could paraphrase verse 24 as follows: "You see that a person is
justified by works; he is not only justified by faith." Or to amplify
the text even further: "You see that there is a justification by
works, and not only a justification by faith."
Listen to James!
Before leaving James 2, we must take care that we have truly listened
to what the Holy Spirit is saying through James. We may be tempted to
heave a sigh of relief and say, "Whew! That was a close one! I thought
we might lose a doctrinal controversy to the Roman Catholics, but our
Reformed doctrine is right after all." If that is all we get from the
text, then we are in great danger of a fatal self-deception.
The Spirit of God is blaring a trumpet blast against complacency! What
will become of us if we are content with a bare profession of faith
and do not produce good works? A faith that does not produce good
works is not genuine faith! It is the pretense of faith; it is not
saving faith, it is dead faith. Dead faith is all that people who are
dead in trespasses and sins can produce. Living faith comes from the
almighty power of the Spirit of God, giving life to the dead and
redeeming them from their dead works to serve the living God.
The Westminster Confession of Faith says it well in chapter 11 ("Of
Justification"), section 2:
Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is
the alone instrument of justification: yet is it not alone in the
person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving
graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The author is a ruling elder at Grace OPC in Sewickley, Pa., and the
president of the Committee on Christian Education. Reprinted from New
Horizons, February 2005. See also accompanying table.
http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH05/02a.html
Donna Kupp
Quit circumventing the issue and deal with the tragedy of John List.
John List believed Martin Luther. Do you?
Ike E 11/16/09
"Donna Kupp" <dk...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:e635dc0c-43cb-4eb0...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Antinomian, let's talk about a man named John List...
>
> John List was a "Christian".
>
> John List was a Lutheran.
>
> John List believed everything you say.
Apparently not.
> John List murdered his whole family and sent them to heaven.
Oh, well, if we're going to cite points, let's discuss where YOUR legalistic
cults have taken us throughout the centuries.
Calvin's Geneva.
The oppressions of pre-revolutionary England.
The Salem witch hunt.
Jim Jones and the People's Temple.
Waco, TX and the Branch Dividians.
Ruby Ridge.
Oklahoma City.
Most important, the teachings of your ilk led to the crucifixion of Jesus by
your Pharisaical fathers, because THEY hated His Gospel of Grace, TOO.
Need I say more?
Ike
Donna Kupp
wrote:
Donna wrote:
Martin Luther told John List that murdering
would not separate John from God
"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?
Let Your Sins Be Strong:
A Letter From Luther to Melanchthon
Letter no. 501, 1 August 1521,
"Luther's Correspondence", Lutheran
Publication Society, Philadelphia, 1918, II, p.50
Donna asks Ike:
John List believed those words of Luther --do you? Do you "Let Your
Sins Be Strong"?
vince garcia
>
> On Nov 23, 3:59 am, "Ike E 11/16/09" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Donna wrote:
>
> Martin Luther told John List that murdering
> would not separate John from God
>
> "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?
>
> Let Your Sins Be Strong:
> A Letter From Luther to Melanchthon
> Letter no. 501, 1 August 1521,
> "Luther's Correspondence", Lutheran
> Publication Society, Philadelphia, 1918, II, p.50
>
> Donna asks Ike:
>
> John List believed those words of Luther --do you? Do you "Let Your
> Sins Be Strong"?
>
Your ignorance knows no bounds. The same Lutheran elder who was here the
day I posted that he exclaimed "She's not saved" when he saw the satanic
theology you preach, was just speaking on this subject with me.
Luther's point was that the blood and sacrifice of Christ is so
comprehensive in its unlimited power to atone, that it--in theory--could
cover an infinite number of acts of murder or adultery.
The same elder aboslutely affirms that you would absolutely go to hell
for committing murder and adultery--IF YOU DON'T REPENT AND SEEK
FORGIVENESS.
Oh, but I forgot--in YOUR sick, demon-inspired beliefs, you teach that
ONE WILLFUL SIN damns you to eternal hell because THE FALSE GOD YOU
WORSHIP, and the FALSE MESSIAH YOU LOOK TO will only forgive accidental,
unintentional sins.
