Christian Forums

"But now another question arises. Since it is certain that the souls are living and are in peace, what kind of life or rest is this? But this question is too lofty and too difficult for us to be able to define it. For God did not want us to know this in this life. Thus it is enough for us to know that souls do not go out of their bodies into the danger of tortures and punishments of hell, but that there is ready for them a chamber in which they may sleep in peace.

"Nevertheless, there is a difference between the sleep or rest of this life and that of the future life. For toward night a person who has become exhausted by his daily labor in this life enters into his chamber in peace, as it were, to sleep there; and during this night he enjoys rest and has no knowledge whatever of any evil caused either by fire or by murder. But the soul does not sleep in the same manner. It is awake. It experiences visions and the discourses of the angels and of God. Therefore the sleep in the future life is deeper than it is in this life. Nevertheless, the soul lives before God. With this analogy, which I have from the sleep of a living person, I am satisfied; for in him there is peace and quiet. He thinks that he has slept barely one or two hours, and yet he sees that the soul sleeps in such a manner that it also is awake."[LW 4:313].

Your quotes again above, in greater context below. Your quote in blue, other emphasis is mine.

QuoteFurthermore, at this point one can be concerned about the state of the souls after this life. The body is destroyed by putrefaction and worms. But what, it is asked, becomes of the soul before that Day of Judgment? I am touching on this controversy, of course, in order to forestall and put an end to the prying questions and discussions of others. But the answer which Christ prescribes is simple when He says in Matt. 22:32: "God is not God of the dead, but of the living." This makes us sure that our souls are living and are sleeping in peace, and that they are not being racked by any tortures.

And many passages of Holy Scripture confirm that we do not die after death but are plainly alive, as very clear statements from the Book of Isaiah (57:1–2) prove: "Devout men are taken away while no one understands. For the righteous man is taken away from calamity; he enters into peace; they rest in their beds." These are most extraordinary words. They clearly indicate the state and condition of the dead after this life. "They enter," he says, "not into death, purgatory, or hell; they enter into peace." And it is a great comfort when he says that the righteous are called away before calamity comes. Thus we ourselves shall die in peace before evil and calamity come over Germany.

Consequently, the testimonies of the prophet are in agreement with that passage of Genesis where Moses says that Abraham was gathered to his people; and we should have no doubt about the importance of these testimonies, for Holy Scripture does not lie or deceive. The saints repose gently and peacefully, just as in the Book of Revelation (14:13) the voice from heaven bears witness to this: "Henceforth, says the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors."

At that time this rest was called the bosom of Abraham; and from the beginning, before Abraham, it was called the bosom of Adam. For the saints who believed the promise concerning Christ died in such a manner that after they had been called away from the troubles and hardships of this life, they entered their chamber, slept there, and rested in peace. This is true and clear. It is in agreement with Scripture and the statement of Christ (Matt. 22:32) that God is not God of the dead but of the living.

But now another question arises. Since it is certain that the souls are living and are in peace, what kind of life or rest is this? But this question is too lofty and too difficult for us to be able to define it. For God did not want us to know this in this life. Thus it is enough for us to know that souls do not go out of their bodies into the danger of tortures and punishments of hell, but that there is ready for them a chamber in which they may sleep in peace.

Nevertheless, there is a difference between the sleep or rest of this life and that of the future life. For toward night a person who has become exhausted by his daily labor in this life enters into his chamber in peace, as it were, to sleep there; and during this night he enjoys rest and has no knowledge whatever of any evil caused either by fire or by murder. But the soul does not sleep in the same manner. It is awake. It experiences visions and the discourses of the angels and of God. Therefore the sleep in the future life is deeper than it is in this life. Nevertheless, the soul lives before God. With this analogy, which I have from the sleep of a living person, I am satisfied; for in him there is peace and quiet. He thinks that he has slept barely one or two hours, and yet he sees that the soul sleeps in such a manner that it also is awake.

Thus after death the soul enters its chamber and is at peace; and while it sleeps, it is not aware of its sleep. Nevertheless, God preserves the waking soul. Thus God is able to awaken Elijah, Moses, etc., and so to control them that they live. But how? We do not know. The resemblance to physical sleep—namely, that God declares that there is sleep, rest, and peace—is enough. He who sleeps a natural sleep has no knowledge of the things that are happening in his neighbor's house. Nevertheless, he is alive, even though, contrary to the nature of life, he feels nothing in his sleep. The same thing will happen in that life, but in a different and better way.

Just as a mother brings an infant into the bedchamber and puts it into a cradle—not that it may die, but that it may have a pleasant sleep and rest—so before the coming of Christ and much more after the coming of Christ all the souls of believers have entered and are entering the bosom of Christ.

Martin Luther, Luther's Works, Vol. 4: Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 21-25, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 4 (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999), 312–314.

Once again, the above highly suggests soul sleep, but is still confusing. After he says we do not know and God has not revealed how that sleep is, he goes on to try and explain it as a state which is actually awake. Then again in the very next paragraph, comparing it to the sleep we partake of every evening, during which we do not know what is going on around us. In other words, he does not know. Perhaps he is n a stage of transition between what he believed as a Catholic, and the his new views based upon scripture. As further investigation reveals he has abandoned the beliefs of the Catholic faith concerning the subject at hand. The following is a continuation of the above quote. Emphasis is mine.

QuoteThere have also been discussions about where the souls are. In his Enchiridion to Laurence Augustine states that their whereabouts is concealed. He says: "But the time that elapses between man's death and the final resurrection keeps the souls in hidden places, inasmuch as each one deserves either rest or distress, depending on what its lot was in the flesh while it was living."

Here one discovers the weakness of the human intellect. But one must consider the Word and the omnipotence of God; for if God weighs heaven and earth with three fingers, as is stated in Is. 40:12, His Word is surely far greater and far more extensive. Therefore the whereabouts of the souls is the Word of God or the promises in which we fall asleep. To be sure, it appears to be of no consequence and feeble when it is uttered through the mouth of man; but when we take hold of it in faith and fall asleep in the Word, the soul comes into infinite space.

I have said this in order to curb unprofitable and idle thoughts about these questions. For it is more than enough to know that we depart safely and quietly into the bosom of Christ; that is, that those who rely on the Word and the promise escape afflictions and tribulations and enjoy everlasting peace and safety, in accordance with Christ's statement in John 8:51: "Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My Word, he will never see death." Consequently, he will live in an eternal life.

But here one must also censure the foolishness of the papists, who have devised five places after death: (1) the hell of the damned; (2) the hell of infants who were not baptized; (3) purgatory; (4) the limbo of the fathers (in the New Testament they added Paradise on account of Christ's statement in Luke 23:43: "Today you will be with Me in Paradise"); and (5) the open heaven.

They say that the first place, which is torment by eternal fire, is for the damned. But whether the souls of the ungodly are tortured immediately after death I am unable to affirm, although the example of the rich glutton applies here. But there is a passage to the opposite effect in 2 Peter 2:4. It deals with the wicked angels who are being kept until the judgment. And in 2 Cor. 5:10 Paul says: "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body." It seems that they, too, are sleeping and resting; but I am making no positive statement.

The second place is that of infants who were not baptized. They maintain that while those infants are damned, they are not suffering punishment by fire or by worms but are merely without the vision of God. They do not have the light which would enable them to see God and the angels. Nevertheless, they are not tormented.

The third sphere is that of purgatory, into which neither the damned nor infants enter; it is for those who, while they believe, yet have not rendered satisfaction for their sins. The souls of these are ransomed by means of indulgences. From this source comes the hogwash of indulgences and the entire papistic religion.

The fourth place is the limbo of the fathers. They say that Christ descended to this place, broke it open, and set free—not from hell but from the limbo—the fathers who were troubled by the longing and waiting for Christ but were not enduring punishment or torments.

With these silly ideas the papists have filled the church and the world. We have overturned all this completely and maintain that unbaptized infants do not have such a sphere. But in what state they are or what becomes of them we commend to the goodness of God. They do not have faith or Baptism; but whether God receives them in an extraordinary manner and gives them faith is not stated in the Word, and we dare not set down anything as certain. To be deprived of the vision of God is hell itself. They admit that they have will and intellect, especially concerning the vision of God and life; but these are falsehoods. And purgatory is the greatest falsehood, because it is based on ungodliness and unbelief; for they deny that faith saves, and they maintain that satisfaction for sins is the cause of salvation. Therefore he who is in purgatory is in hell itself; for these are his thoughts: "I am a sinner and must render satisfaction for my sins; therefore I shall make a will and shall bequeath a definite amount of money for building churches and for buying prayers and sacrifices for the dead by the monks and priests." Such people die in a faith in works and have no knowledge of Christ. Indeed, they hate Him. We die in faith in Christ, who died for our sins and rendered satisfaction for us. He is my Bosom, my Paradise, my Comfort, and my Hope.

Their talk about a limbo of the fathers is inappropriate. It would have been better if they had called it the bosom of Abraham; for those who died before Christ were saved in the promise of the Word in which they lived in this life, and when they died, they entered into life and were truly alive.

The meaning of the words of Christ to the criminal (Luke 23:43) is this: "Today you will be with Me in Paradise"; that is, in My bosom; where I am, you likewise shall be. There heaven and Paradise are the same thing, except that as yet there is rest and peace among the saints, but not the kingdom. Christ is in heaven or Paradise to direct, judge, and rule His church, to send angels to minister to His church, to distribute gifts to men, to exalt the humble, etc. For He is always working and does not rest as do the saints who sleep, about whom it is stated in Is. 63:16: "Abraham does not know us, and Israel does not acknowledge us."

Therefore there is a great difference between the sleeping saints and the ruling Christ. The former sleep and do not know what is going on. Nevertheless, they are resting. But when the ungodly die, whether they have departed long ago, before the coming of Christ, or today, after Christ has been revealed, they go simply to damnation. But we do not know whether their damnation begins immediately after death; for it is written (Rom. 14:10) that all will have to stand before the judgment seat, and John 5:29 states: "Those who have done good will come forth to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment."

Accordingly, we should remember that after Christ the bosom of Abraham has come to an end and that all the promises about the coming Seed have been fulfilled. We have other and far more glorious promises that were given us by the Son of God, who became incarnate, suffered, and was raised again. If we do not believe these, we are condemned forever. But I am unable to say positively in what state those are who are condemned in the New Testament. I leave this undecided. Concerning the godly it is most certain that they live and enter into peace. About this matter we indeed have far more and far clearer examples and evidences in the New Testament from the addresses of Christ and of the apostles than did the fathers, who had only a few passages which clearly indicated the resurrection and eternal life. The passages in The Wisdom of Solomon (3:1)—"The souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and no torment of death will touch them"—was taken from Isaiah.

Martin Luther, Luther's Works, Vol. 4: Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 21-25, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 4 (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999), 314–316.

Obviously at the point in which he wrote the above, he no longer agreed with Catholicism regarding these matters. Nor did he demonstrate decisive clarity regrading what the sleep of souls actually entailed. Which he himself earlier stated was unknown. Still the last highlighted section of this work is somewhat in line with what SDA's believe, as in the dead who sleep in Christ, are not aware of what is going on. More later.

Quote from: 4WD on Sun May 28, 2023 - 12:53:11
Because those are the basis upon which the country was founded.  My faith in God is not founded upon anything Luther produced; rather it is founded upon what the Holy Spirit inspired writings in the Bible.

While this may be true, the basic liberties and freedoms espoused and established by the founders of this nation, would not have come about, without Protestant forerunners paving the way in their battles for religious liberty and freedom of conscience. If they had never broken the chains of tyrannical Ecclesiastical hierarchies and Feudalist states which worked together, this nation would likely have not been established. Seeing that so very many of its earlier settlers were in fact seeking to escape the grasp of over reaching religious and civil authorities, who combined there forces to stifle true religious and civil freedoms and rights. While you may not consider such of importance, and have that right, it does not change the historical facts concerning many a Protestant paving the way for the freedoms we now enjoy and most obviously take for granted. As they are now under severe attack and are increasingly crumbling under the constant pressure being exerted against them, by the very same combined powers of the past who enslaved those unfortunates before us. All the history of which, is intricately connected to the history of authentic Christianity as well.

It is in fact, because people have largely forgotten the lessons involved during these struggles of the past, that we are now repeating the history which lead the establishment of such enslaving despotism during the dark ages. History is repeating itself. As biblical prophecy has testified it will. Which is exactly why education, especially concerning truthful history, is so important to those who would be free peoples. So be it though, as God's word has predicted and determined, upon the indifferent and or apathetic masses.

History has in fact repeated this cycle over and over again. Even biblical history contains the same dismal record. Those who fight and sacrifice for just societies supporting freedom and liberty, are succeeded by children and others who have simply lived off of the increase created by the same. They forget the important lessons learned by there predecessors, become indifferent, apathetic, and distracted with frivolities. And lose what was gained by authentic concern, sacrifice, struggles, and even war and bloodshed. This time the loss and reversion is on a global scale. God Himself will end the next final global slide into global tyrannical government by His personal return to set up His everlasting Kingdom, Amen.

Quote from: Amo
Obviously at the point in which he wrote the above, he no longer agreed with Catholicism regarding these matters. Nor did he demonstrate decisive clarity regrading what the sleep of souls actually entailed. Which he himself earlier stated was unknown. Still the last highlighted section of this work is somewhat in line with what SDA's believe, as in the dead who sleep in Christ, are not aware of what is going on. More later.

Going on here as in the here and now on earth....
...Same thing Eccl teaches, same thing Luther is saying.

It would do you good to reach out to Concordia - talk to the Seminary, they can help you understand. I can say they treated me like gold and something tells me they would be even more accomidating to a Protestant.

Quote from: Cathlodox on Sun May 28, 2023 - 22:03:04
Going on here as in the here and now on earth....
...Same thing Eccl teaches, same thing Luther is saying.

It would do you good to reach out to Concordia - talk to the Seminary, they can help you understand. I can say they treated me like gold and something tells me they would be even more accomidating to a Protestant.

The problem with asking other people to do research for you, or just taking others words as truthful authority, is the natural bias that may come along with such. Not to mention the carelessness which might have been exercised in their examination. Just take our discussion here as an example. If people asked you or I about this, they would get two very different answers. Though I would confess that I am still looking into the matter for a more complete picture. What I have learned and shared thus far, does not align with your testimony or the picture you painted with the quotes and personal observations concerning them. It appears quite certain, from Luther's testimony thus far, that he believed in soul sleep. Though perhaps, in a somewhat different manner than others professing to believe the same.

As I have already stated, I already own a pretty extensive library of Luther's writings, from which I had formed my own impressions concerning his views on the state of the dead. Your challenge to those views peaked my interest, and motivated me to look deeper into the matter for greater clarity. A problem which needed a remedy though, presented itself. We had and or were using different sources or publications of Luther's writings, and therefore I could not easily find and examine your quotes in greater context than you provided. I remedied that problem and am now the proud owner of 55 more volumes of Luther's Works from which you have been quoting. After addressing your quotes in far greater context and detail, I intend to dig much deeper into this topic, to expand my own knowledge of Luther's writings upon this topic as well as others.

Now I must ask you a question. You earlier advised me to invest in some of Luther's writings, which as I stated I already had. From which I shared the quotes suggesting what you have challenged. Nevertheless, I have now increased my investment in the publications of Luther's writings which you have quoted from, in order to more thoroughly and accurately address these issues as it were, on the same page as you. You assumed I had copied and pasted my quotes from Luther's writings somewhere on the internet I suppose, but that was incorrect. So here is the question, did you copy and paste your quotes from someone else, or receive them from someone else without any in depth study regarding their proper context and or original intent?

I ask this because the next quote you gave which I was examining in context, is in the middle of a whole lot of testimony that I would not want others examining if I were a Roman Catholic. Not if I was more interested in defending my denomination, than arriving at truth. The context surrounding your next quoted words from Luther which I am addressing, brings to light many serious problems related to the Roman Catholic church which exist today on a global scale, while addressing others connected to the greater civil powers she enjoyed during the dark ages as well. It will reveal that these problems are certainly not new at all.  But were being considered and addressed at the time of Luther as well, and no doubt played a major roll in the abandonment of the Roman Catholic faith which undoubtedly aided the Reformers efforts. So, are you actually aware of the context surrounding the following quote you provided?

