The Luther "sin boldly" quote.

[jmdrake]

Jacob wrestling was not a literal wrestling match- it was a spiritual one.

A) According to the Bible it was physical. At the end of the match God dislocated Jacob's thigh.
B) Whether it was or not is irrelevant to my point. The Bible both said Jacob wrestled God and that Jacob wrestled an angel.

Heb.1:6 The Father tells all the angels to worship the son.

And your point is? Actually you are making my point for me. There are several places in the OT where angels are mentioned and they are worshiped. For example Joshua worshiped the angel that appeared to him before the battle of Jericho. That angel was referred to as the "captain of the Lord's host." And yet the angel John saw in revelation strictly forbid John to worship him. So why did the angel Joshua saw receive his worship? Similarly it's generally wrong to worship men but fine to worship the man Jesus.

[jmdrake]

Taking up our cross daily isn't about salvation jm.

Following Jesus is about salvation Kevin. "If any man would come after Me, let him deny himself, take up his cross daily and FOLLOW Me."

[Kevin007]

A) According to the Bible it was physical. At the end of the match God dislocated Jacob's thigh.
B) Whether it was or not is irrelevant to my point. The Bible both said Jacob wrestled God and that Jacob wrestled an angel.



And your point is? Actually you are making my point for me. There are several places in the OT where angels are mentioned and they are worshiped. For example Joshua worshiped the angel that appeared to him before the battle of Jericho. That angel was referred to as the "captain of the Lord's host." And yet the angel John saw in revelation strictly forbid John to worship him. So why did the angel Joshua saw receive his worship? Similarly it's generally wrong to worship men but fine to worship the man Jesus.

Angels are not to be worshiped, Only God.

[Kevin007]

Following Jesus is about salvation Kevin. "If any man would come after Me, let him deny himself, take up his cross daily and FOLLOW Me."

you are so wrong its sad. Jesus isn't talking about salvation. Because if we do this or do that to follow Him, that is about us and not Him. Jesus is talking about our WALK with Him. That is called SANCTIFICATION. Sanctification is a process (lifelong). Sanctification is partly under our control and something we do as we are obedient to the Spirit. Salvation is all of Jesus. If we could save ourselves or keep ourselves saved, why did Jesus die on the Cross? (already know the answer btw).

Nothing we do can save ourselves or keep us saved. How silly that is. How many sins before you are "unsaved"?

[Kevin007]

Salvation comes first, sanctification comes second. You already have a passing grade after salvation... buyt you just do not know what that PASSING grade is exactly until the J.S.O.C./Bema. But our final "marks" are all passing grades (salvation) to those who have accepted Jesus as their Savior. But Believers will have different amounts of Crowns they will lay at Jesus' feet, depending on their service. Service/Sanctification is only about rewards, not punishment; as Jesus bore all our punishment. A holy Father was FULLY SATISFIED and now we are truly made righteous through HIM.

[jmdrake]

Salvation comes first, sanctification comes second.

When you ask Jesus to save you, that is the first step in following Jesus. Jesus said if I be lifted up I will draw all men unto Me. He was clearly talking about salvation.

[jmdrake]

you are so wrong its sad. Jesus isn't talking about salvation. Because if we do this or do that to follow Him, that is about us and not Him.

Jesus: "If I be lifted up from the earth I will draw all men unto me." When people are drawn to Jesus they are following Him. He's the one that prompts us to follow Him, gives us the desire and the ability. And frankly you are now contradicting yourself. But I don't think you have the intelligence to figure that out. You asked me if I asked Jesus to save me? I did. Key word there? Did which is a form of the verb "to do". You have stated before that you are not a Calvinist in that you believe that salvation requires a freewill choice. Guess what? That's doing something! The Calvinists will at least be consistent in his error. You are not. The mistake you and the Calvinist make is this idea that somehow if I do something by the power of God then it's about "me" and not "Him". That's nonsense. But again, at least the Calvinist is consistent.

[jmdrake]

Angels are not to be worshiped, Only God.

Right. And men are not to be worshiped. Only God. Jesus received worship. There are examples of angels in the Bible receiving worship. I just gave you one. God can take on any form He wants to. If He takes on the form of an angel He is still God. If He takes on the form of a man, and all Christians agree that He did, He is still God.

[Terry1]

Same here. I don't know any Christians who think repentance is unnecessary. I also don't know any Christians who have the attitude of: "Let's go sin to our heart's content, because we're saved!"

As I said to Terry on the other thread, that is a misrepresentation, therefore a big fat straw man argument.

What's this you're accusing me of again? BTW--the Calvinists in here along with Kevin who just recently made this post #94 http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-my-hand/page4 stating that there's no repentance needed after confession of belief.