> "When we are converted all past sins are forgiven. After a person is
> born-again, only sins of ignorance are forgiven. If a person sins
> with knowledge and intent after that time, they have blasphemed
> the Holy Spirit and there is no more sacrifice for sin. See Hebrews
> 6:1-8; Hebrews 10:26-31."
Well...we all know how you pervert the Gospel and the Bible, but my
Lutheran friend would appreciate it if you would stop misrepresenting
what Martin Luther believed and taught, because you are an ignorant
woman with no idea what Luther taught, and are unqualified to comment.
Luther wasn't Calvin, and his point was anything but "Once saved, always
saved". His point was the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
This difference between the Law and the Gospel is the height of
knowledge in Christendom. Every person and all persons who assume or
glory in the name of Christian should know and be able to state this
difference. If this ability is lacking, one cannot tell a Christian
from a heathen or a Jew; of such supreme importance is this
differentiation. This is why St. Paul so strongly insists on a clean-
cut and proper differentiating of these two doctrines.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Luther, (see Luther's Works, Saint Louis edition, 11:81ff)
The law is the Word in which God teaches and tells us what we are to
do and not to do, as in the Ten commandments. Now wherever human
nature is alone, without the grace of God, the Law cannot be kept,
because since Adamís fall in paradise man is corrupt and has nothing
but a wicked desire to sin and in his heart cannot be favorably
disposed toward the Law, as we know by our own experience. For there
is no one who would not rather have no Law at all, and everyone finds
and feels within himself that while it is difficult to be pious and do
good, it is easy to be wicked and to do evil. And this difficulty or
this unwillingness to do what is good prevents us form keeping Godís
Law; for what is kept with dislike, difficulty, and unwillingness,
rates before God as not having been kept at all. And so the Law of God
convinces us by our experience that we are naturally wicked,
disobedient, lovers of sin, and enemies of Godís commandments.
Now from all this one of two things must follow: presumption or
despair. Presumption follows when a man sets himself to fulfill the
Law with works and diligently sees to it that he does what the letter
of the Law asks him to do. He serves God, does not swear, honors
father and mother, does not kill, does not commit adultery, and the
like. Meanwhile, however, he does not observe his heart, does not note
the reason why he is leading such a fine, good life, that he is merely
covering the old hypocrite in his hear with such a beautiful life. For
if he looked at himself aright, at his own hear, he would discover
that he is doing all these things with dislike and out of compulsion;
that he fears hell or seeks heaven, if not also far more insignificant
matters, namely, honor, goods, heath; and that he is motivated by the
fear of shame or harm or diseases. In short, he would have to confess
that he would rather lead a different life if the consequence of such
a life did not deter him; for he would not do it merely for the sake
of the Law. But because he does not see this bad reason, he lives on
in security, looks only at the works, not into the heart, and so
assumes that he is keeping the Law of God well. The face of Moses is,
therefore, covered for him, that is, he dose not recognize the meaning
of the Law--that it wasnít to be fulfilled with joyful, free, cheerful
will. Just so an unchaste person, when asked why he commits the act,
can only answer: Because of the pleasure I find in it. For he commits
it for the sake of neither reward nor punishment, does not proposes to
gain anything by it or to escape any evil through it.
Such pleasure the Law would also find in us, so that when you ask a
chaste person why he is chaste, he should say: Not for the sake of
heaven or hell, not for the sake of honor or shame, but simply because
it appears to me to be very find, and I heartily approve of it even if
it were not commanded. See, a heart such as this really loves Godís
Law and keeps it with pleasure. Such people love God and
righteousness, fear and hate nothing but unrighteousness. But no man
is thus constituted by nature. The others, however, love the reward
and the benefit, fear ant hate the punishment and the pain. Therefore
they hate God and righteousness, love themselves and unrighteousness;
they are hypocrites, shams, deceivers, liars, and boasters. Without
grace all men are of this kind, but especially the self-righteous.