"When the last Lateran council was to be concluded in Rome under Pope Leo, among other articles it was decreed that one must believe the soul to be immortal.  From this one may gather that they make eternal life an object of sheer mockery and contempt. In this way they confess that it is a common belief among them that there is no eternal life, but that they now wish to proclaim this by means of a bull." (LW 47:37)

I encourage all to do their own research but at some point and in some ways we should leverage the work of others who are exerts in their field.

The early Adventists essentially had no education in Religion, the ancient languages or even history - these SDA Pioneers after studying things out for themselves concluded that Father God had a digestive tract complete with rectum and EVERY organ, member and part a perfect man would have. They also concluded other things like Great Apes were abducting Negress's and breeding them in the jungle thus producing mongrel races - the fruitage of confusion.

Ellen White went on to write about the mixture of man and beasts.

Quote from: Amo
So here is the question, did you copy and paste your quotes from someone else, or receive them from someone else without any in depth study regarding their proper context and or original intent?

No, I do my own research after accepting what the authority I'm looking at says is their teaching / belief.

I had originally become aware of Luther's statements about the afterlife from a Jehovah's Witness forum and have also seen some quotes on SDA forums. Most folks don't realize that JW's are Adventists, they just are not Seventh-day Adventists.

In any event i started ordering Luther's Works and contacted Lutheran Seminary's asking for help in understanding. I can't remember the exact quote from the Professor but Luther said something like he had no problem admitting he was in error if he found the Bible taught against something opposite of what he was saying. Luther definately pondered the state of a person after death as well as the Sabbath and ended up with Historic Christianity on both issues.

As for as my own research into Ellen White and early SDA's I've done my own through countless hours on the White Estate and the archives. I've found things that others missed such as Ellen White was responsible for writing one of the most anti-Trinitarian articles to ever grace the Sabbath Herald.

Quote from: Cathlodox on Mon May 29, 2023 - 08:41:03
I encourage all to do their own research but at some point and in some ways we should leverage the work of others who are exerts in their field.

The early Adventists essentially had no education in Religion, the ancient languages or even history - these SDA Pioneers after studying things out for themselves concluded that Father God had a digestive tract complete with rectum and EVERY organ, member and part a perfect man would have. They also concluded other things like Great Apes were abducting Negress's and breeding them in the jungle thus producing mongrel races - the fruitage of confusion.

Ellen White went on to write about the mixture of man and breasts.

All a load of crap to be sure. As it has and becomes ever increasingly evident, that you play with the words of others, as though they were your own to do with as you wish. Ascribing whatever meaning you wish to them along the way, regardless of original and obvious intent on their part. This is called bearing false witness, which continuing without repentance, leads to the second death in the lake of fire. Where all "whosoever loveth and maketh a lie", will end up. Perhaps you should take the time to be very sure these accusations are correct. And what better time and place, than right here. Bring forth the quotes or writings you say teach such, and let us examine the truthfulness or not of your accusations. I'm not afraid of arriving at the truth, are you?

I take it your last statement was in reference to man and beasts, not breasts. Though today apparently, men are literally mixing themselves with breast. In the amalgamation of man and woman. While there is also even consideration of amalgamating humans and beasts today, toward a superior being. Such is quite obviously not beyond the scope and even desire of fallen humanity. To the contrary, it has been, is now, and will continue to be a desired possibility amid fallen humanity. Nevertheless, what you suggest above regarding "mixtures", is a load of crap. Which has been addressed and disproved before on these boards.   

Quote from: Cathlodox on Mon May 29, 2023 - 08:57:08
No, I do my own research after accepting what the authority I'm looking at says is their teaching / belief.

I had originally become aware of Luther's statements about the afterlife from a Jehovah's Witness forum and have also seen some quotes on SDA forums. Most folks don't realize that JW's are Adventists, they just are not Seventh-day Adventists.

In any event i started ordering Luther's Works and contacted Lutheran Seminary's asking for help in understanding. I can't remember the exact quote from the Professor but Luther said something like he had no problem admitting he was in error if he found the Bible taught against something opposite of what he was saying. Luther definately pondered the state of a person after death as well as the Sabbath and ended up with Historic Christianity on both issues.

As for as my own research into Ellen White and early SDA's I've done my own through countless hours on the White Estate and the archives. I've found things that others missed such as Ellen White was responsible for writing one of the most anti-Trinitarian articles to ever grace the Sabbath Herald.

I would say of course, that the words of Luther himself would be the authority concerning what he believed. Wouldn't you?

JW's are not SDA's, though they may be Adventists, as any who believe in the second Advent or Coming of Christ basically are as well. I was informed by JW's whom I had invited into my home, that they were basically not allowed to converse with SDA's. Which is why they left, and would not discuss the scriptures with me.

As far as your declaration that Luther sided with historic Christianity concerning the state of dead and the sabbath, that all depends on one's perspective concerning the same, does it not? And I am quite sure we do not agree on this vital question, as with so many others. I don't care what EGW might have written that you consider anti-trinitarian, in that I don't really care about trinitarian debates either. As the term is found nowhere in scripture, and the debates and literal bloody violent wars which have occurred over that issue in the past, have solved nothing. Nor of course, do I trust your statements, as I know many of them to date, to be totally inaccurate if not straight forward lies. Nevertheless, if you wish to produce and discuss the article and or quotes you claim prove all of your accusations, I am perfectly fine with addressing them.

Quote from: Amo
All a load of crap to be sure. As it has and becomes ever increasingly evident, that you play with the words of others, as though they were your own to do with as you wish. Ascribing whatever meaning you wish to them along the way, regardless of original and obvious intent on their part. This is called bearing false witness, which continuing without repentance, leads to the second death in the lake of fire. Where all "whosoever loveth and maketh a lie", will end up. Perhaps you should take the time to be very sure these accusations are correct. And what better time and place, than right here. Bring forth the quotes or writings you say teach such, and let us examine the truthfulness or not of your accusations. I'm not afraid of arriving at the truth, are you?

Agreed there is a load of crap, however, I'm not originating it - it was generated by Ellen White & the SDA Pioneers.

As an example please read the Sabbath Herald, August 29, 1878 diatribe against the Trinity Doctrine - it's on page 1 and is titled "THE PERSONALITY OF GOD". Any SDA historian would agree that at that period the SDA Church was militantly anti-Trinitarian and one of heavy-weight SDA's used to repudiate the Trinity Doctrine was D.M. Canright.

Some copy-N-paste from that Sabbath Herald:

"Jesus says his Father is the only true God. "But Trinitarians contradict this by saying that the Son and Holy Ghost are just as much the true God as the Father is. Now were I, on going into a place, to inquire for a minister of the gospel, and one were to inform me that Roger Roe was the only minister of the gospel in the place, and another were to tell me that two other persons were just as truly ministers of the gospel as Elder Roe, surely the latter would contradict the former. And precisely so do Trinitarians contradict the Saviour in this text."

"And then the Bible never uses the phrases, " trinity," " triune God," " three in one," " the holy three," " God the Holy Ghost," etc. But it does emphatically say there is only one God, the Father. And every argument of the Trinitarian to prove three Gods in one person, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, all of them of one substance, and every way equal to each other, and all three forming but one, contradicts itself, contradicts reason, and contradicts the Bible."

"The Son has a body, but neither the Father nor Spirit has, according to them. 5. The Son died, but neither the Father nor the Spirit have seen death".

"Thus Paul says, "For. of him, and through him, and to him, are all things; to whom be glory forever. Amen." Rom. 11: 36. He is the source of all life and immortality. Thus, speaking of the Father, Paul says, " Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto." 1 Tim. 6: 16. Notice that this glorious God is the only one who, in himself, possesses immortality. That is, he is the fountain-head, the source' of all life and immortality, Even Jesus Christ, the Son of God, derives his existence and his life from the Father, for so he himself says, " As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father, so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." John 6:57. "For as the Father bath life in himself ; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself." John 5:26. This statement is unequivocal. The Father has life in himself, and in his great love for his Son he bestows the same gift upon him; but it will be noticed that the Father is the one from whom the gift came".

"Any one who is familiar with the teachings of Trinitarians will readily see that we do not at all misrepresent them in the following statements:-

1. They place the Father first in the trinity, and the Son second, and the Holy Spirit third. If they are all equal, why do this?

2. They have a mediator between men and the Father, but not between men and the Son or the Holy Spirit. Then they do not themselves regard them as equals.

3. The Son prays, but the Father does not.

4. The Son has a body, but neither the Father nor Spirit has, according to them.

5. The Son died, but neither the Father nor the Spirit have seen death.

6. They do not pray to the Son in the name of the Father, as they do to the Father in the name of the Son.

7. The Father does not plead with the Son, as the Son does with the Father.

8. They do not offer any sacrifice to the Holy Ghost, as they do to the Father.

9. Their continual effort to prove the Son equal with .the Father is virtually proof that he is not. They never try to prove the Father equal with the Son.
According to Trinitarians,-

10. Greater and less imply perfect equality. " My Father is greater than T." John 14: 28.

11. The Sender and Sent are both one. " Thou didst send me." John 17:8.

12. The self-existent God has a Father. John 20: 17.

13. The expressions one and three mean the same. Eph. 4: 6.

14. The Father and Son are the same. Matt. 3: 17.

15. Christ prayed to himself.

16. Jesus was that Father who sent him........"

The article goes on to say a whole lot more AND continues to other "Sabbath Herald's".

You and other SDA Apologists say to this 'BIG DEAL' - we already knew Canright was anti-Trinitarian at this time, nothing new here yada, yada, yada.

What wasn't known is that Ellen White REVISED that article in the Sabbath Herald so it [that article] would read the way it did! That is contrary to how SDA Apologists, the White Estate and the SDA Church characterized Ellen's beliefs at this time!

Here is that Sabbath Herald article so you can "read it in context": https://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH18780829-V52-10.pdf

Here is the admission in the Sabbath Herald that Ellen White REVISED that article producing the work product as it reads: https://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH18780822-V52-09.pdf

Now, feel free to beat the weeds as hard as you can to find who I copied this from - anything you find dating as far back as the Old Catholic Answers forum or any other form will show that it originated with ME. I can appreciate how you would want to classify what I post as load of crap and appreciate how what I'm showing you might strike a nerve - I'm doing this in the interest of transparency so you and others can "go and see" the types of things in the Sabbath Herald.

You're right, I had a typo with the Ellen White comment on man and beast, I meant to say beast there. This is one situation where I somewhat give Ellen White a break and while she did indeed teach that humans had hybridized with Apes (and possibly other animals) that belief was very popular with the under educated at the time she (and the Pioneers) were writing about it.

Quote from: Cathlodox on Mon May 29, 2023 - 12:30:29
Agreed there is a load of crap, however, I'm not originating it - it was generated by Ellen White & the SDA Pioneers.

As an example please read the Sabbath Herald, August 29, 1878 diatribe against the Trinity Doctrine - it's on page 1 and is titled "THE PERSONALITY OF GOD". Any SDA historian would agree that at that period the SDA Church was militantly anti-Trinitarian and one of heavy-weight SDA's used to repudiate the Trinity Doctrine was D.M. Canright.

Some copy-N-paste from that Sabbath Herald:

"Jesus says his Father is the only true God. "But Trinitarians contradict this by saying that the Son and Holy Ghost are just as much the true God as the Father is. Now were I, on going into a place, to inquire for a minister of the gospel, and one were to inform me that Roger Roe was the only minister of the gospel in the place, and another were to tell me that two other persons were just as truly ministers of the gospel as Elder Roe, surely the latter would contradict the former. And precisely so do Trinitarians contradict the Saviour in this text."

"And then the Bible never uses the phrases, " trinity," " triune God," " three in one," " the holy three," " God the Holy Ghost," etc. But it does emphatically say there is only one God, the Father. And every argument of the Trinitarian to prove three Gods in one person, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, all of them of one substance, and every way equal to each other, and all three forming but one, contradicts itself, contradicts reason, and contradicts the Bible."

"The Son has a body, but neither the Father nor Spirit has, according to them. 5. The Son died, but neither the Father nor the Spirit have seen death".

"Thus Paul says, "For. of him, and through him, and to him, are all things; to whom be glory forever. Amen." Rom. 11: 36. He is the source of all life and immortality. Thus, speaking of the Father, Paul says, " Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto." 1 Tim. 6: 16. Notice that this glorious God is the only one who, in himself, possesses immortality. That is, he is the fountain-head, the source' of all life and immortality, Even Jesus Christ, the Son of God, derives his existence and his life from the Father, for so he himself says, " As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father, so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." John 6:57. "For as the Father bath life in himself ; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself." John 5:26. This statement is unequivocal. The Father has life in himself, and in his great love for his Son he bestows the same gift upon him; but it will be noticed that the Father is the one from whom the gift came".

"Any one who is familiar with the teachings of Trinitarians will readily see that we do not at all misrepresent them in the following statements:-

1. They place the Father first in the trinity, and the Son second, and the Holy Spirit third. If they are all equal, why do this?

2. They have a mediator between men and the Father, but not between men and the Son or the Holy Spirit. Then they do not themselves regard them as equals.

3. The Son prays, but the Father does not.

4. The Son has a body, but neither the Father nor Spirit has, according to them.

5. The Son died, but neither the Father nor the Spirit have seen death.

6. They do not pray to the Son in the name of the Father, as they do to the Father in the name of the Son.

7. The Father does not plead with the Son, as the Son does with the Father.

8. They do not offer any sacrifice to the Holy Ghost, as they do to the Father.

9. Their continual effort to prove the Son equal with .the Father is virtually proof that he is not. They never try to prove the Father equal with the Son.
According to Trinitarians,-

10. Greater and less imply perfect equality. " My Father is greater than T." John 14: 28.

11. The Sender and Sent are both one. " Thou didst send me." John 17:8.

12. The self-existent God has a Father. John 20: 17.

13. The expressions one and three mean the same. Eph. 4: 6.

14. The Father and Son are the same. Matt. 3: 17.

15. Christ prayed to himself.

16. Jesus was that Father who sent him........"

The article goes on to say a whole lot more AND continues to other "Sabbath Herald's".

You and other SDA Apologists say to this 'BIG DEAL' - we already knew Canright was anti-Trinitarian at this time, nothing new here yada, yada, yada.

What wasn't known is that Ellen White REVISED that article in the Sabbath Herald so it [that article] would read the way it did! That is contrary to how SDA Apologists, the White Estate and the SDA Church characterized Ellen's beliefs at this time!

Here is that Sabbath Herald article so you can "read it in context": https://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH18780829-V52-10.pdf

Here is the admission in the Sabbath Herald that Ellen White REVISED that article producing the work product as it reads: https://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH18780822-V52-09.pdf

Now, feel free to beat the weeds as hard as you can to find who I copied this from - anything you find dating as far back as the Old Catholic Answers forum or any other form will show that it originated with ME. I can appreciate how you would want to classify what I post as load of crap and appreciate how what I'm showing you might strike a nerve - I'm doing this in the interest of transparency so you and others can "go and see" the types of things in the Sabbath Herald.

You're right, I had a typo with the Ellen White comment on man and beast, I meant to say beast there. This is one situation where I somewhat give Ellen White a break and while she did indeed teach that humans had hybridized with Apes (and possibly other animals) that belief was very popular with the under educated at the time she (and the Pioneers) were writing about it.

Why are you bringing the trinitarian debate here, we already have a thread for that? I've already addressed and proved your false witness above about human and ape hybrids to be untrue in posts long ago. I'll dig them up eventually and reveal your true character and intent.

Another example demonstrating that I don't "play with the words of others"...
...I pride myself in meeting the issues head-on.
...I'd appreciate it if you'd do the same, Amo.

Ellen White boasted that God told her certain books should be circulated to the public...
...These books contained "light" that God wanted in the hands of the people.
...Ellen claims God instructed her in this.


Sabbath Herald, February 16, 1905
"Instruction has been given me that the important books containing the light that God has given regarding Satan's apostasy in heaven should be given a wide circulation just now; for through them THE TRUTH will reach many minds. Patriarchs and Prophets, Daniel and the Revelation,."

