[De Maria]

revdrgrade, sndbay, et al:

When the Gospels and the Epistles were written the common usage of ekklesia was, and still is, "A body of men united together by the profession of the same Christian Faith, and by participation in the same sacraments, under the governance of lawful pastors, more especially of the Roman Pontiff, the sole vicar of Christ on earth" (Bellarmine, De Eccl., III, ii, 9).

When Luther broke from the Church the common usage of 'Church' was to be “called out” with men united in a profession of the same Christian faith, governed by the Roman Pontiff.

It’s fully understood and realized that ‘after’ Luther, there came into vogue a tendency among Protestants to redefine a different church, more in keeping with their rationalization. Even still, regardless of how you understand ‘Church’, the question put forward was whether or not Luther was schismatic or reformer.

But, let me add, since the result of Luther’s schism is that his followers rationalize all that is right and good authority held by the Roman Catholic Church is void, then haven’t you proven that it was schism and not reform?

JoeT

That is true. Because just as God formed an organization with a hierarchy of Priests and High Priests. Jesus formed an organization with Priests (the lay priesthood of the believer) and High Priests (The Bishopric of the Apostles).

[sndbay]

And it is my choice to recognize that there are seven churches according to scripture. (Revelation 1:4 1:11 1:20 )

1 Corinthians 12:5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.

1 Corinthians 12:6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

1 Corinthians 12:7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

Corinthians 12:8-11 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another [divers] kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

There is only "One" that holds all, and that is Christ Jesus. Nothing of perfection ever walked on this earth except for Christ.

1 Corinthians 12:27-28 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

There is an important reason to remember what happen to David, when by his choice, he wanted to count his followers.

God does not put forth any individual so that they can put themself above others. And, none are above God.

[sndbay]

But Scripture says that:
Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Therefore, although man might fail, Christ promised that His Church would not.

My Church ( those called out to follow Christ) Christians... the gates of hell shall not prevail against... Amen and Praise God

That thou art Peter, Yes it was Peter

upon this rock, Yes the name Simon Peter means rock (hebrew names represent the integrity of the birth right their name gives them) shame or honor this name meant that Peter was a solid rock of integrity. A rock to the revealed truth that God had granted him. That revealed truth... That solid integrity.... was that Peter Loved the Lord.

It was shown by evident indentity when Christ asked Peter 3 times do you love Me...

Why would Christ build the church upon that rock... because it would be built upon Love for Christ....

[De Maria]

[QUOTE=sndbay;1497597]And it is my choice to recognize that there are seven churches according to scripture. (Revelation 1:4 1:11 1:20 )

Seven is a mystical number. Not only does it mean the number 7, but it also means "the total of", as well as it means "oath".
As to the number 7 and its meaning; Seven is the number used is scripture extensively representing perfection or completion. It was used primarily in
the apocalyptic writings; Ezekiel, Daniel and Revelation signifying such. Apocalyptic literature was written in signs and symbols to veil the meaning
of the message from certain enemies but readily understood by the people of God.
Bible words

And since Revelation is a book full of mystical language, I doubt that the number 7 simply means 7 in the context of that book.

1 Corinthians 12:5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.

1 Corinthians 12:6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

1 Corinthians 12:7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

Corinthians 12:8-11 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another [divers] kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

There is only "One" that holds all, and that is Christ Jesus. Nothing of perfection ever walked on this earth except for Christ.

That is what we believe as well. But we believe that Christ communicated one aspect of His perfection to His Church. Infallibility. Infallibility does not mean perfection.

1 Corinthians 12:27-28 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

There is an important reason to remember what happen to David, when by his choice, he wanted to count his followers.

God does not put forth any individual so that they can put themself above others. And, none are above God.

That is true. But God has set forth some leaders who are to Pastor our souls and we are supposed to obey them.

Hebrews 13:17
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

God established the order of the Church. We simply keep the order which He set.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[sndbay]

Seven is a mystical number. Not only does it mean the number 7, but it also means "the total of", as well as it means "oath".
As to the number 7 and its meaning; Seven is the number used is scripture extensively representing perfection or completion. It was used primarily in
the apocalyptic writings; Ezekiel, Daniel and Revelation signifying such. Apocalyptic literature was written in signs and symbols to veil the meaning
of the message from certain enemies but readily understood by the people of God.
Bible words

And since Revelation is a book full of mystical language, I doubt that the number 7 simply means 7 in the context of that book.