Repentance is most certainly required and is a daily exercise in faith to the very end of our lives because it's the only way back to God when we stumble. This has already been explained by me many times already. And if you insist upon using the word "staw man" to describe my posts, I suggest you look up the term "bandwagon fallacy" regarding your own.

I asked a simple question to the Protestants in the other thread "no man can snatch them out of my hands"--Louise was the only one who chose to take on that challenge and I respect her for it even though I didn't agree with her. It was the question regarding this particular scripture here 1 Corinthians 9:27: I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified--.

That question was asked of all of you and there were no takers other than Louise.

[Terry1]

Are you serious or joking? Seventh Day Adventists are protestant Christians which, by definition, means we aren't Luther haters. I dated a Lutheran once. She was surprised to find out from her father, who was a Lutheran pastor, that in some ways my church agreed with her religion more than she did. That said, when I see what I feel are unfair attacks against any religion, I take the other side. Because of that I've been accused of being Catholic, Muslim etc. So I'll take your comment as a compliment. It means I'm being consistent..

"Luther haters"? Yes, well sometimes the truth can be interpreted as "hate" when it's more often true than not regarding the murderous nature of someone who called himself a "reformer" instead.

I disagree with Luther's opinion on James. I disagree with Calvin on TULIP. But there is a difference between having a theological disagreement with someone and going along with what I see as slander. Luther as Adolf Hitler? Sorry, but that's a bit much. And Luther wasn't giving a blanket justification for murdering peasants. I read your link and it just didn't support that argument. If you thought my rejection of OSAS meant I would join into a Luther hate fest, sorry to disappoint.

Well, I guess it's time to post Luther's quotes on his opinion of the Jews now. Although I know that the Jews are wrong in their rejection of Christ--still we are called to love them--not hate them. Luther thought that he was God in his harsh judgment of them. Whatever punishment God has for them belongs to God and God alone, but until then--we are called in love towards them--not hate.

In Mein Kampf, Hitler listed Martin Luther as one of the greatest reformers. And similar to Luther in the 1500s, Hitler spoke against the Jews. The Nazi plan to create a German Reich Church laid its bases on the "Spirit of Dr. Martin Luther." The first physical violence against the Jews came on November 9-10 on Kristallnacht (Crystal Night) where the Nazis killed Jews, shattered glass windows, and destroyed hundreds of synagogues, just as Luther had proposed. In Daniel Johah Goldhagen's book, Hitler's Willing Executioners, he writes:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/luther.htm

I don't believe that a gospel that puts a human mediator between God and man is "right". I don't believe in salvation by sacraments. So no. The Catholics do not have the Gospel right. And no Seventh Day Adventist would ever say that. But Calvin didn't get it right either. I think Luther got it less wrong then Calvin. I believe Wesley got it right. But I also believe that Calvin was a victim of his own success. If you read his writings you will find him less TULIPy than those who use his name.

I know exactly what Calvin taught and Luther both. No need to explain that to me.

From Luther's first 3 theses.

When our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, said "Repent", He called for the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.

The word cannot be properly understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, i.e. confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.

Yet its meaning is not restricted to repentance in one's heart; for such repentance is null unless it produces outward signs in various mortifications of the flesh.

How someone could get from that "Repentance isn't necessary" is beyond me. I believe repentance is necessary. I don't believe that confession to a priest is necessary.

Lutheranism teaches unconditional election--limited free will and is monergistic, the same as Calvin and that repentance beyond confession is not necessary. There's very little light between these two doctrines.

[jmdrake]

What's this you're accusing me of again? BTW--the Calvinists in here along with Kevin who just recently made this post #94 http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-my-hand/page4 stating that there's no repentance needed after confession of belief.

That is true. Some protestant Christians will state repentance is not necessary for salvation and then split hairs over the words "necessary" and "condition". Even protestants who believe in freewill, as Kevin (apparently) does, false into that trap. The trap is "Well since God grants the grace to repent it's not a condition". The "you don't have free will" Calvinists can kind of get away with that argument. But those who believe in free will really cannot. If your freewill response is a requirement to be saved, and if God doesn't force you to make that response, then it is indeed a condition. Of course the Calvinists honestly can't get away with it either. Even if a condition is one that God fulfilled by forcing you to repent, it's still a condition. It's just one fulfilled by God. People come to the erroneous "repentance is not necessary for salvation" or "is not a condition of salvation" out of a sincere but misguided desire to totally write man out of the salvation equation. The idea is "Well if you to do anything you can boast." Not really. When Paul was talking about you are not saved by works he was specifically talking about works of the law, not works of faith. There is no good I can do to make up for the bad that I did. If I'm on the sea and I stupidly ran into an ice berg and another ship comes by and offers to rescue me, how can I "boast" about my "work" of allowing myself to be rescued? My climbing over the side of my sinking ship and falling down to safety, while it required a choice, is not anything that has "merited" my salvation. I can't "brag" and say "Look at me! I rescued myself!"