"The light given was that Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation, The Great Controversy, and Patriarchs and Prophets would make their way. They contain the very message the people must have, the special light God had given his people. The angels of God would prepare the way for these books in the hearts of the people."—E. G. White Letter 43, 1899. (Published in The Colporteur Evangelist, 21)

Here is a sample of the light God gave His Adventist people:
...That Christ was a creature.

Page 59 of Thoughts on Daniel and The Revelation
"These things saith the Amen. This is then the final message to the Churches ere the close of probation. And trough the description he gives to the indifferent Laodiceans, of their condition is fearful and startling, nevertheless it cannot be denied; for the Witness is "faithful and True", Moreover he is "the beginning of the creation of God". NOT THE BEGINNER, BUT THE BEGINNING, OF THE CREATION, THE FIRST CREATED BEING, dating his existence far back before any other created being or thing, NEXT TO THE SELF EXISTENT AND ETERNAL GOD."

If you want to read page 58 and 59 in context I'm providing it here: https://1drv.ms/f/s!AqET204GTYerhfJ39lJyPGnMaCeWeQ?e=9yPX6k (ftp://1drv.ms/f/s!AqET204GTYerhfJ39lJyPGnMaCeWeQ?e=9yPX6k)

"When the last Lateran council was to be concluded in Rome under Pope Leo, among other articles it was decreed that one must believe the soul to be immortal.  From this one may gather that they make eternal life an object of sheer mockery and contempt. In this way they confess that it is a common belief among them that there is no eternal life, but that they now wish to proclaim this by means of a bull." (LW 47:37)

Your quote is above. That quote in far greater context is below. This will be a lengthy one, as it is Luther's attempt to dissuade the Catholic and Protestant Germans from entering into open warfare against each other. Though it is not complete, I will still have to break it down into two posts. It is uniquely recorded history regarding several of the reasons Protestants fought the battles they did for religious freedom and freedom of conscience. Which battles preceded and paved the way for the freedoms and liberties we have enjoyed for so long in this country until now. Which are now under such imminent threat from the exact religio-political entity, and elitist minded politicians and minions today, who agree with the Vatican's religio-political authoritarian views and agenda. Which agenda always includes the destruction of a well educated and independent middle class, without whom government for and by the people is not possible. Therefore has and is the Vaticans ultimate political end, not only helping the poor, but actually creating poor, uneducated, and dependent peoples. Whom they and their political and oligarchical allies and minions, may lord themselves over. All of which they intend to implement this time, on a global scale. 

Your quote is in blue. Emphasis is mine.