Number 7 Denotes spiritual perfection. It is the number or hall-mark of the Holy Spirit's work. Example: The 7th day is the Sabbath, yet it take 6 individual days to reach the 7th, being the one out of all that holds spiritual perfection, Christ our rest....

Each individual church offers it's own refer in Revelation that completes the total "7" spiritual perfection.

That is what we believe as well. But we believe that Christ communicated one aspect of His perfection to His Church. Infallibility. Infallibility does not mean perfection.

Rejoice in weakness for by our weakness, Christ is made perfect in His worthyness.

2 Corinthians 12:5 Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities.

2 Corinthains 12:9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

That is true. But God has set forth some leaders who are to Pastor our souls and we are supposed to obey them.

Hebrews 13:17
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

God established the order of the Church. We simply keep the order which He set.

Sincerely,

De Maria

DeMaria, I understand this choice of your's...

However... I watch carefully to discern from what comes from man. My experiences in life have brought me where I am. Those experience have taught me that control is in the hands of God. I only pray to be all that His hand and will permits. And all that He created me to be.

Sincerely ~child of God

[JoeT777]

My Church ( those called out to follow Christ) Christians... the gates of hell shall not prevail against... Amen and Praise God

That thou art Peter, Yes it was Peter

upon this rock, Yes the name Simon Peter means rock (hebrew names represent the integrity of the birth right their name gives them) shame or honor this name meant that Peter was a solid rock of integrity. A rock to the revealed truth that God had granted him. That revealed truth... That solid integrity.... was that Peter Loved the Lord.

It was shown by evident indentity when Christ asked Peter 3 times do you love Me...

Why would Christ build the church upon that rock... because it would be built upon Love for Christ....

The Catholic Church has always understood the Scripture to give Primacy to Peter. This was illustrated in a letter written by Pope Clement I (third in succession to Peter and had personally known Peter) to the Corinthians (circa) 95 AD claiming authority over Corinth. St. Irenaeus tells the second hand account from St. Polycarp where John was heard to say “the faithful wo are everywhere must agree with this Church (Rome) because of its more important principality.” During the Councils and Synods surrounding the early heresies the Popes decision settled the matter. This is illustrated in 431 AD. Where the Bishops responded to Pope Celestine’s decision, “He [Peter] lives even to this time, and always in his successor’s gives judgment.”


In the Douay Rheims the verse reads as follows:


And Jesus came into the quarters of Cæsarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.


Setting the scene; Caesarea Phillippi is in the valley of Lebanon below Mount Hermon as mentioned in Josh 11:17 or Baal Hemon as mentioned in Judg 3:3. Of particular interest is a land feature of a massive rock face. One of the tributaries for the Jordan River flows through the area. The area was liberated by the Maccabean revolt in 167 B.C. In 4 B.C. one of Herod the Great s three sons, Philip, built the Roman Grecian of Caesarea Philippi to honor the Roman emperor.


You can imagine Jesus with this huge rock wall as a backdrop, asking twice (not once but twice), “Whom to they say that I am?” No other disciples could give the answer but Simon. Simon confessed Jesus as being both the Messiah and the “Son of the Living God.” God had revealed to Simon what no other man on earth knew; Christ was the Second Person of the One Devine God.


And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.


I can’t claim a special significance to the number of times “blessed art thou” is used in the New Testament. However, it is used only three times, twice in Luke 1: 42 And she cried out with a loud voice and said: Blessed art thou among women... And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be; and once here in Matthew 16:17. It’s only used once by Jesus. (this holds true in the NKJV also) In my estimation, like Mary, God seats Peter in a special Chair for our salvation; the first of 266 whose “successor’s gives judgment,” St. Peter, St. Linus, St. Anacletus, St. Clement I, St. Alexander I, St. Sixtus I, St. Telesphorus, St. Hyginus… Benedict XVI


Are we to assume that Peter didn’t know of this? Are we to assume that this blessing made to Mary, the “handmaid” of God, would not in the same sense make Peter, the primary servant of Christ? And what significance are we to make of this blessing that came out of Christ’s own mouth? That this was just some utterance, a use of metaphors, a courteous remark? Would it not be safe to assume that what Christ blesses stays blessed? How does our eye pass so freely across the words “blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona” without stopping to wonder at the significance that's found nowhere else in the New Testament? Peter is the only one in history blessed by Christ himself? The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, we share that blessing. Peter was our first Vicar. By making ourselves “servants” of the Church, we in turn make ourselves, subjects of the Church whose head is the vicar (earthly representative) of Christ; and as such sharing in that one and only blessing uttered by Christ.