Repentance is most certainly required and is a daily exercise in faith to the very end of our lives because it's the only way back to God when we stumble. This has already been explained by me many times already. And if you insist upon using the word "staw man" to describe my posts, I suggest you look up the term "bandwagon fallacy" regarding your own.

I asked a simple question to the Protestants in the other thread "no man can snatch them out of my hands"--Louise was the only one who chose to take on that challenge and I respect her for it even though I didn't agree with her. It was the question regarding this particular scripture here 1 Corinthians 9:27: I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified--.

That question was asked of all of you and there were no takers other than Louise.

I missed the challenge, but as the Protestant who started the thread I think it's obvious that not all protestants believe OSAS. But I don't believe salvation by sacrament either.

[jmdrake]

"Luther haters"? Yes, well sometimes the truth can be interpreted as "hate" when it's more often true than not regarding the murderous nature of someone who called himself a "reformer" instead.

Whatever.

Well, I guess it's time to post Luther's quotes on his opinion of the Jews now.

Why? Because you've now been forced to retreat from your false accusations about Luther regarding peasants? As for the Jews, yes Luther said some stuff I disagree with. But tell me this. Which church was it that killed and/or expelled all of the Jews from Jerusalem during the Crusades? Which was it? Were they Lutherins? You want to attack Luther for what misguided people did in his name centuries later but absolve the Catholic church for what it's "holy soldiers" did under her command? Oh, and you are Eastern Orhodox. The Catholic pope wasn't exactly kind to the people of Constantinople either.

[Terry1]

That is true. Some protestant Christians will state repentance is not necessary for salvation and then split hairs over the words "necessary" and "condition". Even protestants who believe in freewill, as Kevin (apparently) does, false into that trap. The trap is "Well since God grants the grace to repent it's not a condition". The "you don't have free will" Calvinists can kind of get away with that argument. But those who believe in free will really cannot. If your freewill response is a requirement to be saved, and if God doesn't force you to make that response, then it is indeed a condition. Of course the Calvinists honestly can't get away with it either. Even if a condition is one that God fulfilled by forcing you to repent, it's still a condition. It's just one fulfilled by God. People come to the erroneous "repentance is not necessary for salvation" or "is not a condition of salvation" out of a sincere but misguided desire to totally write man out of the salvation equation. The idea is "Well if you to do anything you can boast." Not really. When Paul was talking about you are not saved by works he was specifically talking about works of the law, not works of faith. There is no good I can do to make up for the bad that I did. If I'm on the sea and I stupidly ran into an ice berg and another ship comes by and offers to rescue me, how can I "boast" about my "work" of allowing myself to be rescued? My climbing over the side of my sinking ship and falling down to safety, while it required a choice, is not anything that has "merited" my salvation. I can't "brag" and say "Look at me! I rescued myself!"



I missed the challenge, but as the Protestant who started the thread I think it's obvious that not all protestants believe OSAS. But I don't believe salvation by sacrament either.

Would you be so kind as to explain what *you mean in detail by "salvation by sacrament"?

[Terry1]

Whatever.




Why? Because you've now been forced to retreat from your false accusations about Luther regarding peasants? As for the Jews, yes Luther said some stuff I disagree with. But tell me this. Which church was it that killed and/or expelled all of the Jews from Jerusalem during the Crusades? Which was it? Were they Lutherins? You want to attack Luther for what misguided people did in his name centuries later but absolve the Catholic church for what it's "holy soldiers" did under her command? Oh, and you are Eastern Orhodox. The Catholic pope wasn't exactly kind to the people of Constantinople either.

You haven't proved that anything I said was false yet. Can you do that? I've given you links with sources and references. Are you saying that Luther didn't condone the murder of the peasants then when he made the statements "crush and kill them"?

I don't think it's wise to justify the despicable actions of someone because of the same by another either.

[Terry1]

Very good point. Thank you for bringing in Jesus' perspective.... most people see things in a very worldly, physical way.

Luther meant them in a "worldly, physical way"--or haven't you read him yet and just agreeing with Kevin again because you both agree on OSAS.

It's one thing to accuse someone of something because it's fact, but all together something else when you just toss out phrases and terms with regard to critical thinking to undermine the truth simply because you don't agree with it based upon someone else's opinion you happen to agree with.