QuoteDr. Martin Luther's Warning to His Dear German People

I issued an urgent and sincere admonition publicly to the clerical members of the Diet of Augsburg in which I implored them not to let the diet—on which all the world set such great hopes and toward which it looked with longing—adjourn inconclusively, but rather work toward the establishment of peace, the cessation of some of their abominations, and freedom for the gospel. I also strove and sighed for these things with all my might in my prayers before God, as did all good Christians. However, since neither our diligent prayer to God nor our sincere warning to them availed, one can readily infer what this means: namely, that God considers them to be hardened and blinded; they are guilty of so much innocent blood, blasphemy, and shameful, impenitent living, that he does not consider that they are worthy to receive a single good thought or emotion or that they will pay any attention to a word of wholesome and peaceful admonition. Their condition is like that of the Jews at the time of Jeremiah, when God said to him (Jeremiah 15 [:1]): "Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my heart would not turn to this people. Send them out of my sight, and let them go!" And in Jeremiah 7 [:16] he said, "As for you, do not pray for this people, or lift up cry or prayer for them, and do not intercede with me, for I do not hear you."
My colleagues and I must now issue this same answer and apply it to ourselves. We have prayed in vain for the clergy. With his actions, God is demonstrating mightily that he does not want to hear our intercession in their behalf, but he is letting them go and sin against the Holy Spirit, as Pharaoh did, until they are beyond hope of repentance and reform. If anything could have been attained through prayer before God and anything achieved with the clergy through admonition, pleas, humility, patience, friendly advances, truth, justice, a good muse, etc., it surely would have been accomplished now at the diet. For I know how earnestly the Christians prayed, what great humility, patience, and fervor was demonstrated there, and what a good and just cause they championed.
But now that they not only have let the diet disband without bearing any fruit and without peace, but have even confirmed the discord and concluded with defiant threats, my followers and I will also withdraw our prayers in compliance with God's command and, as St. John teaches [1 John 5:16], not pray for the sin unto death. Rather we shall see how God will baptize the hardened Pharaoh in the Red Sea. Our prayers and supplications for peace, even though lost on the impenitent, will help us all the more. In fact, they have already performed great miracles at Augsburg. And by the grace of God they will also succeed in the end. For we were heard and must be heard. Our prayers have not failed us in the past, nor will they fail us now—that I know for a certainty. Amen! It will happen as Jesus said, that whenever the apostles' greetings or peace found no reception or no children of peace in a house, their peace returned again to them [Matt. 10:13; Luke 10:6]. So too in this case, since the clergy heed neither prayer nor peace, both prayer and peace will not be lost on that account but will revert to us. And in place of prayers, nothing but curses, in place of peace nothing but discord, and both in abundance, will be the clergy's lot. Amen.
Therefore, because their plans are built exclusively on force and their cause relies on the power of the fist, over against the manifest and known truth of God, no one need fear them. Let everyone be of good cheer and unafraid before such raging foes of God; for they do not cry or pray to God, nor are they able to pray in view of their bad conscience and cause. Out of pride and spite they attack flesh and blood; to do this they need no God, nor do they dare to ask him whether he desires what they are thinking. God surely loves this and takes great delight in it; such defiance and contempt of his grace are most pleasing to him. He makes a practice of rewarding such defiance and arrogance with good fortune and victory—so that both horse and rider lie drowned in the Red Sea and everything is overturned and no one survives. We, however, are quite convinced that their mad undertaking does not rest in their might, but in the hand of God, and that their aims will not so soon be accomplished. He will want to be a Lord over them too, as has always been the case in the past. This they shall indeed experience. But for the present I will assume that there is no God, I will just imagine as in a dream that their plans and plots will proceed and prosper mightily.
If worst comes to worst, then one of two things will happen: either a war or a rebellion will occur, perhaps both at the same time. For there is indeed danger—we are now speaking as in a dream, as if there were no God—that if they initiate a war, an armed troop will organize and a mob band together, perhaps even among their own people, so that both they and we will perish. For in such an event they cannot rely on our teaching and take it for granted that no one will attack them, just because we wrote and taught so emphatically not to resort to rebellion, but to suffer the madness even of tyrants, and not to defend oneself. This is what I teach, but I cannot create the doers of this teaching, since they esteem so little all the other articles of our teaching. If now the masses should reject our teaching against rebellion, especially if they were provoked by such a godless outrage and wanton war, then the devil would make real fools of them and expose them very nicely and neatly. I am still speaking in a dream. But let them see to it that the dream does not come true. The dream does not harm me, but if it hits them, so be it.
All right, if a war or a rebellion should break out as I fear (for God's wrath will have to take its course), I wish to testify before God and all the world here in this writing that we, who are derisively called "Lutherans," neither counseled it or consented to it, nor, indeed, gave any cause for it; rather we constantly and ceaselessly pleaded and called for peace. The papists themselves know and have to admit that we have preached peace up till now and have also kept the peace, and that peace was also our ardent desire now at the diet. Consequently, if a war or a rebellion should break out, it can under no circumstances be said, "See, that is the fruit of Lutheran teaching." It will rather have to be said, "See, that is the papists' teaching and its fruit; they want peace neither for themselves nor for others." Until now we have taught and lived quietly. We drew no sword and did not burn, murder, or rob anyone, as they have done in the past and still do; rather we endured their murder and pillage, their raving and raging with the greatest patience.
Furthermore, when our people were threatened and challenged, defied, jeered, and mocked at the diet by the papists, they humbled themselves most abjectly and let themselves simply be trampled underfoot. Despite all, they asked and pleaded for peace, and they offered to do all that God might want. That would have been more than enough, even if our party were mere beggars, to say nothing of the fact that they are great princes, lords, and godly and honorable people. Therefore, I believe that there have been but few instances of such a confession and of such humility and of such patience as long as Christendom has existed, and I trust this will not be exceeded before the Last Day. Yet all of this was of no avail. Münzer and the insurrectionists did not act thus; they did what the papists are doing now. They, too, neither wanted to have peace nor would they grant it to others. They resorted to violence; they listened to no mediation and no overtures, but insisted on having their own way. Moreover, they refused to submit their teaching to a hearing as our people now have done at Augsburg, but without further ado they condemned all other teaching and exalted their own by every means. In the same way the papists now refuse to make their document public, and yet they condemn our teaching.6 We shall hear more of that later. In brief, we cannot be blamed or accused either before God or before the world of fomenting war or insurrection.
Since our conscience is clear and pure and assured in this matter, and that of the papists must be guilty and impure and filled with misgiving, let come what may, even the worst, be it war or rebellion—whatever God's wrath decrees. If an uprising should result, my God and Lord Jesus Christ is well able to save me and mine, as he rescued dear Lot in Sodom, and as he saved me in the recent uprising when I was in danger of life and limb more than once. And yet this is the thanks I earned by my efforts from those incorrigible scoundrels; I mean the papists. If God does not see fit to rescue me, I will nonetheless praise and thank him. I have lived long enough, I have certainly earned death, and I have begun to avenge my Lord Jesus properly on the papacy. Only after my death will they begin really to take Luther seriously.8 Even now, if I were to be murdered in such a papist and clerical uprising, I would take a throng of bishops, priests, and monks with me, so that people would say that Doctor Martin had been escorted to his grave in a grand procession. For he was a great doctor over all bishops, priests, and monks; therefore it is fitting that they go to the grave with him, lying on their backs. People will sing and talk about it. Thus in the end we will undertake a little pilgrimage together—they, the papists, into the abyss of hell to their god of lies and murder, whom they served with lies and murder; I to my Lord Jesus Christ, whom I served in truth and peace.
For it is easy to figure out that whoever kills Doctor Luther in an uprising will not spare many of the priests either. Thus we shall go to our death together, they to hell in the name of all devils, I to heaven in the name of God. No one can harm me, that I know; nor do I desire to do harm to anyone else. But whatever evil they inflict on me, I will outdo them. No matter how hard their heads may be, they will find mine still harder. Even if they had not only Emperor Charles on their side but also the emperor of the Turks, they would not intimidate or frighten me; rather I will intimidate and frighten them. In the future they will yield to me; I will not yield to them. I will survive, they will perish. They have miscalculated grievously, for my life will be their hangman, my death will be their devil. This is what they will discover, nothing else; just let them laugh impudently about it now.
On the other hand, if this ends in a war, I will again have to resign myself to it, together with my followers, and await what our God will advise and decree in this matter. He has always faithfully assisted and never forsaken us. Here again we enjoy a great advantage. In the first place, it will not harm us if we die or come to grief, for it is written, "Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake" [Matt. 5:10]. We are convinced that he who says that does not lie. The papists themselves know and confess—and may the devil thank them if they should say otherwise—that our teaching is contrary neither to any article of the Creed nor to the Holy Scriptures; rather it is contrary to the customs of their church and the laws of the popes. Therefore they cannot revile us as heretics without giving their own heart and mouth the lie, since no one may be dubbed a heretic who does not teach contrary to Holy Scripture or the articles of faith. Much less may they punish us or wage war against us as heretics. As liars against themselves, as assassins and traitors, they have hitherto defamed Leonard Keiser11 and his like as heretics, burned them at the stake, murdered and persecuted them. And they have not yet shown any contrition or repentance for this, but remain hardened in such blood and lies. Who should be afraid of such warriors?
In the second place, we know that they are unable to begin such a war in the name of God, nor are they able to pray for it and invoke God's help. And I challenge them all, collectively and individually, to say to God with a sincere heart: "Help us, God, to fight in defense of this cause!" For their conscience is too burdened, not only with lying, blaspheming, blood, murder, and all other abominations but, over and above all this, with hardened and impenitent hearts and sins against the Holy Spirit. Consequently, since they wage war with a bad conscience for a blasphemous cause, good fortune and success cannot attend them. Therefore we will speak a blessing over them, which will read as follows: "May God give you success and victory in proportion to your uprightness before God and the goodness of your cause! Amen!" You will fare as we Germans did when we ventured to break the peace with St. John Huss and fought against the Bohemians. On that occasion the pope also handed us over to the slaughter, so that we had to satisfy his pleasure with our blood and heads, and we fought against truth and justice. Now you are doing the same thing, and so the pope, this most holy father and kind shepherd of our souls, will again have occasion to laugh up his sleeve if he can stir up such a welcome bloodbath among us. However, God can easily raise up a Judas Maccabeus13 (even if my followers and I sit by quietly and suffer) who will smash Antiochus with his army and teach him real warfare, as he taught us how to wage war and how to keep the peace through the Bohemians.
Nor will my followers and I leave off praying and imploring God to give them a despondent, timid, and craven heart when on the battlefield, to prick the conscience of one and then another and prompt them to say: "Alas! Alas! I am engaged in a perilous war. We are espousing an evil cause and fighting against God and his word. What will be our fate? Where are we going?" And when they see a Maccabean warrior coming at them, they will disperse and scatter like chaff before the wind. Do you not believe that God is still able to do this? He says to his people, "I will send faintness into your hearts, so that when you go out one way against your enemies, you shall flee seven ways before them; the sound of a driven leaf shall put you to flight" [Lev. 26:36; Deut. 28:25]. Truly, that is what he also did to the obdurate Egyptians in the Red Sea. They were probably as obstinate and secure as the papists are. Yet when the hour came that their conscience smote them, they cried, "Alas, let us flee, for the Lord is fighting against us" [Exod. 14:25]. Let him who does not know what it means to wage war with a bad conscience and a despondent heart try it now. If the papists wage war, he will experience it, just as our ancestors did in a similar situation against the Bohemians and Zizka. And we will not suppress our prayer but will offer it publicly; it will be the seventh psalm, which in its first combat slew all of Israel, so that twenty thousand men, together with Absalom, lay dead on the battlefield, slain by a small number.15 For it has a sufficient stock of guns, powder, and armor—that I know for a certainty.
In the third place, it is not fitting for me, a preacher, vested with the spiritual office, to wage war or to counsel war or incite it, but rather to dissuade from war and to direct to peace, as I have done until now with all diligence. All the world must bear witness to this. However, our enemies do not want to have peace, but war. If war should come now, I will surely hold my pen in check and keep silent and not intervene as I did in the last uprising. I will let matters take their course, even though not a bishop, priest, or monk survives and I myself also perish. For their defiance and boasting are intolerable to God; their impenitent heart is carrying things too far. They were begged, they were admonished, they were implored for peace beyond all reasonable measure. They insist on forcing the issue with flesh and blood; so I, too, will force the issue with them through the Spirit and through God and henceforth set not one or two papists but the entire papacy against me, until the Judge in heaven intervenes with signs. I will not and cannot be afraid of such miserable enemies of God. I disdain their defiance, and I laugh at their wrath. They can do no more than deprive me of a sack of ailing flesh. [/uBut they shall soon discover of what I am able to deprive them.
Furthermore, if war breaks out—which God forbid—I will not reprove those who defend themselves against the murderous and bloodthirsty papists, nor let anyone else rebuke them as being seditious, but I will accept their action and let it pass as self-defense. I will direct them in this matter to the law and to the jurists. For in such an instance, when the murderers and bloodhounds wish to wage war and to murder, it is in truth no insurrection to rise against them and defend oneself. Not that I wish to incite or spur anyone on to such self-defense, or to justify it, for that is not my office; much less does it devolve on me to pass judgment or sentence on him. A Christian knows very well what he is to do—namely, to render to God the things that are God's and to Caesar the things that are Caesar's [Matt. 22:21], but not to render to the bloodhounds the things that are not theirs. I want to make a distinction between sedition and other acts and to deprive the bloodhounds of the pretext of boasting that they are warring against rebellious people and that they were justified according to both human and divine law; for so the little kitten is fond of grooming and adorning itself. Likewise, I do not want to leave the conscience of the people burdened by the concern and worry that their self-defense might be rebellious. For such a term would be too evil and too harsh in such a case. It should be given a different name, which I am sure the jurists can find for it.
We must not let everything be considered rebellious which the bloodhounds designate as such. For in that way they want to silence the lips and tie the hands of the entire world, so that no one may either reprove them with preaching or defend himself with his fist, while they keep their mouth open and their hands free. Thus they want to frighten and ensnare all the world with the name "insurrection," and at the same time comfort and reassure themselves. No, dear fellow, we must submit to you a different interpretation and definition of that term. To act contrary to law is not rebellion; otherwise every violation of the law would be rebellion. No, he is an insurrectionist who refuses to submit to government and law, who attacks and fights against them, and attempts to overthrow them with a view to making himself ruler and establishing the law, as Münzer did; that is the true definition of a rebel. Aliud est invasor, aliud transgressor. In accordance with this definition, self-defense against the bloodhounds cannot be rebellious. For the papists are deliberately starting the war; they refuse to keep the peace, they do not let others rest who would like to live in peace. Thus the papists are much closer to the name and the quality which is termed rebellion.
For they have no law, either divine or human, on their side; rather they act out of malice, like murderers and villains, in violation of all divine and human law. That can easily be proved; for they themselves know that our doctrine is correct, and yet they want to exterminate it. Thus a great Nicholas bishop declared in Augsburg that he could tolerate it if everyone believed as they do in Wittenberg; but what he could not tolerate was that such a doctrine should originate in and emanate from such a remote nook and corner. What do you think? Are those not fine episcopal words? The papal legate, Cardinal Campeggio,19 confessed similarly that he could easily accept such a teaching. However, this would establish a bad precedent, and one would then have to accord other nations and kingdoms the same privilege, which would be out of the question. Another important bishop declared of their scholars: "Our scholars do a fine job of defending us. They themselves concede that our cause is not based on Scripture." Thus they are well aware that our doctrine is not wrong, but that it is founded on the Scriptures. Yet they condemn us arbitrarily and try to exterminate this doctrine in contravention of divine law and truth.
It is also obvious that they are acting contrary to imperial and to natural law; for in the first place, they hardly gave our side a hearing, and then, when they delivered their tardy, flimsy confutation orally, they simply refused to hand us a copy of it, nor did they give us an opportunity to make reply. To the present day they shun the light like bats. It is, of course, in accord with divine, imperial, and natural law, as the heathen Porcius Festus also held in the controversy between the Jews and St. Paul [Acts 25:16], not to condemn a man without a hearing. Even God did not condemn Adam until he first gave him a chance to reply. We appeared voluntarily at Augsburg and offered humbly and eagerly to render an account. This, however, was maliciously and arbitrarily denied us. Nor did they give us their confutation, no matter how often and how much we pleaded for it. Yet we were condemned by the holy fathers in God and by the Christian princes. O excellent teachers! O fine judges, who force all the world to believe and still dare not to publish what is to be believed! I am expected to believe without knowing what to believe. I am told that I am in error, but I am not shown in what I err!
O all you unfortunate people who sided with the pope at Augsburg! All your descendants will forever have to be ashamed of you. They will be unhappy to hear that they had such miserable ancestors. If we had shunned the light and refused to give answer, you would have compelled us to do so. Now we come along, not only willing and glad to give an account, but we plead, implore, and clamor for a chance to do this. We go to great expense to do so, neglect many things, and suffer every indignity, mockery, contempt, and danger, and you shamefully and maliciously refuse our request. If we had not asked for or desired to have your bat or night owl, that is, your confutation, you would have transmitted it to us against our wishes. Now that we ask for it, complain, and persist in demanding it, you deny us your confutation and refuse to receive our reply.
Shame on this diet for its disgraceful action! The like of it was never held or heard of before and never will be held or heard of again. It must be an eternal blemish on all princes and the whole empire, and makes all of us Germans blush with shame before God and all the world. What will the Turk and his whole realm say when they hear of such an unparalleled action of our empire? What will the Tartars and the Muscovites say to this? Who under heaven will henceforth fear us Germans or regard us as honorable when they hear that we permit the accursed pope and his masks to hoax and dupe us, to treat us as children, yes, as dolts and clods, that we, for the sake of their blasphemous, sodomitic, shameful teaching and life, act so disgracefully, so very, very shamefully and contrary to law and truth in a public diet? Every German should on this account rue having been born a German and being called a German.
However, I am very willing to believe that a special portion of shrewdness prompts them to hold back their confutation and their fine little booklet. Their conscience must sense instinctively that it is a flimsy, empty, and meaningless thing of which they would have to be ashamed if it were made public and examined in the light of day, or if it were to be answered. For I know those highly learned doctors very well who no doubt brewed and stewed over it for six weeks. Perhaps with their babbling they can impress those unfamiliar with the subject; but when it is put on paper, it has neither hands nor feet, and lies there confounded and confused, as though a drunkard had spewed it forth. This is especially apparent in the writings of Dr. Schmid and Dr. Eck.23 There is neither head nor tail to it when they commit things to writing. For that reason they apply themselves so much the more to shouting and chattering.
I also heard that many of our opponents were astonished when our confession was read and admitted that it was the simple truth and could not be refuted with Scripture. On the other hand, when their confutation was read, they hung their heads and admitted by their expressions that it was a flimsy and empty thing compared with our confession. Our people and many godly hearts rejoiced greatly and were wonderfully strengthened when they heard that the opponents with the utmost might and skill they could muster at the time could produce no more than this empty confutation, which—God be praised—a woman, a child, a layman, a peasant is now able to refute, buttressed with good arguments from the Scriptures and from truth. That is the true and real reason why they declined to hand us their confutation. Those fugitive, bad consciences shudder at themselves and are not prepared for truth's reply.
It is easy to see that they were very confident when they arranged for this diet and were convinced that our side would lack the courage to appear. They thought that when they brought the emperor in person to Germany, all would be frightened and say, "Gracious lords, what is your wish?" When they proved mistaken in this and the elector of Saxony was the very first to make his appearance, my heavens, how they soiled their breeches in their trepidation! How all their confidence vanished! How they put their heads together, took secret counsel with one another and whispered! No one—not Christ himself, or even I—was permitted to know what it was all about, just as little as we knew about the princes' plotting prior to this year. In the final analysis they were trying to find ways and means to avoid giving our people an opportunity to be heard, for our people were the first to arrive, and they appeared to be very bold and cheerful. As this was impossible, they nevertheless did themselves the honor in the end of refusing to hand us their vapid confutation and to give us an opportunity to make reply.
Their insolent mouthpiece and bloodthirsty sophist, Dr. Eck, one of their foremost advisers, declared openly within the hearing of our people that if the emperor had followed the resolution arrived at in Bologna and attacked the Lutherans promptly and swiftly with the sword upon his entry into Germany, beheading one after the other, then the problem would have been solved; but all that had come to nought when he permitted the elector of Saxony to speak and defend himself through his chancellor. What do you think of such doctors and holy fathers? How imbued with love and truth they are! Thus the secret deliberations had to come to light which the papal holiness had conducted in Bologna with the emperor. What a fine spectacle would have evolved if the emperor had followed such papistic and devilish advice and initiated this event with murder! That would have resulted in such a diet that not a fingernail either of the bishops or of the princes would have remained. And all this in these perilous times when everything is so unsettled and confused and when all the world was looking forward to a benevolent diet, as the summons had intimated and asserted. However, the expectations were not fulfilled.
Someone may interpose that the emperor was willing to hand us their confutation if we had promised not to make it public. That is true; this was suggested to our side. But here let everyone feel and grope, even if he cannot see and hear, to learn what kind of people they are who do not wish or dare to have their cause exposed to the light of day. If it is really such a precious thing and so well grounded in the Scriptures, as they shout and boast, why does it shun the light? What good does it do to conceal such public matters from us and from everyone? After all, they must be taught and observed by them. But if it is unfounded and without meaning, why then did they have the elector of Brandenburg proclaim and publish in writing at the time of the first recess that our confession was refuted by Scripture and sound reason?27 If that were true and if their own conscience did not give them the lie, they would not only have had such a precious and well-documented confutation read, but they would also have handed it to us in writing, saying, "There you have it. We challenge anyone to refute that." That is what we did, and still do, with our confession.
However, Christ must remain truthful when he says: "For every one who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God" [John 3:20–21]. In accord with this judgment of Christ, God permitted our people to come away from this diet decked with such eternal glory that even our adversaries have to confess that we did not avoid the light but most boldly and cheerfully sought out and expected it. They, on the other hand, were left there covered with such eternal disgrace that they avoided and shunned the light most shamefully and obviously like night owls and bats, yes, like their father of lies and murder, and were unable to expect or tolerate a rejoinder to their loose, hollow, and obscure prattle.
It is also an indication of a fine Christian attitude that they asked our people to pledge themselves to prevent the precious knowledge and well-grounded wisdom of their confutation from leaking out and becoming public. How thoroughly God has blinded and abased the papists, so that they no longer have either reason or shame! How is it possible—to leave aside the question of whether it is right—to promise to keep such a document secret, which had passed through so many hands and had already been read once before the diet? Then if it would have been made public later on by their own faction, we would have been blamed for it.
Godless reason must take recourse to such cleverness and petty artifices because it cannot bear the truth and the light; nor can it find a better excuse for remaining in the dark and refusing to publish its confutation. Well and good, let it remain in the dark where it is; moreover, it shall ever remain in the eternal hellish darkness. But on the day of judgment, if not before, it will come into the light only too clearly.
Yes, you will say, but even though they did not issue their confutation or allow it to be answered, they did appoint instead a committee composed of several princes and scholars from each side and ordered them to discuss the matter at issue in a friendly manner. Little kitten, clean and groom yourself, we are going to have company! How stupid and foolish is that poor man Christ, not to notice such cunning. The committee did convene, that is true; but what was discussed? Nothing at all about their confutation or refutation; that remained in the dark. The committee had to help in preserving appearances, so as to provide some pretense for keeping the inane confutation under cover and not making it public. For it was not their confutation that was submitted in the committee meeting, but our confession. Their deliberations with our people revolved about such questions as how much of our confession we were willing to drop and withdraw, or how they interpreted it, or how we could make it harmonize with their views. Their one aim and objective was to enable them to make a fine pretense and to raise the hue and cry: "You see, dear people, listen, all the world, and hear how stubborn and stiff-necked the Lutherans are! In the first place, their confession was disproven with Scripture and with well-founded reasons, and then we engaged in friendly discussions with them. What more can we do? They refuse to yield, whether they are overcome or whether instructed in a friendly manner."
All right, we must put up with their clamor and their lies; however, I know that this will not help them. God, too, has already given them and they're boasting the lie. For when this recess was announced by the elector of Brandenburg and it was proclaimed that our confession had been refuted with the Scriptures and with valid reason, our people did not accept it, nor did they keep silent, but boldly and publicly contradicted it before the emperor and the empire and affirmed that our confession had not been refuted, but that it was ordered and founded in such a way that even the gates of hell could not prevail against it. They had to swallow this discomfiture again. For, bluntly stated, what the elector of Brandenburg read out in proclaiming the recess is not true; it is a lie. That is correct, for their well-grounded confutation has not yet been brought to light. It is perhaps still slumbering with old Tannhäuser in the Venusberg.
Since it is evident that they are keeping their confutation secret and have not yet brought it to light on their own, their allegation that our confession had been refuted with the Scriptures and with sound reason is not only a manifest and impudent lie, but it represents the devil's own lie when they boast in the bargain and put up a good front and dare to cry that we are defeated but will not retract. This they do though their conscience mightily convicts them of such lies. So it is obvious that they had to resort to this pretense, as do all those who have a bad cause. They cover up miserably and hatch all sorts of dodges to keep their bad cause from coming to light. In brief, it is plain that they, despairing of their cause, expected nothing less than that our people would appear on the scene. They relied entirely on sheer force and were not at all prepared for truth and light.
The friendly intentions which they had regarding the committee are also very evident from the one point which they dared, among other articles, to propose to our people, namely, that we should teach that in addition to taking the sacrament in two kinds, it was not wrong but right to administer and take it also in only one kind. If we consented to that, they would also make a concession and permit us to teach that the sacrament might be taken and given in both kinds. Does that not betoken a great friendship? Who might have looked for such love from these people? Until now they persecuted as heretics all who took the sacrament in both lands and tormented them in every way. And now they are ready to adjudge this as correct and Christian and let it pass as such, if we but admit that they in turn also do the correct and Christian thing when they take the sacrament in one kind. That is, in plain words, speaking out of both sides of your mouth. It is wrong, and yet it is accounted right, depending upon their whims and will. Yet this dare not be called a lie.
If our side had agreed to this and accepted their proposal, then they really would have boasted and shouted throughout the whole world: "See, dear people, the Lutherans are recanting their doctrine. Formerly they taught that it was wrong to take the sacrament in one kind, and now they teach that it is right. Now you note that we taught correctly, and they are found to be in error in their own confession." In that way they tried to confirm all their abominations and devil's tomfoolery in the eyes of the faithful, simple folk and to arraign us as recanters of all our teaching. Furthermore, they would thus have established their pernicious doctrine in our churches by our own lips and at the same time suppressed our doctrine with might in their churches. They would not at all have taught our doctrine among themselves. In that way they wanted to penetrate and entrench themselves in our churches by means of our own lips and, simultaneously, exclude us from their churches. Are these not fine, friendly, fitting means, well suited to friendly dealings?

QuoteDr. Martin Luther's Warning to His Dear German People

Continued.