In plain language the simple meaning of the verse 18 becomes: because this was revealed to you by God, I will call you Rock and on this Rock I will build my church; hell won’t prevail against it.


And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.


The “keys” are the keys to the kingdom of heaven, similar to the “keys” mentioned in Isaiah 22. With the transfer of the keys, one to another, power and authority is also transferred; Christ gives Peter the supreme authority over the Church and to bind and loose, both in heaven and on earth.


“In regard to the Petros Kepha argument made by some, the play of words involved in naming Simon “Rock” is as clear in Aramaic as in English, if we use the literal translation “Rock” for the Aramaic Kepha rather than “Peter” which is derived from the Greek Petros. In Greek the noun for rock is feminine. Therefore it is unsuitable for a man’s name, and Peter is named Petros while the precise word for rock is petra, making the meaning a little less clear. But Christ’s words to Peter were spoken in Aramaic and first recorded in Armaic in Matthew’s Gospel; furthermore, we know that Peter was later often called Kepha or Cephas as well as Petros.” “Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom Vol 1, 1985, pg 349 footnote 135.


Insofar as I’m able to discern, based on the knowledge of those fluent in Greek and Latin, the differences between the KJV and the Douay-Rheims are not major. Only a few verses in the KJV give a different understanding. That's why I feel free to use a KJV to get a more rounded sense of a verse. My reason for mentioning the Scriptural differences was to point out differences here, as elsewhere in my response, of cases referring to Christ as a Rock is related to his strength. Furthermore, when compared with a Rock it referrers to Christ’s founding of doctrinal precepts; as it where knowledge pouring forth baptismal waters from Christ’s strength refreshing the people of Israel, e.g. Exodus 17:5 And the Lord said to Moses: Go before the people, and take with thee of the ancients of Israel: and take in thy hand the rod wherewith thou didst strike the river, and go. 6 Behold I will stand there before thee, upon the rock Horeb, and thou shalt strike the rock, and water shall come out of it that the people may drink. This doctrinal foundation is shown in 1 Cor 3:11-12 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. NKJV


We Catholics find that "This is the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Savior, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (Jn. 21:17), commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it (cf. Matt. 28:18, etc.), and which he raised up for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines. Since these are gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, they are forces impelling towards Catholic unity." (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Genitum, 8)


But, where do you think “Protestantism” came from? Where did each of the 30,000 different Christian Denominations get their Scriptures, each insisting it has the one and only authoritative interpretation? How do they recon Christ’s words, “That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. ” (Cf. John 17). How then do you suppose those 30,000 interpret this, “I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the desert: and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven: that if any man eat of it, he may not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven.” (Cf. John 6). How then would you suggest that those 30,000 different Churches are One Church as Christ prayed “that they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me.” (John 17:20)


JoeT

[Fr_Chuck]

I am sure the discussion of Martain Luther is in here somewhere??

[JoeT777]

I am sure the discussion of Martain Luther is in here somewhere ????

Oops. I'll get back on track.

[arcura]

Joe,
I'm glad you started this thread.
As a former Protestant I was taught that Luther wanted reform (his way) and did not want to leave the Church.
I still think that is the case even though some of what Luther wanted the Church to do or change to were radical even in his day.
BUT that may change...
I'm glad to see this discussion on that.
It is another opportunity for me to learn something.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Athos]

And who can respect a man whose battle cry is "sin and sin mightily and grace will abound the more!"

Do you then disrespect the Catholic Church use of the "Felix Culpa" (O Happy Fault) in the Easter Exultet?

Each means essentially the same thing with Luther's being a tad more hyperbolic.

[sndbay]

And who can respect a man whose battle cry is "sin and sin mightily and grace will abound the more!"

.

Why was this said? In my opinion Luther and other authorities of the church go beyond the principle doctrines of Christ, beyond (the milk)as it is called in scripture. And within their own gift of knowledge, and what has been revealed by God to them.