[jmdrake]

Terry, I almost missed this part of your post. And this is why ad hominem, such as the ones you've been leveling against Luther lately, are counter productive to discussion. Just to be clear "ad hominem" means to attack the person. You don't like the message but are having trouble refuting it? Attack the person who gave it. Sola_Fide used ad hominem as a debate tactic all the time. Kevin uses it now. You don't like either one of them doing it, but you are being an Eastern Orthodox version of them. I gather that you are relatively new to the EO viewpoint. Please get to know TER. He's been an EO Christian much longer than you. And while I disagree with him on doctrine, I do see the Spirit of Christ in him. He doesn't make a habit of using such debate tactics and, IMO, he's more effective in presenting his viewpoint for it.

Now, as for Luther and his beliefs. Yes I'm aware of his thoughts on monergism and freewill. Sola_Fide and I discussed that years ago. That wasn't my point. Protestantism isn't based on Martin Luther. But the 95 theses can justly be looked on as its founding document. There were protestants before Martin Luther. Many were sorely persecuted. But it was Luther's 95 theses that shook the western world. Some of what Luther wrote after that was dead on and some was not. Now here is something interesting. You say that Luther taught that repentance after confession is not necessary. Guess what? THAT IS STILL SAYING THAT REPENTANCE IS NECESSARY! So by your own words, not mine, you have just declared that Luther affirmed the need to repent. Thank you for proving my point for me.

That said, I'm going to have to take a forum break. The tit for tats are taking up too much time. I may do one more post today on repentance itself. While I'm away I will work on one major post I need to make. Fair warning. It will probably anger you and others. I sincerely doubt anyone will 100% agree. But I will back up everything I say with the Bible and with history. And no, this isn't directed at you or anything you've said. It isn't directed at anyone really.

I know exactly what Calvin taught and Luther both. No need to explain that to me.




Lutheranism teaches unconditional election--limited free will and is monergistic, the same as Calvin and that repentance beyond confession is not necessary. There's very little light between these two doctrines.

[jmdrake]

You haven't proved that anything I said was false yet. Can you do that? I've given you links with sources and references. Are you saying that Luther didn't condone the murder of the peasants then when he made the statements "crush and kill them"?

I don't think it's wise to justify the despicable actions of someone because of the same by another either.

I'm saying that killing people who are in open revolt is not murder. It's self defense. I didn't have to provide a source. You did it for me. Half truths are the worst lies and your initial post made it sound like Luther gave his general blessing to kill peasants. From your own source, he did not.

[Terry1]

Terry, I almost missed this part of your post. And this is why ad hominem, such as the ones you've been leveling against Luther lately, are counter productive to discussion. Just to be clear "ad hominem" means to attack the person. You don't like the message but are having trouble refuting it? Attack the person who gave it. Sola_Fide used ad hominem as a debate tactic all the time. Kevin uses it now. You don't like either one of them doing it, but you are being an Eastern Orthodox version of them. I gather that you are relatively new to the EO viewpoint. Please get to know TER. He's been an EO Christian much longer than you. And while I disagree with him on doctrine, I do see the Spirit of Christ in him. He doesn't make a habit of using such debate tactics and, IMO, he's more effective in presenting his viewpoint for it.

Now, as for Luther and his beliefs. Yes I'm aware of his thoughts on monergism and freewill. Sola_Fide and I discussed that years ago. That wasn't my point. Protestantism isn't based on Martin Luther. But the 95 theses can justly be looked on as its founding document. There were protestants before Martin Luther. Many were sorely persecuted. But it was Luther's 95 theses that shook the western world. Some of what Luther wrote after that was dead on and some was not. Now here is something interesting. You say that Luther taught that repentance after confession is not necessary. Guess what? THAT IS STILL SAYING THAT REPENTANCE IS NECESSARY! So by your own words, not mine, you have just declared that Luther affirmed the need to repent. Thank you for proving my point for me.

That said, I'm going to have to take a forum break. The tit for tats are taking up too much time. I may do one more post today on repentance itself. While I'm away I will work on one major post I need to make. Fair warning. It will probably anger you and others. I sincerely doubt anyone will 100% agree. But I will back up everything I say with the Bible and with history. And no, this isn't directed at you or anything you've said. It isn't directed at anyone really.

I've done nothing of the sort here. I've given scripture, sources and facts to back up my own personal opinion of Luther. On the other hand, you seem to be the one doing all of the accusing without any facts to back up your argument against me.

Not only was Luther wrong biblically, doctrinally and morally with regard to his brutal murderous nature against the Jews and peasants, but he also was as arrogant to tell God He's wrong by attempting to add words to the book of James that simply didn't exist that completely changed the context of critical scripture.

The damage these reformers did to the Gospel and the body of Christ as a whole shouldn't have made them the hero's of scripture they are to their subscribers, but rather the murderers and apostates they were in the eyes of God. Now that's simply my own personal opinion fwiw-- If you'd like to call that an "ad hom" attack on Luther--then so be it. If the shoe fits as they say. Which is far less critical than Gods own opinion of anyone who adds to or takes away from His word.