As the confutation is, so is the committee. The confutation is a dark night owl, reluctant to face the light; the committee is sheer cunning and deception. The boast that they tried friendly measures with us is just as truthful and sincere as their boast that they refuted our confession with Holy Scripture and sound reason—both are sheer lying and deceit. To be sure, they would not like to be treated that way by us. However, at present I do not propose to write about the actions of this diet, nor to attack their confutation (though both shall yet be attended to if God wills), but at present I merely wish to show that the papists do not want to have peace, truth, or tranquillity, but insist on enforcing their will and thus are bringing about either a war or an insurrection, whether we like it or not. Nothing will restrain them. We, however, will have to take the risk and await the outcome, since our offers, pleas, and cries for peace are unheeded and our humility and patience go for nought. Let come what cannot be prevented!
But since I am the "prophet of the Germans"—for this haughty title I will henceforth have to assign to myself, to please and oblige my papists and asses—it is fitting that I, as a faithful teacher, warn my dear Germans against the harm and danger threatening them and impart Christian instruction to them regarding their conduct in the event that the emperor, at the instigation of his devils, the papists, issues a call to arms against the princes and cities on our side. It is not that I worry that His Imperial Majesty will listen to such spiteful people and initiate such an unjust war, but I do not want to neglect my duty. I want to keep my conscience clean and unsullied at all events. I would much rather compose a superfluous and unnecessary admonition and warning and impart needless instruction than to neglect my duty and then find, if things go contrary to my expectations, that I am too late and have no other consolation than the words non putassem, I did not intend this. The sages suggest making provision for things even if everything is secure. How much less may we trust any wind and weather, no matter how pleasant it may appear, in these difficult times when the papists' raging provokes God's wrath so terribly! Moreover, in Romans 12 Paul commands those who preside over others to look out for them.
Any German who wants to follow my sincere counsel may do so; and whoever does not want to may disregard it. I am not seeking my own benefit in this, but the welfare and salvation of you Germans. Nothing better could happen to my person than that the papists devour me, tear me, or bite me to pieces, or help me out of this sinful, mortal bag of maggots in any other way. No matter how angry they are, I will say to them: "Dear Sirs, if you are angry, step away from the wall, do it in your underwear, and hang it around your neck!" In brief, I will not have them boast to me and defy me. For I know—God be praised—what my position is and where I shall stay. If they do not want to accept my service for their own good, then may the vile devil thank them if they show me a driblet of love or grace. If they do not need my doctrine, I need their grace still less, and I will let them rage and rant in the name of all devils, while I laugh in the name of God.
This is my sincere advice: If the emperor should issue a call to arms against us on behalf of the pope or because of our teaching, as the papists at present horribly gloat and boast—though I do not yet expect this of the emperor—no one should lend himself to it or obey the emperor in this event. All may rest assured that God has strictly forbidden compliance with such a command of the emperor. Whoever does obey him can be certain that he is disobedient to God and will lose both body and soul eternally in the war. For in this ease the emperor would not only act in contravention of God and divine law but also in violation of his own imperial law, vow, duty, seal, and edicts. And lest you imagine that this is just my own idea or that such advice is dictated by my fancy, I shall submit clear and strong reasons and arguments to convince you that this is not my own counsel, but God's earnest, manifold, and stringent command. Before his anger you surely ought to be terrified and, in the end, must be terrified.
In the first place, I must say a word in defense of dear Emperor Charles' person. For he has to date, also at the diet, conducted himself in such a way that he has gained the favor and affection of all the world and is worthy of being spared all grief. Our people, too, have nothing but praise for his imperial virtues. Let me cite just a few examples to demonstrate this. It demonstrates a wonderful and rare gentleness of character that His Imperial Majesty refused to condemn our doctrine even though he was vehemently incited and urged on by both the spiritual and secular princes, with unrelenting insistence, even before he left Spain. However, His Majesty stood his ground as firmly as a rock. He hurried to the diet and issued a gracious invitation, wanting to discuss matters in a kind and friendly spirit. He is also reported to have declared: "This cannot be such an utterly evil doctrine, since so many great, exalted, learned, and honest people accept it."
And this was borne out at Augsburg. When our confession was read before His Imperial Majesty, the opposition itself discovered that this teaching was not as evil as it had been pictured by their venomous preachers and sycophants and hateful princes. Indeed, they had not expected that it was such sound doctrine. Many of them confessed that it was pure Scripture, that it could not be refuted by Holy Scripture, and that previously they had been entirely misinformed. That is also the reason why permission to read the confession was granted so reluctantly; for the envious princes and the virulent liars were indeed worried that their vile lies would be put to shame if it was read. It was their wish that His Imperial Majesty should condemn everything at once, unread and unheard. But since His Imperial Majesty could not have it read publicly in the presence of all, he at least had it read and heard before the imperial estates, no matter how the other princes and bishops and sophists opposed this and were bitterly vexed by it.
And although the diet involved a great expenditure of money and it seems that nothing was accomplished there, I nevertheless will say for myself that even if it had consumed twice as much money, all is richly compensated for and enough has been achieved, for Sir Envy and Master Liar were disgraced in their envying and lying. They had to see and hear that our doctrine was not found to be contrary to the Scriptures or the articles of faith. For prior to this, their lies and envy portrayed our doctrine everywhere, through their writings, their sermons, and their slander, as more horrible than any other that has ever seen the light of day. This envy, I say, was put to shame at the diet, and these lies were disclosed. Therefore we must be kindly disposed toward our dear Emperor Charles and thank him for this benefit, that God through him initially adorned our doctrine and delivered it from the false and ridiculous labels of heresy and of other shameful names, and that he thus administered a sound slap on the mouth of these lying and envious people. Of course, they are brazen-faced and unashamed. But this does not matter; the beginning is good enough for us, and, I suppose, things will also improve.
Furthermore, His Imperial Majesty is reported to have said that if the priests were godly, they would not need a Luther. What else does that mean other than what Solomon said: "Inspired decisions are on the lips of a king" [Prov. 16:10]. His Majesty wishes to indicate that Luther is the priests' scourge, that they are well deserving of this, and that their conduct is reprehensible. They themselves have admitted that often enough. For the bishop of Salzburg remarked to Master Philip: "Alas, why do you propose to reform us priests? We priests never have been any good." See and hear those godly people! They know and they confess that they are evil and that they are in error; moreover, they want to stay that way, remain unreformed, and not yield to the acknowledged truth. Yet they clamor and call upon the emperor and all princes to go to war for them and to protect them. What else does that mean than this: Dear Emperor, dear Germans, wage war, shed your blood, stake all your property, your life, your wife and child on protecting us in our shameful, devilish life against the truth. Certainly we know the truth but we cannot stomach it; nor do we want to mend our ways. What do you think? If you go to war and shed your blood for such people are you not a fine martyr, and do you not invest your blood and your property very wisely?
Furthermore, when our people wanted to hand His Imperial Majesty their answer to the sophists' confutation—as much of it as had been retained after the reading—and His Imperial Majesty extended his hand to receive it, King Ferdinand pulled the hand of His Imperial Majesty back, restraining him from accepting it. This again reveals the identity of the people who vent their hatred and their envy under the name of His Imperial Majesty; for the latter was minded and inclined otherwise.
Furthermore, when the elector of Brandenburg in the recess argued with fine and high-sounding and haughty words that His Imperial Majesty, the princes, and the estates of the empire had leagued together and were staking land and people, life and property and blood on this, he wanted to intimidate our people with these words. But he failed to add "if God wills," so his words remained mere words and died as soon as they were spoken. When the sound had faded away, no one was afraid. Here His Imperial Majesty again interposed a word. To be sure, he did not say that the speaker was lying, but that he had made an overstatement. Many other great princes and lords were nonplussed and were at a loss to know how to interpret these words. Several suggested that they meant that if our side would attack any of their members by force, then they would ally themselves and come to the defense with life and goods, with blood, land, and people. However, our people never thought of doing that, but always asked and pleaded for peace, as all know very well. Several declared openly before the emperor that they did not concur in this speech of the margrave and that it did not at all reflect their opinion.
It is easy to talk about land and people; but it is another question if anyone has such power over them that he can wager blood, life, and property needlessly and against God and his law. Experience should be able to answer this question. It seems to me that the people will, at least, first have to be consulted, and that one cannot embark on such a venture without announcing it. It should also be remembered that God must not always grant and do what we may venture to think and say. I am sure that the mouths of greater lords have been found to lie miserably and that their schemes thoroughly put them to shame. But the best part of this is that they fail to invoke God in this and that they fail to bear him in mind when they brag so defiantly. However, one can sense the emperor's sentiments in this matter. He is not such a mad bloodhound, and these defiant words do not please him.
But the dear emperor must share the experience of all godly princes and lords. For whenever a prince is not half a devil and wishes to govern with mildness, the greatest rogues and villains inevitably gain a place in the government and the offices and do as they like under the ruler's name. They need not fear because they know that the prince is gentle and is ready to give them an ear. What can this godly emperor do among so many rogues and villains, especially over against that arch-villain, Pope Clement, who is full of all kinds of malice, which he has to date amply demonstrated to the emperor? I, Dr. Luther, am better versed in Scripture than the emperor, and also more experienced in practical daily life, but still I fear that if I were to dwell among so many rogues and constantly heard their venomous tongues, without any information to the contrary, I would also be too gentle for them and they would overwhelm me in some matters. In fact, this has often happened to me at the hands of certain spirits and wiseacres.
Therefore no one need be astonished or alarmed if prohibitions or edicts are issued under the emperor's name which are contrary to God and justice. He cannot prevent this. Rather he may be assured that all of this is a scheme of the supreme rogue in the world, the pope, who instigates this through his tonsured goats and hypocrites in an attempt to initiate a bloodbath among us Germans so that we may perish. And I for one believe that if he fails to accomplish his end through this emperor, he will join with the Turkish emperor and set him upon us. That is where we will then find the money which we have poured into the pope's treasury these many years for his indulgences and business deals to finance the war against the Turks.
Let this suffice for the time being as an apology for the emperor. Now we want to issue a warning, giving reasons why everyone should rightly beware and fear to obey the emperor in such an instance and to wage war against our side. I repeat what I said earlier, that I do not wish to advise or incite anyone to engage in war. My ardent wish and plea is that peace be preserved and that neither side start a war or give cause for it. For I do not want my conscience burdened, nor do I want to be known before God or the world as having counseled or desired anyone to wage war or to offer resistance except those who are enjoined and authorized to do so (Romans 13). But wherever the devil has so completely possessed the papists that they cannot and will not keep or tolerate peace, or where they absolutely want to wage war or provoke it, that will rest upon their conscience. There is nothing I can do about it, since my remonstrances are ignored and futile.
The first reason why you must not obey the emperor and make war in such an instance as this is that you, as well as the emperor, vowed in baptism to preserve the gospel of Christ and not to persecute it or oppose it. Now you are, of course, aware that in this case the emperor is being incited and duped by the pope to fight against the gospel of Christ, because our doctrine was publicly proved at Augsburg to be the true gospel and Holy Scripture. Therefore, this must be your reply to the emperor's or your prince's summons to arms: "Indeed, dear Emperor, dear prince, if you keep your oath and pledge made in baptism, you will be my dear lord, and I will obey you and go to war at your command. But if you will not keep your baptismal pledge and Christian covenant made with Christ, but rather deny them, then may a rascal obey you in my place. I refuse to blaspheme my God and deny his word for your sake; nor will I impudently rush to spring into the abyss of hell with you."
This first reason has awesome, far-reaching implications. For he who fights and contends against the gospel necessarily fights simultaneously against God, against Jesus Christ, against the Holy Spirit, against the precious blood of Christ, against his death, against God's word, against all the articles of faith, against all the sacraments, against all the doctrines which are given, confirmed, and preserved by the gospel, for example, the doctrine regarding government, regarding worldly peace, worldly estates, in brief, against all angels and saints, against heaven and earth and all creatures. For he who fights against God must fight against all that is of God or that has to do with God. But you would soon discover what kind of end that would lead to! What is even worse, such fighting would be done consciously; for these people know and admit that this teaching is the gospel. The Turks and the Tartars, of course, do not know that it is God's word. Therefore no Turk can be as vile as you, and you must be damned to hell ten times more deeply than all Turks, Tartars, heathen, and Jews.
It is indeed terrible that things have come so far among Christians that this warning becomes necessary, just as though they themselves did not realize how abominable and horrible it is knowingly to contend against God and his word. This indicates that among Christians there are few real Christians and that there must be far worse Turks in their number than are found in Turkey, or even in hell. The true Christians, however few they are, know this very well themselves and do not need such a warning; but the papists do need it. Though they bear the name and the outward appearance of Christians, they disgrace them and are ten times worse than the Turks. They must be warned. If it helps, good and well; if it does not help, we, at least, are blameless, and their punishment will be so much more severe. The Turk is not so mad as to fight and to rage against his Muhammad or against his Koran, as our devils, the papists, do when they rave and rage against their own gospel, which they acknowledge to be true. Such an action makes the Turk, by comparison, a pure saint, and they thereby make themselves true devils.
The second reason is this: Even if our doctrine were false—although everyone knows it is not—you should still be deterred from fighting solely by the knowledge that by such fighting you are taking upon yourself a part of the guilt before God of all the abominations which have been committed and will yet be committed by the whole papacy. This reason encompasses innumerable loathsome deeds and every vice, sin, and harm. In brief, the bottomless hell itself is found here, with every sin, all of which you share in if you obey the emperor in this instance. We shall enumerate a few of these and bring them into view, lest they be too easily forgotten. For the papists would like to cover themselves and hide such abominations, unrepented and unreformed, until such a time as they can bring them into the open again and restore them.
Here you will first have to take upon yourself the whole of the shameful life which they have led and still lead. They do not intend to mend this; however, you are to shed your blood and risk your life for the protection and preservation of their accursed, shameless life. Then all the whoring, adultery, and fornication rampant in the cathedrals and convents will be on your neck and on your conscience. Your heart will have the honor and glory of having fought for the greatest and most numerous whoremongers and knaves to be found On the earth and for endorsing their life of whoring and knavery. You will make yourself a partaker of all of that. Oh, that will be a great honor and a fine reason for risking your life and for serving God. For they will not reform such a life, nor can they reform it, since it is impossible that so many thousands of people should live a chaste life in the way that they try to do it.
Over and above that, you must also burden yourself with the chastity of popes and cardinals. This is a special kind of chastity, transcending the common, spiritual type. In Italian it is termed buseron, which is the chastity of Sodom and Gomorrah. For God was constrained to blind and to plague his enemy and adversary, the pope and the cardinals, above others, so that they did not remain worthy of sinning with wenches in a natural way, but, in accord with their merited reward, they had to dishonor their own body and person through themselves and to sink into such perversion and impenitence that they no longer considered this to be sin, but jested about it as though it were a game of cards about which they might laugh and joke with impunity. Oh, this beer is good and strong, and so it is foaming and casting up all their shame and vice, as Jude says [Jude 13]. Now go and risk your life and fight for these impenitent, shameless Sodomites who even laugh and jest about such blasphemous sins.
I am not lying to you. Whoever has been in Rome knows that conditions are unfortunately worse there than anyone can say or believe. When the last Lateran council was to be concluded in Rome under Pope Leo, among other articles it was decreed that one must believe the soul to be immortal. From this one may gather that they make eternal life an object of sheer mockery and contempt. In this way they confess that it is a common belief among them that there is no eternal life, but that they now wish to proclaim this by means of a bull. More remarkable yet, in the same bull they decided that a cardinal should not keep as many boys in the future. However, Pope Leo commanded that this be deleted; otherwise it would have been spread throughout the whole world how openly and shamelessly the pope and the cardinals in Rome practice sodomy. I do not wish to mention the pope, but since the knaves will not repent, but condemn the gospel, blaspheme and revile God's word, and excuse their vices, they, in turn, will have to take a whiff of their own terrible filth. This vice is so prevalent among them that recently a pope caused his own death by means of this sin and vice.42 In fact, he died on the spot. All right now, you popes, cardinals, papists, spiritual lords, keep on persecuting God's word and defending your doctrine and your churches!
No pope, cardinal, bishop, doctor, priest, monk, or nun will condemn such an obviously disgraceful life; rather they laugh about it, excuse it, and gloss over it. They incite kings, princes, country, and people to defend such knaves with life and property, with land and people, and faithfully to protect them so that such vices might not be repented of and reformed, but rather strengthened, sanctioned, and approved. Now you are to hazard blood, body, and life just for the sake of Saddling your neck and conscience with this. I could easily mention more examples of such abominations, but it is too shameful; I fear that our German soil would have to tremble before it. But if an impudent popish ass should come along and dispute this, he will find me ready to do him battle, and it will be quite a battle! If admonition and warning will bring about repentance, these have been and still are being sufficiently administered. However, this will not help. Today it has become a commendable and common practice, almost equal to a great virtue, completely to disregard repentance. In fact, the emperor and you are to protect and preserve them in this, so that their example may be emulated and spread also to other countries, as, alas, has already too obviously happened.
Furthermore, you will have to encumber yourself with all the greed, robbery, and thievery of the entire papacy, the countless sums they have acquired falsely and fraudulently by means of indulgences. Is it not sheer shameful robbery and thievery throughout all Christendom? Is not the incalculable wealth which they raked in through their false and fabricated purgatory sheer shameful robbery and thievery throughout the whole world? The incalculable wealth they have accumulated with their usurious masses and sacrificial masses, is it not sheer shameful robbery and thievery throughout the whole world? The incalculable wealth they procured through licenses to eat butter during Lent, through pilgrimages, the worship of the saints, and innumerable other deceptions, is it not sheer shameful robbery and thievery throughout the whole world? Where did the pope, cardinals, and bishops acquire kingdoms and principalities? How did they become the secular lords of all the world? Is it not entirely through their infinitely shameful robbery and thievery? What else are they than the greatest robbers and thieves on the face of the earth? And yet you find here no thought of repentance or restitution. Indeed, there is not enough good blood in their veins to enable them to administer their office a little, to give their possession of such property at least a slight semblance of honor. Instead, they condemn, revile, and persecute God's name, his word and work. And now they come and demand that you defend such thieves and robbers with your blood, so that they may not only go uncorrected but may also be encouraged to practice this kind of thing all the more. Consider what a great, mighty thief and rogue, robber and traitor you become and are if you assist and protect such robbers and thieves with your blood and life; for you will burden yourself with all of this and share in their guilt.
Then you must also burden yourself with all the blood the pope has shed, with all the murders and all the wars he has instigated, all the misery and grief he has caused throughout the world. Who can relate all the blood, murders, and wretchedness which the pope and his followers have occasioned? Some have computed that for the pope's sake alone eleven hundred thousand men have been slain since the papacy elevated itself above the empire. Some set the figure higher. How will you bear so many murders and so much blood on your conscience, since one single murder is unbearable, and since Christ condemns even anger in one's heart to hellfire, Matthew 5 [:22]? What then are you doing if you risk your life for such murderers? You share in the guilt of all of this and accord the pope your aid and approval, enabling him to do such things forever with security. For there is no sign of repentance among them; indeed, they regard this as honorable and virtuous, so that we cannot possibly hope for reform. Nor do they desire improvement. But they want you to help protect them, to enable them to murder, to shed blood, and to fill the world with misery, as they have done to date and still do without interruption, restraint, or fear. You see, these are the most holy fathers, the holy cardinals, bishops, and priests who presume to be judges over the gospel and who teach and rule the world.
I will say nothing here about the other vices, how they administer poison and engage in treason and in all that pertains to hatred and envy. Who can tell completely the shameful life in the papacy? The aforementioned items and the everyday examples demonstrate sufficiently what their life is like. For it [the papacy] is to be the Antichrist and to be against Christ in all things. Therefore it must follow that as Christ led and taught a beautiful, splendid, chaste, decent, holy, heavenly, and godly life, the Antichrist must lead and teach a correspondingly shameful, blasphemous, unchaste, accursed, hellish, and devilish life. How else could he be Christ's foe or the Antichrist? All of this might be tolerated if they did not presume to defend it and insist with force on being in the right. But all that we have thus far mentioned is, so to speak, sport and jest. We now want to point out the true dregs and the chief abominations with all of which he must burden himself who protects the pope or who helps to preserve and strengthen him in his impenitent, hardened, anti-Christian status and conduct.
One might tolerate an evil life; but one can and must not tolerate, much less help to defend, a person who condemns doctrine and God's word and who elevates himself over God. They have disseminated so many doctrinal abominations within Christendom that these cannot be numbered. They repent of none of them, nor do they want to change them, but they openly defend them all and rigorously insist on being in the right. All of that would rest on your neck and conscience. You would make yourself a partner of all such abominations and you would be guilty if you helped to defend them. Let us mention just a few. How can your conscience bear the shameful, lying fraud of indulgences, with which they scandalously misled so many thousands of souls, yes, all of Christendom and all the world, deceiving them and defrauding them of their money and property? Yet they do not repent of this, nor do they intend to abrogate this practice, although they are well aware of the great villainy they have committed thereby. They taught the people to place their trust in indulgences, and to die in that belief. This in itself is so atrocious and terrible that if they were otherwise as holy and pure as St. John the Baptist, they should properly be condemned to the depths of hell just for this; they should not be worthy that the earth bear them or the sun shine down on them, much less that we fight for them or defend them.
Think for yourself what a supreme villainy indulgences are. Whoever has comforted himself with and relied on indulgences and has died or lived thus, thereby has forfeited the Savior Jesus Christ; he has denied and forgotten him and he renounces all comfort from him. For whoever places his consolation in anything other than in Jesus Christ can have no consolation in Christ. Of course, we all know, and their books also prove this incontrovertibly, that they taught us to place our reliance on indulgences. Otherwise who would have paid them any heed or bought them? Furthermore, like the devil's messengers and rogues they kept shamefully silent about faith in Christ, yes, even suppressed and exterminated it. For whoever knows that his comfort and his reliance are based on Christ cannot tolerate indulgences or any other object of trust. When will they make amends or restitution for such endless harm? Make amends indeed! Hardened in such malice, they even want to force you to defend them with life and blood and burden yourself with it all. If they were not entirely possessed and mad they would be at least a little ashamed to ask for such defense in view of all their unrepentant, shameless, blasphemous wickedness. That really does go to show that "priests are no good."
Furthermore, how will your conscience bear the blasphemous fraud of purgatory, with which they also treacherously duped and falsely frightened all the world and appropriated almost all its property and splendor by lying and thievery? For with this they also completely extinguished that one and only comfort and trust in Christ and taught Christians to place their attention and expectation and reliance in the bequests which they trust will follow them.48 Whoever looks to and hopes in the bequests or works that follow him at death—as they taught and as they all did—must dismiss Christ from his mind and forget him. Therefore, if God had not especially preserved his own, in death they would have plunged unawares into hell's abyss, together with the Jews and heathen. It is the same as when a person falls headlong from a high mountain; he thinks that he is treading on a solid pathway and then steps aside into the air and plunges down into the valley or the sea. Oh, what murderers of souls they are! Before the day of judgment no human heart will know what great murder they have committed on souls with their purgatory. Much less can the damage and the abominable blasphemy be estimated which they thereby have inflicted on faith and confidence in Christ. Yet there is no repentance for this or any end to it. Instead, they demand that you protect them and help defend them in it.
Furthermore, you have to load yourself down with all the abominations and blasphemies they committed, and still daily commit, throughout the entire papacy with the dear mass, with buying and selling, and with innumerable other desecrations of the holy sacrament, in which they sacrifice God's Son to him continually as though they were better and holier than God's Son. They do not let the sacrament be a gift of God, to be received through faith, but convert it into a sacrifice and a work with which they atone for themselves and for other people and acquire all sorts of grace and aid. Thus they appoint a separate mass for each saint, indeed, for each cause or need. In all their books and teachings you will not find as much as a letter alluding to faith. Everything says and sings that the mass is a sacrifice and a work. Yet nowhere else should faith be taught and practiced as firmly and diligently as in the mass or the sacrament, since Christ instituted it in remembrance of himself. It should be an occasion for proclaiming him, remembering him, and believing in him. However, instead of this, they preach their sacrifice and their work; moreover, they sell them most shamefully. There is no repentance there, but only hardened and dreadful wickedness and the attempt to defend themselves and to protect themselves with your life and limb.
The crude, outward misuse [of the sacrament] was atrocious enough in itself. This was seen in the priests' flippant treatment of the sacrament at masses for the dead, the dedication of churches, or festivals of patron saints. They dealt with it as though it were buffoonery. In a vulgar and impudent way they flocked together for the purpose of gorging and swilling and for the sake of money. Then they became intoxicated, vomited, gained, and brawled. All the villages were full of this shameful abuse. Of this they never repented, nor has it ever been reformed, nor is it acknowledged to be sin by these incorrigible popish asses. However, this is as nothing in comparison with the fine abuse by which they perverted and transformed the sacrament from the common sacrament of the common faith into a private work and sacrifice of certain persons, namely, the priests. That is so terrible that I do not like to reflect on it; such thoughts might well kill a person. But even this abomination is surpassed in their concealment and suppression of the words of the sacrament and faith, so that, as already said, not a letter, not an iota, of it remained in the entire papacy in all the masses and books. This vice beggars description by word and thought. To eternity, no one will be able to rebuke and reprove this sufficiently. Any other vice has its own devil or band of devils to promote it; but I believe that the sacrificial mass is the common work of all the devils, in which they pool all hands, all counsel, all ideas, all wickedness and roguery and in that way have instituted and preserved this abomination. This is evident from the fact that wherever poltergeists have appeared as dead souls throughout the world, they have all asked for the mass. No soul ever asked for or desired Christ; all asked for the mass. So this is a strong indication that the devils have their being nowhere else as markedly as in their servants of the mass, where they dwell shamefully with all lewdness, greed, blasphemy, and every vice. This will surely rank as God's greatest and ultimate wrath on earth prior to the day of judgment; for there can be no wrath to exceed this. There you have the true virtue of the papacy in behalf of which you are to go to war and to shed your blood for the impenitent blasphemers, soulmurderers, and malefactors.
Here someone will perhaps object that I am too free with my name calling and that I can do no more than to scold and abuse people. I should like to reply, first of all, that such scolding is nothing in comparison with the inexpressible baseness in question. For what sort of scolding is it when I call the devil a murderer, a villain, a traitor, a blasphemer, a liar? It is just as though a little breeze were striking him. But what are the popish asses other than devils incarnate who have no repentance but only hardened hearts, who knowingly defend such public blasphemy and who ask for protection in this from the emperor and you? My dear man, abuse and call a popish ass whatever you will or can—it rolls off him like water off a duck's back. He has overdone matters and has far, far, far outstripped your ability to abuse him adequately. Call him a papist and you have hit the mark; then you have said more than the world can comprehend. You cannot call him anything worse. Call him anything else and it is just like pricking a bear with a straw or striking a boulder with a feather.........................