When I hear the words which you have posted as the battle cry... The knowledge of scripture that Luther could have been showing glory in ---> 2 Corinthains 12:9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

As you said earlier who can judge the heart of Luther. WE know the answer !

Do you then disrespect the Catholic Church use of the "Felix Culpa" (O Happy Fault) in the Easter Exultet?

Each means essentially the same thing with Luther's being a tad more hyperbolic.

As for what the meaning of the Felix Culpa means?(O Happy Fault) It would sound reasonable to believe the authorities of the Catholic Church are intending to glory in their infirmities. And in doing this they are actually Rejoicing not in iniquity, but rejoicing in the truth=Christ.. realizing that it takes the weakness of man, so to glory in the worthyness of Christ. Christ alone being all power and strength in perfection.
Discern and decide upon what adds up... watch carefully to the last letter of what is taught...

[JoeT777]

Do you then disrespect the Catholic Church use of the "Felix Culpa" (O Happy Fault) in the Easter Exultet?

Each means essentially the same thing with Luther's being a tad more hyperbolic.

As for what the meaning of the Felix Culpa means?(O Happy Fault) It would sound reasonable to believe the authorities of the Catholic Church are intending to glory in their infirmities. And in doing this they are actually Rejoicing not in iniquity, but rejoicing in the truth=Christ.. realizing that it takes the weakness of man, so to glory in the worthyness of Christ. Christ alone being all power and strength in perfection.
Discern and decide upon what adds up... watch carefully to the last letter of what is taught...

Not exactly. The full quote from St. Thomas as follows:

"O felix culpa quae talem et tantum meruit habere redemptorem," "O happy fault that merited such and so great a Redeemer."

The question being answered by St. Thomas is in regard to the “The Fitness of the Incarnation.” More specifically, “ if there had been no sin, would God have become incarnate?”

The postulate is put forward that “Further, human nature has not been made more capable of grace by sin. But after sin it is capable of the grace of union, which is the greatest grace. Therefore, if man had not sinned, human nature would have been capable of this grace; nor would God have withheld from human nature any good it was capable of. Therefore, if man had not sinned, God would have become incarnate.”

And St. Thomas response is as follows:

A double capability may be remarked in human nature: one, in respect of the order of natural power, and this is always fulfilled by God, Who apportions to each according to its natural capability; the other in respect to the order of the Divine power, which all creatures implicitly obey; and the capability we speak of pertains to this. But God does not fulfil all such capabilities, otherwise God could do only what He has done in creatures, and this is false, as stated above (I, 105, 6). But there is no reason why human nature should not have been raised to something greater after sin. For God allows evils to happen in order to bring a greater good therefrom; hence it is written (Romans 5:20): "Where sin abounded, grace did more abound." Hence, too, in the blessing of the Paschal candle, we say: "O happy fault, that merited such and so great a Redeemer!" Summa Theologica III, Q1, 3

So, we see that there is a completely different context between Luther's "sin and sin mightily and grace will abound the more!" and St. Thomas's "O happy fault that merited such and so great a Redeemer."

Yes it is wise to “Discern and decide upon what adds up... watch carefully to the last letter of what is taught...” And, I would add, always be faithful to Truth. “But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” St. Augustine


JoeT

PS: BTW St. Thomas's conclusions to the question, “ if there had been no sin, would God have become incarnate?” as follows:

Augustine says (De Verb. Apost. viii, 2), expounding what is set down in Luke 19:10, "For the Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which was lost"; "Therefore, if man had not sinned, the Son of Man would not have come." And on 1 Timothy 1:15, "Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners," a gloss says, "There was no cause of Christ's coming into the world, except to save sinners. Take away diseases, take away wounds, and there is no need of medicine."

[De Maria]

Do you then disrespect the Catholic Church use of the "Felix Culpa" (O Happy Fault) in the Easter Exultet?

Each means essentially the same thing with Luther's being a tad more hyperbolic.

Not so. O Happy Fault is a reference to Adam and Eve's Original Sin which led to the
God of heaven becoming incarnate for our salvation.

To sin and sin mightily is Luther's misunderstanding of Scripture:
Romans 6:1
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

Just as his Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide teachings directly contradicts Scripture, so does this one.

[De Maria]

Number 7 Denotes spiritual perfection. It is the number or hall-mark of the Holy Spirit's work. Example: The 7th day is the Sabbath, yet it take 6 individual days to reach the 7th, being the one out of all that holds spiritual perfection, Christ our rest....