[Terry1]

I'm saying that killing people who are in open revolt is not murder. It's self defense. I didn't have to provide a source. You did it for me. Half truths are the worst lies and your initial post made it sound like Luther gave his general blessing to kill peasants. From your own source, he did not.

Do you understand what the peasant wars were about and why and what you're defending? I seriously doubt that you do in light of your post here. Do you even understand what classes of people were involved in Luther's bloody war he waged against them and why Luther did it? Maybe you should read some more then.

Luther incited the wars by peasants with his own thesis and encouraged them--

"When the time came for him to choose whether or not he would stand on the side of the peasants he clearly sided with the German elite. Why was he so worried about conscience in one case and not at all in the other? In light of the events that transpired after the Diet of Worms, apparently the reformer’s backstabbing of the peasants demonstrates that under certain circumstances forced Luther to become unfaithful to his own set of beliefs."

The Pope at the time called Luther a "drunken German" and if nothing else--I could certainly agree with the Pope on that point. Luther's true mission was fame, power and greed and misguided by his own misinterpretation of the word of God--thinking himself to be God in his quest to crush and kill anything or anyone that got in his way--even to the extent of adding to the word of God to make it fit his own false belief.

[jmdrake]

I've done nothing of the sort here.

You must not know what an ad hominem fallacy is. I will explain it again to you, this time by example. Ron Paul says "The Iraq war is bad." Someone counters with "Ron Paul agrees with David Duke about the Civil Rights Act." Bringing up David Duke is meant to distract from the discussion about the Iraq war being bad. Even if the discussion was "Ron Paul says big government is bad", which is at least tangentially related to the Civil Rights Act, still making the David Duke reference is an inflamatory ad hominem attack. That you would attack Luther in a thread that had nothing to do with Luther and did it to try to "prove" there was something wrong with the theology attributed to him is an ad hominem attack whether you realize it or not or whether you are willing to admit it or not. That you backed up your attacks against Luther with some truth and some half truth doesn't change it from being an ad hominem attack. Even if it was 100% true it's still an ad hominem attack. It's 100% true that Ron Paul opposes the civil rights act and so does David Duke. Most people believe David Duke to be a racist. That doesn't mean that big government or the Iraq war is good. For the record, David Duke came out against the Iraq war as well. That you used biblical references to support your view doesn't change anything. In a debate against Ron Paul, an opponent could come out with a lot of Keynesian "documentation" to "prove" that government intervention in the economy is a good thing. That's proper debate form even if you and I may disagree with the sources and/or how they are being used. But the minute such a person brought David Duke into the picture, or the Ron Paul newsletters or anything other than the topic being discussed? That is an ad hominem. You have repeatedly engaged in ad hominem. Don't take my word for it. PM TER ask him to look over your posts and see if he agrees with you or me on the ad hominem part. I'm betting he would agree with me.

[Working Poor]

A long time ago I used to drink my ass off. Something in me made me want to quit. I went six months without drinking and then either the devil or God (I am not sure which) told me to go down to the liquor store and buy me a half pint of cheap tequilia.

The hang over was so bad that I did not touch a drop for 10 years. Who evrr it was that told me to drink had a good laugh on me. I learned something though and that was I did not have time to be a drunk.

Now when the devil or God tells me to drink I buy myself a mini bottle and drink one and I am over it. But if I know I am dying I want a case of good tequilia just in case.

[jmdrake]

Do you understand what the peasant wars were about and why and what you're defending? I seriously doubt that you do in light of your post here. Do you even understand what classes of people were involved in Luther's bloody war he waged against them and why Luther did it? Maybe you should read some more then.

Let me guess. They were peasants? Umm....what difference does that make? That's a rhetorical question. It makes none. I'm not a supporter of "liberation theology" where, in it's extreme view, any uprising by the "oppressed class" is justified.

Luther incited the wars by peasants with his own thesis and encouraged them--

Again, I believe much of the same theses Luther nailed to the church door. If someone reads my writings and goes out and starts killing people, that's not my fault. I explained to you the fallacy of your "logic" here already. Unless you present documentation where Luther said to the peasants "Take up arms and start killing the ruling class" then you really don't have anything. Nothing but a brazen assault on free speech. Some people would have me arrested for my views on 9/11. Really, it's not far fetched that someone could read what I wrote, decide "If our government had the intelligence needed to stop 9/11 and didn't but is now starting wars and taking away our liberties, we need to revolt". I don't accept responsibility for that. No just court would convict me for that. To convict someone of incitement you have to provide evidence of a specific call for violence. None of your sources gave that. Nobody should be expected not to present what he or she believes to be true just because someone might take it and do something that was not advocated.