Martin Luther, Luther's Works, Vol. 47: The Christian in Society IV, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 47 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999), 11–45.

Quote from: Cathlodox on Tue May 30, 2023 - 21:57:13
Another example demonstrating that I don't "play with the words of others"...
...I pride myself in meeting the issues head-on.
...I'd appreciate it if you'd do the same, Amo.

Ellen White boasted that God told her certain books should be circulated to the public...
...These books contained "light" that God wanted in the hands of the people.
...Ellen claims God instructed her in this.


Sabbath Herald, February 16, 1905
"Instruction has been given me that the important books containing the light that God has given regarding Satan's apostasy in heaven should be given a wide circulation just now; for through them THE TRUTH will reach many minds. Patriarchs and Prophets, Daniel and the Revelation,."

"The light given was that Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation, The Great Controversy, and Patriarchs and Prophets would make their way. They contain the very message the people must have, the special light God had given his people. The angels of God would prepare the way for these books in the hearts of the people."—E. G. White Letter 43, 1899. (Published in The Colporteur Evangelist, 21)

Here is a sample of the light God gave His Adventist people:
...That Christ was a creature.

Page 59 of Thoughts on Daniel and The Revelation
"These things saith the Amen. This is then the final message to the Churches ere the close of probation. And trough the description he gives to the indifferent Laodiceans, of their condition is fearful and startling, nevertheless it cannot be denied; for the Witness is "faithful and True", Moreover he is "the beginning of the creation of God". NOT THE BEGINNER, BUT THE BEGINNING, OF THE CREATION, THE FIRST CREATED BEING, dating his existence far back before any other created being or thing, NEXT TO THE SELF EXISTENT AND ETERNAL GOD."

If you want to read page 58 and 59 in context I'm providing it here: https://1drv.ms/f/s!AqET204GTYerhfJ39lJyPGnMaCeWeQ?e=9yPX6k (ftp://1drv.ms/f/s!AqET204GTYerhfJ39lJyPGnMaCeWeQ?e=9yPX6k)

I think I see your intent now. Diversionary tactics. You know how to start another thread, take the above topic and start another thread, and move the trinity questions back to the trinity thread. You may meet things head on, but you meet them with twisted and mutilated quotes, framed as you please to convey your own ideas or accusations. You have no concern for their actual original intent. I am busy addressing the quotes you have already supplied concerning the topic of this thread. Now you are shooting off in many different directions on this thread in order to divert from the topic at hand, and confuse the issue with many issues. Babylon, babyl, confusion.

"Although some of the philosophers, like Socrates and others, maintain the immortality of the soul, they were ridiculed by the rest of the philosophers and all but scorned. But isn't it folly for human reason to be so offended, since it sees that even now the procreation of man is full of wonder? Does it not seem contrary to reason that man, who is to live forever, is born, as it were, from one single droplet of semen in the loins of the father? This is even more absurd than when Moses says that man was formed from a clod by the fingers of God. But reason shows in this way that it knows practically nothing about God, who, merely by a thought, makes out of a clod, not the semen of a human being but the human being itself, and, as Moses states later, makes the woman out of the rib of the man. Such was the origin of man." (LW 1:84)

Your quote above. That quote below in blue, within the context it was written. Emphasis is mine.

Quote7. And so the Lord God formed man from dust of the ground, and He breathed into his face a breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Here Moses returns to the work of the sixth day and points out whence the cultivator of the earth came, namely, that God formed him from a clod, as a potter forms a pot out of clay with his hands. For this reason he did not say above, as in the case of the other creatures: "Let the earth bring forth man," but: "Let Us make a man," in order to point out the superiority of the human race and to disclose the unique counsel of God, of which He availed Himself when He created man, although after this man increased and multiplied in the same manner as the other beasts. For the semen congeals in the womb and is given form in an identical manner. Here there is no difference between a pregnant cow and a woman with child. But Moses shows that in their first state there was a very great difference, inasmuch as man was created by a unique counsel and wisdom and shaped by the finger of God.
This difference between the origin of man and that of cattle also points to the immortality of the soul, of which we have previously spoken. Although all the remaining works of God are perfect objects of wonder and are very sublime, this nevertheless proves conclusively that man is the most outstanding creature: when God creates him, He takes counsel and employs a new procedure. He does not leave it to the earth to produce him, like the animals and the trees. But He Himself shapes him according to His image as if he were God's partner and one who would enjoy God's rest. And so Adam is a dead and inactive clod before he is formed by the Lord. God takes that clod and forms from it a most beautiful creature which has a share in immortality.
If Aristotle heard this, he would burst into laughter and conclude that although this is not an unlovely yarn, it is nevertheless a most absurd one—that, so far as the first origin is concerned, man had been a clod but was formed by divine wisdom and so created that he was fit for immortality. Although some of the philosophers, like Socrates and others, maintain the immortality of the soul, they were ridiculed by the rest of the philosophers and all but scorned. But isn't it folly for human reason to be so offended, since it sees that even now the procreation of man is full of wonder? Does it not seem contrary to reason that man, who is to live forever, is born, as it were, from one single droplet of semen in the loins of the father? This is even more absurd than when Moses says that man was formed from a clod by the fingers of God. But reason shows in this way that it knows practically nothing about God, who, merely by a thought, makes out of a clod, not the semen of a human being but the human being itself, and, as Moses states later, makes the woman out of the rib of the man. Such was the origin of man.
But once the male and the female are so created, man is then procreated out of their blood through the divine blessing. Although this procreation is something man has in common with the brutes, it detracts nothing from that glory of our origin, namely, that we are vessels of God, formed by God Himself, and that He Himself is our Potter, but we His clay, as Is. 64:8 says. And this holds good not only for our origin but throughout our whole life; until our death and in the grave we remain the clay of this Potter.
Moreover, this helps us to learn something about the properties of free will, a subject with which our opponents concern themselves so extensively. In a certain way we indeed have a free will in those things that are beneath us. By the divine commission we have been appointed lords of the fish of the sea, of the birds of the heavens, and of the beasts of the field. These we kill when it pleases us; we enjoy the foods and other useful products they supply. But in those matters that pertain to God and are above us no human being has a free will; he is indeed like clay in the hand of the potter, in a state of merely passive potentiality, not active potentiality. For there we do not choose, we do not do anything; but we are chosen, we are equipped, we are born again, we accept, as Isaiah says (64:8): "Thou art the Potter; we, Thy clay."
But here comes a new question. For as Moses, in a new expression, says here concerning man: "God formed man from the clay of the earth" but above did not speak in these terms about the other living beings, so here, too, he says something unusual about man, namely, that God breathed a breath into his face. This is something that Moses did not say about the other animals, although in all the animals, just as in man, there is breath in the nostrils. And so it is asked why Moses should have wanted to express himself in this way. In the second place, this, too, is asked (although it deals with the same matter): "Since throughout the entire Scripture all animals are called living souls, why should it be stated in this passage concerning man alone that he was made a living soul?" He did indeed say before (Gen. 1:24): "Let the earth bring forth living souls, each one according to its kind." But here he makes a great change and says: "Man was made a living soul."
These facts no doubt induced the patriarchs, the holy fathers, and the prophets to examine passages of this kind rather closely, because this unusual manner of speech indicates that Moses wanted to point out something outstanding. If you consider the animal life about which Moses is speaking here, there is no difference between man and the donkey. Animal life has need of food and drink; it has need of sleep and rest; their bodies are fed in like manner by food and drink, and they grow; and through hunger they become faint and perish. The stomach receives the food, and when the food has been digested, passes it on to the liver, which produces blood, by which all the limbs are given fresh strength. In this regard there is no difference between man and beast. And yet Moses gives distinction to the life of man in this manner that he says about him alone that he was made a living soul—not simply like the other animals but an eminently living soul, because he was created after the image of God. In the state of innocence no doubt this image was reflected in a unique way in the face of Adam and Eve. Similarly, even after sin the Gentiles concluded from the carriage of man, from the fact that he alone walks upright and raises his eyes to heaven that he is a rather outstanding creature among all the rest of the creatures.
Paul's thoughts go back to this when he quotes the following words in 1 Cor. 15:45: "It is written: The first human being, Adam, was made a living soul; but the last Adam, a quickening spirit." "Living soul" he calls the physical life, which consists of eating, drinking, begetting, growing, all of which are also present in the brutes. But by antithesis he says that the last Adam was made a quickening spirit, that is, such a life as has no need for those animal requirements of life. Paul also teaches that even if Adam had not sinned, he would still have lived a physical life in need of food, drink, rest. He would have grown, procreated, etc., until he would have been translated by God to the spiritual life in which he would have lived without any animal qualities, if I may use this expression, namely, from within, from God alone, not from without, as he had previously, on herbs and fruits. This would have been in such a manner that he would still have flesh and bones and would not be a mere spirit like the angels.
Therefore I answer the question as follows: Through the mouth of Moses God wanted, also in this passage, to point to the hope of a future and eternal life, which Adam, had he remained in the state of innocence, would have had as his possession after this animal life. It is as if Moses said: Man was made a living soul, not simply in the same way the animals live, but as one which God would later bring to life even without the animal life. This hope of immortality through Christ we also have, although on account of sin we are subject to death and all sorts of misfortunes. Adam's would have been a better state. On earth he would have lived delightfully and with the utmost enjoyment; then without any inconvenience he would have been transported from the animal life into the spiritual. We are not brought out of this animal life to the spiritual except through death and after countless dangers and crosses.
In this manner we, together with the holy prophets, should look at Moses carefully and note why with a special design he says of man what he otherwise said of the rest of the living things. This is intended to strengthen in us our faith and hope of immortality,[/ui] that, although according to his animal life man is similar to the remaining living brutes, he has the hope of immortality, which the remaining living things do not have; for he carries in himself the image and similitude of God, which the remaining living beings do not carry in themselves.
And here by a very beautiful allegory, or rather by an anagoge, Moses wanted to intimate dimly that God was to become incarnate. The statement that though man is created according to the similitude of God, he does not differ from cattle in his animal life is clearly contradictory, or, as they call it in the schools, "a contradiction in the predicate."11 Nevertheless, because he was created in the image of the invisible God, this statement is a dim intimation, as we shall hear, that God was to reveal Himself to the world in the man Christ. These seeds, as it were, of very important facts the prophets have carefully gathered from Moses and considered.