Each individual church offers it's own refer in Revelation that completes the total "7" spiritual perfection.




Rejoice in weakness for by our weakness, Christ is made perfect in His worthyness.

2 Corinthians 12:5 Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities.

2 Corinthains 12:9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.




DeMaria, I understand this choice of your's...

However... I watch carefully to discern from what comes from man. My experiences in life have brought me where I am. Those experience have taught me that control is in the hands of God. I only pray to be all that His hand and will permits. And all that He created me to be.

Sincerely ~child of God

Beautiful answer. I echo the response. God bless you Child of God.

[sndbay]

Yes it is wise to “Discern and decide upon what adds up... watch carefully to the last letter of what is taught...” And, I would add, always be faithful to Truth. “But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” St. Augustine

JoeT

Well again off thread... But here is my reply Joe

except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church?

I would not close my eyes and ears to the Spirit of God ..." I Love Him"

Remember Jesus's response to non-believers---> John 8:47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear [them] not, because ye are not of God.
God reveals unto whom?

1 Corinthians 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

1 Corinthains 2:10 But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

1 Corinthians 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.


1 Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

1 Corinthians 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

[arcura]

Athos,
I believe there is a big difference.
Luther's statement is an encouragement to sin.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[sndbay]

.
Luther's statement is an encouragement to sin.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred, I doubt that you can judge Luther's motive or heart. And I doubt even more that a Christian could be found to encourage sin.

Even if what Luther said was as DeMaria had said in refer to Romans 6:1.. If you look at Romans 5:20 and compare Luther's statement, I trust you can find a discernment less incriminating.

Romans 5:20-21 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

The same is true when you look at the scripture in Corinthians.. Does it mean we will actually feel good about our infirmities? No, however it does mean we find a direction to honor out from under sin.. = Christ because Christ brings grace(meaning favour, or acceptance.)


2 Corinthains 12:9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

[De Maria]

Fred, I doubt that you can judge Luther's motive or heart. And I doubt even more that a Christian could be found to encourage sin.

Even if what Luther said was as DeMaria had said in refer to Romans 6:1.. If you look at Romans 5:20 and compare Luther's statement, I trust you can find a discernment less incriminating.

Romans 5:20-21 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

The same is true when you look at the scripture in Corinthians.. Does it mean we will actually feel good about our infirmities? No, however it does mean we find a direction to honor out from under sin.. = Christ because Christ brings grace(meaning favour, or acceptance.)


2 Corinthains 12:9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

Here is what Luther has been quoted as saying. Even the "sanitized" version contradicts Scripture.

13. 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.
Both texts are from Scroll Publishing: Let Your Sins Be Strong: A Letter From Luther to Melanchthon Letter no. 99, 1 August 1521, From the Wartburg (Segment) Translated by Erika Bullmann Flores from: _Dr. Martin Luther’s Saemmtliche Schriften_ Dr, Johannes Georg Walch, Ed. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, N.D.), Vol. 15,cols. 2585-2590.

The cleaned up version says:
13.”If you are a preacher of Grace, then preach a true, not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly. For he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here we have to sin. This life in not the dwelling place of righteousness but, as Peter says, we look for a new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.. . Pray boldly-you too are a mighty sinner.” (Weimar ed. vol. 2, p. 371; Letters I, “Luther’s Works,” American Ed. Vol 48. p. 281- 282)

At the very least, it was a very careless and irresponsible way to express the idea that we should not sin. Because that idea is lost in the shocking manner it is expressed if it is there expressed at all.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[sndbay]

Here is what Luther has been quoted as saying. Even the "sanitized" version contradicts Scripture.

13. 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.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Thank you DeMaria, I had not seen this before.

My study of what Luther's words mean will be challenged with this quote: "If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy"

If suggests a question.. if you are a preacher of mercy? That would be suggestive of a preacher of ( goodness, kindness, faithfulness ),

do not preach an imaginary... (rather) but the true mercy" = instead the true goodness,kindness, faithfulness.

Final line 1: If you are a preacher of goodness,kindness, faithfulness, do not preach an unreal, rather instead the true goodness,kindness, faithfulness.

[arcura]

De Maria,
Thanks much for posting that.
I confirms what I said.
Luther encourages sin.
Peace and kindness,
Fred