"When the time came for him to choose whether or not he would stand on the side of the peasants he clearly sided with the German elite. Why was he so worried about conscience in one case and not at all in the other? In light of the events that transpired after the Diet of Worms, apparently the reformer’s backstabbing of the peasants demonstrates that under certain circumstances forced Luther to become unfaithful to his own set of beliefs."

And the reference where Luther said to the peasants "Rise up and slay your masters" is where exactly?

The Pope at the time called Luther a "drunken German" and if nothing else--I could certainly agree with the Pope on that point.

Ah yes. The Pope said it. It must be true. What about the Pope that ordered the sacking of Constantinople? When are you going to address that? I mean if you're so concerned about incitement to murder there is solid evidence that a Catholic Pope incited "Christians" to massacre your spiritual forefathers.

[Terry1]

Let me guess. They were peasants? Umm....what difference does that make? That's a rhetorical question. It makes none. I'm not a supporter of "liberation theology" where, in it's extreme view, any uprising by the "oppressed class" is justified..

The "peasant war" was a war of the classes because of the oppression by the German elite and royalty. These same classes today would include also the middle to upper middle class citizens. Luther chose the side of the elites after encouraging the lower classes to go to war with them. Yes--Luther stated to crush and kill them all and over because they fought for their freedom against the oppressive laws of the land which included keeping them as nothing more than slaves unable to own land and taxing their small wages to enormous degrees.

Luther's thesis is what encouraged the violence as well as Luther himself, because that is what this particular doctrine is designed in nature to do with teaching people that there's nothing they can do to lose their salvation--save murder, violence, adultery--that teaches nothing can separate them from God or the kingdom of heaven after confession. This is the doctrine of "unconditional election" and the "perseverance of the saints" as in the likes of OSAS and Predestination. These doctrines breed sin and violence.

Again, I believe much of the same theses Luther nailed to the church door. If someone reads my writings and goes out and starts killing people, that's not my fault. I explained to you the fallacy of your "logic" here already. Unless you present documentation where Luther said to the peasants "Take up arms and start killing the ruling class" then you really don't have anything. Nothing but a brazen assault on free speech. Some people would have me arrested for my views on 9/11. Really, it's not far fetched that someone could read what I wrote, decide "If our government had the intelligence needed to stop 9/11 and didn't but is now starting wars and taking away our liberties, we need to revolt". I don't accept responsibility for that. No just court would convict me for that. To convict someone of incitement you have to provide evidence of a specific call for violence. None of your sources gave that. Nobody should be expected not to present what he or she believes to be true just because someone might take it and do something that was not advocated.

.



And the reference where Luther said to the peasants "Rise up and slay your masters" is where exactly?



Ah yes. The Pope said it. It must be true. What about the Pope that ordered the sacking of Constantinople? When are you going to address that? I mean if you're so concerned about incitement to murder there is solid evidence that a Catholic Pope incited "Christians" to massacre your spiritual forefathers.

At this point, I believe that it is futile to continue this discussion with you. I have presented the facts, scripture and sources that you continually choose to deny and distort with your own version to support what it is that you choose to believe.

[Terry1]

A long time ago I used to drink my ass off. Something in me made me want to quit. I went six months without drinking and then either the devil or God (I am not sure which) told me to go down to the liquor store and buy me a half pint of cheap tequilia.

The hang over was so bad that I did not touch a drop for 10 years. Who evrr it was that told me to drink had a good laugh on me. I learned something though and that was I did not have time to be a drunk.

Now when the devil or God tells me to drink I buy myself a mini bottle and drink one and I am over it. But if I know I am dying I want a case of good tequilia just in case.

What a breath of fresh air! Finally a post that makes sense.

[Terry1]

You must not know what an ad hominem fallacy is. I will explain it again to you, this time by example. Ron Paul says "The Iraq war is bad." Someone counters with "Ron Paul agrees with David Duke about the Civil Rights Act." Bringing up David Duke is meant to distract from the discussion about the Iraq war being bad. Even if the discussion was "Ron Paul says big government is bad", which is at least tangentially related to the Civil Rights Act, still making the David Duke reference is an inflamatory ad hominem attack. That you would attack Luther in a thread that had nothing to do with Luther and did it to try to "prove" there was something wrong with the theology attributed to him is an ad hominem attack whether you realize it or not or whether you are willing to admit it or not. That you backed up your attacks against Luther with some truth and some half truth doesn't change it from being an ad hominem attack. Even if it was 100% true it's still an ad hominem attack. It's 100% true that Ron Paul opposes the civil rights act and so does David Duke. Most people believe David Duke to be a racist. That doesn't mean that big government or the Iraq war is good. For the record, David Duke came out against the Iraq war as well. That you used biblical references to support your view doesn't change anything. In a debate against Ron Paul, an opponent could come out with a lot of Keynesian "documentation" to "prove" that government intervention in the economy is a good thing. That's proper debate form even if you and I may disagree with the sources and/or how they are being used. But the minute such a person brought David Duke into the picture, or the Ron Paul newsletters or anything other than the topic being discussed? That is an ad hominem. You have repeatedly engaged in ad hominem. Don't take my word for it. PM TER ask him to look over your posts and see if he agrees with you or me on the ad hominem part. I'm betting he would agree with me.