Martin Luther, Luther's Works, Vol. 1: Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 1-5, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 1 (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999), 83–87.

We see some differences in the above account from Luther's expressed understanding, from the views of SDA's, or at the very least myself. As I of course cannot speak for all other SDA's, who themselves are presently shooting in increasingly different directions from within, as so many other denominations are as well. Increasingly abandoning older standard biblically based views, for newer more emotionally established and or privately interpreted ones.

None will argue I believe, with the notion that man was made with the intention of a, and or being an immortal soul. That is, to live forever without seeing death. Though Luther in the above seems to suggest some form of death and or transition from physical bodily reality and life, to a form of spiritual non physical reality, even if humanity had not fallen. In which, those who have obtained the hope of immortality, no longer have any need for such things as food, water, sleep and so on and so forth. Nevertheless, scripture does plainly state and speak of a feast in heaven, and the apparent need of the saved to partake of the tree of life. From which we were separated after the fall, exactly to prevent eternal sin and or sinners.

I don't think SDA's in general, believe that the future life of immortality for the saved, consists of complete detachment from a physical being. As scripture plainly states, there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. Moreover, Adam and Eve no doubt had spiritual bodies. Being created by God who is Spirit, and in His image. The body was made first, then God's breath or spirit was put into it. Which brought forth animation and life.

Luther's reference to the "hope" of immortality several times in the above also, seems to suggest a present condition of mortality for humanity. Thus far, it seems evident that Luther believed in the immortality of the soul of the saved for certain, and therefore the doctrine of soul sleep as well. As observed in his other writings we have examined in greater context from the quotes you have provided. Still, he wrote a whole lot, and his views did change over time. Further study is no doubt necessary to a proper conclusion concerning his finalized or last thoughts pertaining to the subject at hand. The truth of what he believed is what we are looking for, not hand picked evidence from his writings to support what we have chosen to believe, or wish he believed. Which may not have anything to do with what he truly believed, or intended by quotes which may be selected and or manipulated by others seeking such, to appear to say that which he never intended. As so very many people do with the writings of others, either through ignorance, or far worse yet, by intentional design to deceive. 

Quote from: Amo
None will argue I believe, with the notion that man was made with the intention of a, and or being an immortal soul. That is, to live forever without seeing death. Though Luther in the above seems to suggest some form of death and or transition from physical bodily reality and life, to a form of spiritual non physical reality, even if humanity had not fallen. In which, those who have obtained the hope of immortality, no longer have any need for such things as food, water, sleep and so on and so forth. Nevertheless, scripture does plainly state and speak of a feast in heaven, and the apparent need of the saved to partake of the tree of life. From which we were separated after the fall, exactly to prevent eternal sin and or sinners.

I caught the same thing when reading this section, it seems like Luther is suggesting that Adam would have died anyway even if he didn't sin. My understanding is that Adam and Eve were intended to live forever in God's Sabbath Rest (which was Eden). Adam and Eve are kicked out of Eden, out of God's perfection / Rest / Sabbath (which was to be perpetual). I'm not disagreeing with you here that Luther has something going on with transition from the animal to the spiritual. I don't know what it is.

Quote from: Amo
I don't think SDA's in general, believe that the future life of immortality for the saved, consists of complete detachment from a physical being. As scripture plainly states, there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. Moreover, Adam and Eve no doubt had spiritual bodies. Being created by God who is Spirit, and in His image. The body was made first, then God's breath or spirit was put into it. Which brought forth animation and life.

Luther is speaking of time between death of the body and the resurrection, there is a detachment from the physical during that time which according to Scripture is an unnatural state remedied by the Resurrection of the body.

Quote from: Amo
Luther's reference to the "hope" of immortality several times in the above also, seems to suggest a present condition of mortality for humanity. Thus far, it seems evident that Luther believed in the immortality of the soul of the saved for certain, and therefore the doctrine of soul sleep as well. As observed in his other writings we have examined in greater context from the quotes you have provided. Still, he wrote a whole lot, and his views did change over time. Further study is no doubt necessary to a proper conclusion concerning his finalized or last thoughts pertaining to the subject at hand. The truth of what he believed is what we are looking for, not hand picked evidence from his writings to support what we have chosen to believe, or wish he believed. Which may not have anything to do with what he truly believed, or intended by quotes which may be selected and or manipulated by others seeking such, to appear to say that which he never intended. As so very many people do with the writings of others, either through ignorance, or far worse yet, by intentional design to deceive.

Yes, our bodies are totally mortal - it's only the soul that's immortal. The rub is that we were created to be a unit of body and soul / spirit - therefore death or the separation of the spirit or soul is an unnatural state - while this unnatural state exists it was not the design of God.

Job 14, 14
If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come. Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee: thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands. For now thou numberest my steps: dost thou not watch over my sin? My transgression is sealed up in a bag, and thou sewest up mine iniquity. And surely the mountains falling cometh to nought, and the rock is removed out of his place. The waters wear the stones: thou washest away the things which grow out of the dust of the earth; and thou destroyest the hope of man. Thou prevailest for ever against him, and he passeth: thou changest his countenance, and sendest him away. His sons come to honour, and he knoweth it not; and they are brought low, but he perceiveth it not of them. But his flesh upon him shall have pain, and his soul within him shall mourn.

that last part works out to be:

"They feel only the pain of their own bodies, and mourn only for themselves" NRSV

"He feels only the pain of his own body, and he mourns only for himself." RSVCE

"They feel but the pain of their own bodies and mourn only for themselves" NIV

and so it reads in every version of the Bible EXCEPTING the Jehovah's Witness Bible and the SDA Bible

Jehovah's Witness translation: https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/job/14/

Seventh-day Adventist Bible: https://1drv.ms/f/s!AqET204GTYerhfMD3bD6GvfKIhOb9A?e=YEsHOI (ftp://1drv.ms/f/s!AqET204GTYerhfMD3bD6GvfKIhOb9A?e=YEsHOI)

The SDA Translation and the Jehovah's Witness Translation change the words and the meaning to indicate that it was only when the individual was alive that they could feel the pain of their own body.

This is one of the things that the Lutheran Seminary walked me through - the point they were making was Luther didn't know how God pulled these things off, Luther let it rest that God somehow allowed this type of thing even though he didn't know why.

I have a NWT and a SDA Bible (called the Clear Word Bible) and note that in every case where the soul of man is said to be conscious after death the wording is changed so as to support the Adventist view.

Quote from: Cathlodox on Wed May 31, 2023 - 10:48:56
I caught the same thing when reading this section, it seems like Luther is suggesting that Adam would have died anyway even if he didn't sin. My understanding is that Adam and Eve were intended to live forever in God's Sabbath Rest (which was Eden).

Nothing of the physical creation was meant to last forever.  The tree of Life was in the garden to fend off the death of Adam and Eve (Gen 3:22).

Quote from: 4WD
Nothing of the physical creation was meant to last forever.  The tree of Life was in the garden to fend off the death of Adam and Eve (Gen 3:22).

You misread that and fail to recognize it was AFTER Adam sinned.

The perfect state God created where Adam & Eve were placed was intended to be perpetual.

Quote from: Cathlodox on Thu Jun 01, 2023 - 23:23:32
You misread that and fail to recognize it was AFTER Adam sinned.

The perfect state God created where Adam & Eve were placed was intended to be perpetual.

First, it is you, not me, who is misreading. 

Gen 3:22  Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever--"therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken (Gen 3:22-23).

Clearly the tree of life was in the garden before Adam sinned. It was after Adam sinned that God removed him from the Garden.  And God's stated purpose for removing Adam from the Garden was to prevent Adam from eating the fruit of the tree of live.  If Adam and Eve were initially created to live forever, there would have been no reason for God to put the tree of life in the Garden in the first place.  The physical is finite; it does not last forever.

Second, given that absolutely nothing of this physical universe was created to be eternal, and God declared it not just good but very good, man cannot come along later and declare it to be anything but perfect.  It says, "And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day" (Gen 1:31). God was speaking there of the entire creation, the entire universe and all that was in it.  It was all as God created it.  It was perfect.  God declared at each step along the six days of creation that "it was good".

And the idea that somehow the entire universe with all its biological inhabitants were changed as a result of Adam's sin is simply ludicrous.

QuoteI caught the same thing when reading this section, it seems like Luther is suggesting that Adam would have died anyway even if he didn't sin. My understanding is that Adam and Eve were intended to live forever in God's Sabbath Rest (which was Eden). Adam and Eve are kicked out of Eden, out of God's perfection / Rest / Sabbath (which was to be perpetual). I'm not disagreeing with you here that Luther has something going on with transition from the animal to the spiritual. I don't know what it is.

Me either.

QuoteLuther is speaking of time between death of the body and the resurrection, there is a detachment from the physical during that time which according to Scripture is an unnatural state remedied by the Resurrection of the body.

While such is certainly a result of death, Luther seems to think something similar would take place, even of humanity had not fallen, only bypassing the death part. SDA's and many others throughout history have rejected the idea of an immortal soul, because scripture plainly states many times over, that souls can die. They believe the saved will have, and therefore pretty much do have immortal souls, since they will be raised unto immortal life. While believing that death, both the first and second deaths, end the soul. This because man is a living soul, which no longer exists when body and spirit are separated. However, the first death is referred to in scripture a sleep, in that all who die the first death will be raised again at a future point. The saved unto eternity, and the unsaved unto judgment and the lake ion fire. Some believing the wicked will perish, and others believing they will burn ion the lake of fire eternally.

We know from what we have examined thus far, that Luther believed in the sleep of the dead, or more particularly soul sleep. At least at the time concerning which we have examined. More study is needed, including his views concerning the soul in particular. As this seems to me, to need more clarification.

QuoteYes, our bodies are totally mortal - it's only the soul that's immortal. The rub is that we were created to be a unit of body and soul / spirit - therefore death or the separation of the spirit or soul is an unnatural state - while this unnatural state exists it was not the design of God.

This is where obviously we part ways in our understanding. I believe man is a living soul, not that he has a soul, living or not. When he dies, the soul dies also, as scripture plainly testifies. This I and others reckon, is because man is a living soul, not one who has a soul.

QuoteJob 14, 14
If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come. Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee: thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands. For now thou numberest my steps: dost thou not watch over my sin? My transgression is sealed up in a bag, and thou sewest up mine iniquity. And surely the mountains falling cometh to nought, and the rock is removed out of his place. The waters wear the stones: thou washest away the things which grow out of the dust of the earth; and thou destroyest the hope of man. Thou prevailest for ever against him, and he passeth: thou changest his countenance, and sendest him away. His sons come to honour, and he knoweth it not; and they are brought low, but he perceiveth it not of them. But his flesh upon him shall have pain, and his soul within him shall mourn.

that last part works out to be:

"They feel only the pain of their own bodies, and mourn only for themselves" NRSV

"He feels only the pain of his own body, and he mourns only for himself." RSVCE

"They feel but the pain of their own bodies and mourn only for themselves" NIV

and so it reads in every version of the Bible EXCEPTING the Jehovah's Witness Bible and the SDA Bible

Jehovah's Witness translation: https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/job/14/

Seventh-day Adventist Bible: https://1drv.ms/f/s!AqET204GTYerhfMD3bD6GvfKIhOb9A?e=YEsHOI

The SDA Translation and the Jehovah's Witness Translation change the words and the meaning to indicate that it was only when the individual was alive that they could feel the pain of their own body.

This is one of the things that the Lutheran Seminary walked me through - the point they were making was Luther didn't know how God pulled these things off, Luther let it rest that God somehow allowed this type of thing even though he didn't know why.

I have a NWT and a SDA Bible (called the Clear Word Bible) and note that in every case where the soul of man is said to be conscious after death the wording is changed so as to support the Adventist view.

First, the Clear Word Bible is a paraphrase as it states on the cover, and the Preface begins with the following paragraph -

QuoteAs has been stated in previous editions, The Clear Word is not a translation, but a devotional paraphrase of Scripture expanded for clarity. It is intended to build faith and nurture spiritual growth. It should not be considered a study Bible. Excellent translations of the Scriptures are available for such purposes (2004 edition).

The following link addresses the same issue in more detail. There is no SDA bible.

http://www.ellenwhiteanswers.org/media/pdf/Clear-Word-Ratz.pdf

Apart from this, there is no contradiction concerning the verse you shared above, which itself attaches the terms souls and persons together in the various translations you quoted. You are the one separating the soul from the person, not the scriptures you quoted. We also have the much greater testimony of scriptural use of the word soul, as non immortal, and living or dying along with a person. Not to mention statements and or context which basically makes no sense if in fact souls are immortal. SDA's and others have very good scripturally supported reasons, to not believe in the immortality of the soul. As evidenced in the following scriptures.

Ps 6:2 Have mercy upon me, O LORD; for I am weak: O LORD, heal me; for my bones are vexed. 3 My soul is also sore vexed: but thou, O LORD, how long? 4 Return, O LORD, deliver my soul: oh save me for thy mercies' sake. 5 For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?

In the above, David seeks to have himself, that is his soul delivered from death, because in the grave there is no remembrance of God, and he cannot give God thanks from the grave. How is this possible if the soul is immortal? If the soul were alive and in heaven with God surely it would be praising Him. Or if it were in hell, surely it would be cursing Him.