Hence Scripture says and concludes: "All men are liars" Ps. 116:11);
and again (Ps 39:5; "Every man at his best state is altogether
vanity"; and (Ps 14:3) "There is none that does good, no, not one."
But despair follows when a man becomes aware of the reason why he is
keeping the Law and recognizes that to love Godís law is impossible
for him, since he finds nothing good in himself but only hatred of the
good and lust for the bad. Then he recognizes that works cannot do
justice to the Law. Therefore he despairs of works and disregards
them. He ought to have love, but he does not find any and of and by
himself can have none. The result must be a poor, miserable, humbled
spirit, a man oppressed and frightened through the Law by his
conscience, which demands and requires of him what he has not a penny
to pay. Yet the Law alone is of benefit to such presumptuous people,
for it was given to work this knowledge and humiliation. This is it's
(the Law's) proper work...
The other word of God is not Law or commandment, nor does it require
anything of us; but after the first Word, that of the Law, has done
this work and distressful misery an poverty have been produced in the
heart, God comes and offers his lovely, living Word, and promises,
pledges, and obligates himself to give grace and help, that we may get
out of this misery and that all sins not only be forgiven but also
blotted out and that love and delight to fulfill the law may be given
besides. See, this divine promise of his grace and of the forgiveness
of his is properly called Gospel. And I say again and yet again that
you should never understand Gospel to mean anything but the divine
promise of his grace and of the forgiveness of sin. For this is why
hitherto St. Paul's epistles were not understood and cannot be
understood by our adversaries even now; they do not know what Law and
Gospel really are. For they consider Christ a Legislator and the
Gospel nothing but the teaching of new laws. This is nothing else but
locking up the gospel and obscuring everything. For "Gospel" is Greek
and means "good news," because in it is proclaimed the saving doctrine
of life, of the divine promise, and grace and the forgiveness of sins
are offered. Therefore works do not belong to the gospel; for it is
not laws but faith alone, because it is nothing whatever but the
promise and offer of divine grace. He, then, who believes the Gospel
receives grace and the Holy Spirit. Thereby the heart becomes glad and
joyful in God and then keeps the Law gladly and freely, without the
fear of punishment and without the expectation of reward; for it is
sated and satisfied with that grace of God by which the law has been
satisfied.
http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/lawgospel.htm
Ike E 11/23/9
[snip]
> Martin Luther told John List that murdering
> would not separate John from God
It didn't separate Moses or David from God, BOTH of whom committed
premeditated murder.
The question is, was John List God's in the first place?
Wah, wah, waaaah.
[snip]
Ike
Ike E 11/23/9
<jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:c4009b7f-9a50-41b9...@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> He, then, who believes the Gospel
> receives grace and the Holy Spirit. Thereby the heart becomes glad and
> joyful in God and then keeps the Law gladly and freely, without the
> fear of punishment and without the expectation of reward; for it is
> sated and satisfied with that grace of God by which the law has been
> satisfied.
Here's the problem with Marty's conclusions...
Rom 7:14-25
For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin:
For that which I do I allow not; for what I would, that do I not; but what I
hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law
that it is good.
Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me, for I
know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will
is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not: For
the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that
dwelleth in me.
I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me,
for I delight in the law of God after the inward man, but I see another law
in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into
captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this
death?
I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I
myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
One can no more keep the law AFTER they are "saved" (the very notion itself
being misunderstood) than they could BEFORE such a reference to a temporal
event. That's because the flesh we entered into this world in is the flesh
we continue to exist in, and that situation won't be rectified until the
redemption, i.e. the resurrection, when the believers will have shed the
corrupt flesh and put on the incorruptible flesh.
Marty winds up contributing to one of the great errors of the so-called
"born again" Evangelicals, which is the false notion that somehow the flesh
has changed UP FRONT when it (God permitting) will be changed AT THE END of
the story.
Likewise, Marty's failure to comprehend that baptism itself is a triune
process--the waters of confession, the spirit of maturation, and the blood
of trial--is also a great failure of his doctrines, and contributed to the
false front-loaded "gospel" taught in this "Sardinian" age.
Ike