You're so worried about my character assassination of Luther with the facts to back that up, but not in the least worried about you're own against myself and others that you've perpetrated just since yesterday. I find that rather amusing and sad all at the same time.

BTW--paragraphs are useful.

[lilymc]

Luther meant them in a "worldly, physical way"--or haven't you read him yet and just agreeing with Kevin again because you both agree on OSAS.

It's one thing to accuse someone of something because it's fact, but all together something else when you just toss out phrases and terms with regard to critical thinking to undermine the truth simply because you don't agree with it based upon someone else's opinion you happen to agree with.

I wasn't talking about Luther. What I stated was undeniable. Many people DO see things in a very worldly, physical way. Including murder, which - as Kevin accurately stated - is not only a physical thing but something people do in their heart.

[Southron]

To fully appreciate what Luther is saying, you need to understand where he came from.

Earlier in his life he was a monk. He spent much time denying himself many of the simple pleasures of life that Christians take for granted. On top of that, apparently he was obsessive-compulsive when it came to confession to the point of being told to stop confessing such trivial things.

This is the backdrop when he is now celebrating his liberty in Christ.

[lilymc]

What's this you're accusing me of again? BTW--the Calvinists in here along with Kevin who just recently made this post #94 http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-my-hand/page4 stating that there's no repentance needed after confession of belief.

Repentance is most certainly required and is a daily exercise in faith to the very end of our lives because it's the only way back to God when we stumble. This has already been explained by me many times already. And if you insist upon using the word "staw man" to describe my posts, I suggest you look up the term "bandwagon fallacy" regarding your own.

Did you not read my post? Why are you arguing with me about something that I clearly stated I believe? Of course repentance is necessary. That is part of changing our mind about who Jesus is and understanding we are sinners in need of salvation.

The thing you and I disagree on is that you have this ridiculous idea that we have to repent pretty much every 5 minutes or go to hell, completely destroying the entire idea of salvation. There is no salvation in your view. There is a continual striving through our own works and the belief that if we don't do enough good deeds or if we sin one too many times and don't repent every 5 minutes we will be cast into hell. Sorry, but that is both absurd and completely unbiblical.

Now don't get me wrong.

Of course we should always repent if we fall into sin, because that is the right thing to do, and we always should be in a right relationship with God. It is what true Christians always do anyway, because we love God and we truly feel repentant if we sin. So it's something that naturally happens for a true child of God, it is not something we must strive to do every 5 minutes to avoid hell or "lose our salvation."

I asked a simple question to the Protestants in the other thread "no man can snatch them out of my hands"--Louise was the only one who chose to take on that challenge and I respect her for it even though I didn't agree with her. It was the question regarding this particular scripture here 1 Corinthians 9:27: I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified--.

That question was asked of all of you and there were no takers other than Louise.

First of all, I didn't see you ask this question on the other thread. But about 1 Corinthians 9:27, once again you are taking a verse that is not about salvation and making it about salvation. It is about discipline, controlling our body, so we can serve God and be successful in serving God and expanding God's kingdom.

We can see that Paul's heart is to win people for Christ when he says, "I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them" in verse 19.

The word "disqualified" is not about our eternal salvation. That's not something we can lose. What we can lose is the privilege of being used by God and future rewards. We can be 'disqualified' in the same way that a preacher who is carnal or sinful is not going to be effective for God's kingdom... (and probably will do more harm than good.)

Obviously Paul wants to serve God and be used by God.

But God can choose to not use certain people, if we are not self-disciplined or if we are in sin.

So Paul is comparing the life of a Christian to the life of an athlete. An athlete who does not train and does not exercise self-control is not going to be successful, and will not win any prizes.

I think you really should get over this strange obsession with making every scripture about salvation. The scriptures you bring up are almost always about sanctification and rewards in heaven that we DO get.

As Kevin put it, once we are saved, we all have a passing grade. (that is justification.) However, our works are still judged, NOT to determine salvation but rewards in heaven. Some people will have more than others. That is why everything we do DOES matter, but that has nothing to do with salvation. Salvation is by God's grace, through faith.

[jmdrake]

You're so worried about my character assassination of Luther with the facts to back that up, but not in the least worried about you're own against myself and others that you've perpetrated just since yesterday. I find that rather amusing and sad all at the same time.

BTW--paragraphs are useful.

Fine. Here are the paragraphs. As for character assassination against you....I haven't done that. Pointing out that you originally didn't give the "kill the peasants quote" in context isn't character assassination. And frankly I could care less if you attack Luther's character. The problem is that doing so in the context of trying to disprove a theological point made by someone else is an ad hominem.

You must not know what an ad hominem fallacy is. I will explain it again to you, this time by example. Ron Paul says "The Iraq war is bad." Someone counters with "Ron Paul agrees with David Duke about the Civil Rights Act." Bringing up David Duke is meant to distract from the discussion about the Iraq war being bad. Even if the discussion was "Ron Paul says big government is bad", which is at least tangentially related to the Civil Rights Act, still making the David Duke reference is an inflamatory ad hominem attack. That you would attack Luther in a thread that had nothing to do with Luther and did it to try to "prove" there was something wrong with the theology attributed to him is an ad hominem attack whether you realize it or not or whether you are willing to admit it or not. That you backed up your attacks against Luther with some truth and some half truth doesn't change it from being an ad hominem attack.

Even if it was 100% true it's still an ad hominem attack. It's 100% true that Ron Paul opposes the civil rights act and so does David Duke. Most people believe David Duke to be a racist. That doesn't mean that big government or the Iraq war is good. For the record, David Duke came out against the Iraq war as well. That you used biblical references to support your view doesn't change anything. In a debate against Ron Paul, an opponent could come out with a lot of Keynesian "documentation" to "prove" that government intervention in the economy is a good thing.

That's proper debate form even if you and I may disagree with the sources and/or how they are being used. But the minute such a person brought David Duke into the picture, or the Ron Paul newsletters or anything other than the topic being discussed? That is an ad hominem. You have repeatedly engaged in ad hominem. Don't take my word for it. PM TER ask him to look over your posts and see if he agrees with you or me on the ad hominem part. I'm betting he would agree with me.

[Terry1]

Fine. Here are the paragraphs. As for character assassination against you....I haven't done that. Pointing out that you originally didn't give the "kill the peasants quote" in context isn't character assassination. And frankly I could care less if you attack Luther's character. The problem is that doing so in the context of trying to disprove a theological point made by someone else is an ad hominem.]

It is rather annoying that you keep implying that I'm being deceptive in some way by nothing more than posting facts about the *man* Luther, his character and the reasons behind why he condoned murder of any kind--being a *so-called* man of God and "reformer" of some sorts who based his theology upon his misguided view of scripture. Why not just say that we disagree instead of insisting that I'm using ad hom attacks?

You must not know what an ad hominem fallacy is. I will explain it again to you, this time by example. Ron Paul says "The Iraq war is bad." Someone counters with "Ron Paul agrees with David Duke about the Civil Rights Act." Bringing up David Duke is meant to distract from the discussion about the Iraq war being bad. Even if the discussion was "Ron Paul says big government is bad", which is at least tangentially related to the Civil Rights Act, still making the David Duke reference is an inflamatory ad hominem attack. That you would attack Luther in a thread that had nothing to do with Luther and did it to try to "prove" there was something wrong with the theology attributed to him is an ad hominem attack whether you realize it or not or whether you are willing to admit it or not. That you backed up your attacks against Luther with some truth and some half truth doesn't change it from being an ad hominem attack.

Bla-bla-yadda-yadda--

Even if it was 100% true it's still an ad hominem attack. It's 100% true that Ron Paul opposes the civil rights act and so does David Duke. Most people believe David Duke to be a racist. That doesn't mean that big government or the Iraq war is good. For the record, David Duke came out against the Iraq war as well. That you used biblical references to support your view doesn't change anything. In a debate against Ron Paul, an opponent could come out with a lot of Keynesian "documentation" to "prove" that government intervention in the economy is a good thing.

That's proper debate form even if you and I may disagree with the sources and/or how they are being used. But the minute such a person brought David Duke into the picture, or the Ron Paul newsletters or anything other than the topic being discussed? That is an ad hominem. You have repeatedly engaged in ad hominem. Don't take my word for it. PM TER ask him to look over your posts and see if he agrees with you or me on the ad hominem part. I'm betting he would agree with me.

All this amounts to is that you disagree with me. You're trying to turn this into something in your own mind that simply doesn't exist. You can't prove that Luther's "sin boldly" quote is biblical with scripture, so now it's me who's posting etiquette has replaced your OP. And what does TER have to do with any of this? He's as wore out as I am with attempting to be civil and getting the same treatment that I'm receiving as well by you Kevin, Lily and FF. I see it all for what it is and this is why I'm bowing out for a while. Maybe you, Kevin, FF and Lily can go back to attacking and calling each other nasty names instead of me now--LOL I'll leave you all to God and let Him sort you out. He's got a bigger hammer than I do.

Thanks for the lovely discussion.