Ps 7:1 O LORD my God, in thee do I put my trust: save me from all them that persecute me, and deliver me: 2 Lest he tear my soul like a lion, rending it in pieces, while there is none to deliver. 3 O LORD my God, if I have done this; if there be iniquity in my hands; 4 If I have rewarded evil unto him that was at peace with me; (yea, I have delivered him that without cause is mine enemy:) 5 Let the enemy persecute my soul, and take it; yea, let him tread down my life upon the earth, and lay mine honour in the dust. Selah.

Again what sense do the above verses make if a soul is not a living person, rather than some floating entity that lives apart from the body? Can a soul be torn to pieces? Will it end when ones life does? Yes it will.

Ps 30:2 O LORD my God, I cried unto thee, and thou hast healed me. 3 O LORD, thou hast brought up my soul from the grave: thou hast kept me alive, that I should not go down to the pit.

How can a soul go to the grave? If it is immortal and goes to heaven or hell at death it should not be spoken of as dying and going to the grave. If on the other hand, it is a living being, then it could be said that ones soul goes to the grave when they die, it is its end. When life ends, it ends.

Ps 33:18 Behold, the eye of the LORD is upon them that fear him, upon them that hope in his mercy; 19 To deliver their soul from death, and to keep them alive in famine. 20 Our soul waiteth for the LORD: he is our help and our shield. 21 For our heart shall rejoice in him, because we have trusted in his holy name. 22 Let thy mercy, O LORD, be upon us, according as we hope in thee.

If our souls must be delivered from death, then they are not immortal. They are like us, they are us, when we are alive. When we are raised from the dead and given everlasting life, we will again be living souls.

Ps 40:13 Be pleased, O LORD, to deliver me: O LORD, make haste to help me. 14 Let them be ashamed and confounded together that seek after my soul to destroy it; let them be driven backward and put to shame that wish me evil.

Who can destroy a soul if it is immortal? It is not. When life ends, it ends, because when one is alive, they are a living soul.

Ps 49:12 Nevertheless man being in honour abideth not: he is like the beasts that perish. 13 This their way is their folly: yet their posterity approve their sayings. Selah. 14 Like sheep they are laid in the grave; death shall feed on them; and the upright shall have dominion over them in the morning; and their beauty shall consume in the grave from their dwelling. 15 But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave: for he shall receive me. Selah.

Again the soul being associated with life, being redeemed from the grave. If it were immortal, this would not be so.

Ps 56:12 Thy vows are upon me, O God: I will render praises unto thee. 13 For thou hast delivered my soul from death:wilt not thou deliver my feet from falling, that I may walk before God in the light of the living?

Again, when God delivers the soul from death, one can walk in the light of the living. Makes no sense if the soul is immortal.

Ps 78:49 He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indignation, and trouble, by sending evil angels among them. 50 He made a way to his anger; he spared not their soul from death, but gave their life over to the pestilence; 51 And smote all the firstborn in Egypt; the chief of their strength in the tabernacles of Ham:

God spared not the Egyptians souls from death, but killed them by the plagues. Their souls died, that is, they died. Obviously their souls were not immortal.

Ps 86:1 Bow down thine ear, O LORD, hear me: for I am poor and needy. 2 Preserve my soul; for I am holy: O thou my God, save thy servant that trusteth in thee. 3 Be merciful unto me, O Lord: for I cry unto thee daily.

Who needs their soul to be preserved if it is immortal?

Ps 89:47 Remember how short my time is: wherefore hast thou made all men in vain? 48 What man is he that liveth, and shall not see death? shall he deliver his soul from the hand of the grave? Selah.

Again, why would a soul go to the grave at death if it is immortal and goes to heaven or hell at death? It is because the body goes into the grave at death, it is a dead soul, it is not living, because the body and the breath or spirit from God have separated.

Ps 116:7 Return unto thy rest, O my soul; for the LORD hath dealt bountifully with thee. 8 For thou hast delivered my soul from death, mine eyes from tears, and my feet from falling. 9 I will walk before the LORD in the land of the living.

Because his soul was delivered from death, he will walk before the Lord in the land of the living, he is a living soul.

Ps 119:174 I have longed for thy salvation, O LORD; and thy law is my delight. 175 Let my soul live, and it shall praise thee; and let thy judgments help me. 176 I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek thy servant; for I do not forget thy commandments.

Makes no sense if the soul is immortal.

Isa 38:16 O Lord, by these things men live, and in all these things is the life of my spirit: so wilt thou recover me, and make me to live. 17 Behold, for peace I had great bitterness: but thou hast in love to my soul delivered it from the pit of corruption: for thou hast cast all my sins behind thy back. 18 For the grave cannot praise thee, death can not celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth. 19 The living, the living, he shall praise thee, as I do this day: the father to the children shall make known thy truth.

Because he was delivered from death, his soul was delivered from the pit of corruption, that is, the grave. The living, they are the ones who praise God. The dead cannot, because they are not living souls. All such nonsense if the soul is immortal.

Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

A prophecy concerning Christ. How can a soul be an offering? A sacrifice must die. If the soul is immortal, then it cannot be a sacrifice. Yet Christ poured out His soul unto death for our sins. He died the death we deserved, and when He did, He was no longer a living soul.

Ezek 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: he soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Is God a liar? If a soul is immortal it cannot die. God says the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Ezek 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. 21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. 22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. 23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live? 24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. 25 Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal? 26 When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. 27 Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.

Again, the soul is identified with the person. If the person lives, the soul lives. If the person dies, the soul dies. A soul is a living person with a body combined with the breath, or spirit from God.

Matt 10: 28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.


God will destroy both body and soul in hell. The soul is not immortal.

Matt 16: 25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. 26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

How can one lose their soul, if their soul is immortal? Where could it go to get away from them.

Acts 2: 27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. 28 Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. 29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. 30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

Christ was raised before His body saw corruption. Thus His soul was not left in hell, or the grave. He once again walked in the light of the living, that is, He became a living soul. This is our salvation. Our souls will not be left in the prison house of death, but we will once again be raised and receive the breath, or spirit of God in our spiritual bodies, and then we shall ever be with the Lord.

Acts 3: 22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. 23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

Every soul that will not hear and accept Christ, will be destroyed.

1 Cor 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. 50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? 56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

No mistake about when it is that we receive immortality. It is at the last trump, when the dead are raised incorruptible, and immortal. None of the above makes sense if the soul is immortal.

Heb 10:38-39 38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. 39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.

The soul needs saving, it is not immortal.

James 5:19-20 19 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; 20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

The soul needs to be saved from death, it is not immortal.

Rev 16: 3 And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea.

Souls can die. The souls of humans and animals can die. This is because a soul is a living being, not some form of disembodied spirit or ghost. Souls could not die if they were immortal.

Quote from: 4WD on Fri Jun 02, 2023 - 06:01:38
First, it is you, not me, who is misreading. 

Gen 3:22  Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever--"therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken (Gen 3:22-23).

Clearly the tree of life was in the garden before Adam sinned. It was after Adam sinned that God removed him from the Garden.  And God's stated purpose for removing Adam from the Garden was to prevent Adam from eating the fruit of the tree of live.  If Adam and Eve were initially created to live forever, there would have been no reason for God to put the tree of life in the Garden in the first place.  The physical is finite; it does not last forever.

Second, given that absolutely nothing of this physical universe was created to be eternal, and God declared it not just good but very good, man cannot come along later and declare it to be anything but perfect.  It says, "And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day" (Gen 1:31). God was speaking there of the entire creation, the entire universe and all that was in it.  It was all as God created it.  It was perfect.  God declared at each step along the six days of creation that "it was good".

And the idea that somehow the entire universe with all its biological inhabitants were changed as a result of Adam's sin is simply ludicrous.

Of course the reverse side of that, is that the purpose of the tree of life, is exactly to preserve the physical being for as long as they partake of it. Which most certainly could be forever, which quite obviously was the intention from the beginning. Which is exactly why the saved who will live for eternity in heaven, will at that time, resume eating from the tree of life. Unto eternal life, as purposed in the tree of life, according to God's will. That all may always know and unquestionably remember their complete dependence upon God. Without whom, there would be no tree of life, as created by Him for us.

Rev 2:7  He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

Rev 22:2  In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Rev 22:14  Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

1Co 15:44  It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

We haven't a clue of what a spiritual body is.  We have no experiential knowledge to give us any insight whatsoever about the spiritual body. That is why in the Bible all references to the spirit and the spiritual are metaphorical.

I think the very idea that our future spiritual body will need to eat is really strange.  And that given the nature of the whole of Revelation, interpreting those verses in a literal sense is more than strange.

  The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak (Mat 26:41).

Since the flesh, the physical body, is the source of nearly every sin we commit, I will be very pleased that I will not be saddled with one in the next life.

But if that helps you hold on to your faith, then by all means do so.

Quote from: 4WD on Fri Jun 02, 2023 - 07:29:25
1Co 15:44  It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

We haven't a clue of what a spiritual body is.  We have no experiential knowledge to give us any insight whatsoever about the spiritual body. That is why in the Bible all references to the spirit and the spiritual are metaphorical.

I think the very idea that our future spiritual body will need to eat is really strange.  And that given the nature of the whole of Revelation, interpreting those verses in a literal sense is more than strange.

  The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak (Mat 26:41).

Since the flesh, the physical body, is the source of nearly every sin we commit, I will be very pleased that I will not be saddled with one in the next life.

But if that helps you hold on to your faith, then by all means do so.

What is strange is your not understanding........

Luke 22 :16 For I tell you now that I won't eat this meal again until its meaning is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God."

Luke 22: 18  For I will not drink wine again until the Kingdom of God has come."

Mark 14:25 "Assuredly, I say to you, I will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the Kingdom of God'"

So maybe the spirit Jesus will be eating while we who are present just look on??

Of course you cannot understand... it is beyond the scientific mind.

When do you think was the coming of the Kingdom of God?  I think it was instituted at His being raised from the dead after His death on the cross.

Quote from: 4WD on Fri Jun 02, 2023 - 07:29:25
1Co 15:44  It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

We haven't a clue of what a spiritual body is.  We have no experiential knowledge to give us any insight whatsoever about the spiritual body. That is why in the Bible all references to the spirit and the spiritual are metaphorical.

I think the very idea that our future spiritual body will need to eat is really strange.  And that given the nature of the whole of Revelation, interpreting those verses in a literal sense is more than strange.

It's not really that hard.  A spiritual body isn't non-corporeal.  It's still a body, just one that is locomoted by spirit, rather than the lower (base) nature of man.

Jarrod

Quote from: 4WD on Fri Jun 02, 2023 - 10:50:42
When do you think was the coming of the Kingdom of God?  I think it was instituted at His being raised from the dead after His death on the cross.

It depends on what you believe the Kingdom of God is.

If you believe the written word of God and Luke 17: 20-21 you will understand it was not after his death but when he walked the earth.

20 Now He was questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, and He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God is not coming with [a]signs that can be observed; 21 nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or, 'There it is!' For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst."

That to me is a  clear statement that Christ's own coming was the coming of the kingdom.

the kingdom of God is in your midst....

NLT translation says  For the Kingdom of God is already among you."

KJV and NKJV translation says  the kingdom of God is within you.

Amplified translation says For the kingdom of God is among you [because of My presence]."

HCS translation says For you see, the kingdom of God is among you."

ASV translation says There! for lo, the kingdom of God is within you.

Aramaic translation says for behold, the Kingdom of God is within some of you."

Contemporary English says God's kingdom is here with you.

And I am tired of posting these... so go look at the link https://biblehub.com/luke/17-21.htm

Just a couple more

LSV for behold, the Kingdom of God is within you.

NLT For the Kingdom of God is already among you.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Fri Jun 02, 2023 - 12:07:52
It's not really that hard.  A spiritual body isn't non-corporeal.  It's still a body, just one that is locomoted by spirit, rather than the lower (base) nature of man.

Jarrod

And where in the Bible would I find that explanation?

Quote from: Rella on Fri Jun 02, 2023 - 12:24:21

It depends on what you believe the Kingdom of God is.

If you believe the written word of God and Luke 17: 20-21 you will understand it was not after his death but when he walked the earth.

20 Now He was questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, and He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God is not coming with [a]signs that can be observed; 21 nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or, 'There it is!' For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst."

That to me is a  clear statement that Christ's own coming was the coming of the kingdom.

the kingdom of God is in your midst....

NLT translation says  For the Kingdom of God is already among you."

KJV and NKJV translation says  the kingdom of God is within you.

Amplified translation says For the kingdom of God is among you [because of My presence]."

HCS translation says For you see, the kingdom of God is among you."

ASV translation says There! for lo, the kingdom of God is within you.

Aramaic translation says for behold, the Kingdom of God is within some of you."

Contemporary English says God's kingdom is here with you.

And I am tired of posting these... so go look at the link https://biblehub.com/luke/17-21.htm

Just a couple more

LSV for behold, the Kingdom of God is within you.

NLT For the Kingdom of God is already among you.

I basically agree with all of that.  However, I believe that while it was in existence, or if you prefer established, as you say, it was officially instituted with Jesus death, burial and resurrection. Even more I believe it was inaugurated at Pentecost.  That was the point at which instructions were received for individuals to enter the Kingdom. For us today, the Kingdom is the church.

Quote from: 4WD on Fri Jun 02, 2023 - 13:09:56
And where in the Bible would I find that explanation?

It's all over the place, to be honest.  "The spirit drove him into the wilderness."  How many places are there where the spirit drives or sends or moves someone to do something?  Where people are told to act "according to the spirit?"

Or just understanding the Greek words would do it.  Spiritual Body = Soma Pneumatikos.  Is a pneumatic hammer made out of air, or powered by it?

Jarrod

All over the place?  I don't think so.  At least John didn't think so.

Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is (1Jn 3:2 ).

Some folks think that our spiritual bodies will be like that of Jesus after He was raised from the dead.  That is not true; at least that is not what John thought.

Quote from: 4WD on Fri Jun 02, 2023 - 14:48:13
All over the place?  I don't think so.  At least John didn't think so.

Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is (1Jn 3:2 ).

Some folks think that our spiritual bodies will be like that of Jesus after He was raised from the dead.  That is not true; at least that is not what John thought.

That chapter isn't about spiritual bodies or anything like it.  It's about adoption.

John says "we're already sons, what will we be later? we don't know" and that has to do with POSITION, not morphing into some kind of wraith.

Geez.

"The philosophers have indeed disputed about the immortality of the soul, but so coldly that they seem to be setting forth mere fables. Aristotle above all argues about the soul in such a way that he diligently and shrewdly avoids discussing its immortality anywhere; nor did he want to express what he thought about it.  Plato related what he had heard rather than his own opinion.  Nor can its immortality be proved by any human reason, for it is not a thing "under the sun" to believe that the soul is immortal. In the world it is neither seen nor understood as certain that souls are immortal." (LW 15:59)

Your quote above. That quote in greater context, and other comments from Luther in this same volume regarding the book of Ecclesiastes as well. Emphasis is mine.

Quote18. I said in my heart concerning the estate of the sons of men that God is testing them to show them that they are but beasts. 19. For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other.

This passage is a little more obscure, not by its own fault but by that of the interpreters, who torment themselves very much, since they usually suppose that Solomon is speaking in the person of the wicked. But this interpretation is quite frigid, even though it is widely accepted. It seems to me that the meaning should be taken in a simple way. He made a comparison or a discourse about the efforts and strivings of men and concluded that all human plans and efforts are vain. Finally he came to the troubles of the public official, namely, that those who ought to be a norm for the rest are also vanity. And so from the special instances that preceded he comes down to generalities. What shall I say about individuals, when all of us are like the beasts? Is it not a miserable business among men? How are they different from the brutes, which do not remember anything of God either? But the question is: Why did he compare men with beasts, as though they did not have anything more than the beasts, when on the contrary he had earlier taught piety, or the fear of God, and had said that after this life there is an eternal life? This is what troubled the interpreters most. A brief answer: Here the interpreters do not notice the purpose of the book, nor do they remember what he inculcates so many times, that he is speaking about things "under the sun," what in the New Testament and in common usage is called "in the world." For this book distinguishes the life of godliness from the life of the world, or life "under the sun." To have a happy heart and to rejoice in present things with the fear of God is not a thing of the world but a gift of God. It comes from heaven, from beyond the sun. But being afflicted with these things means being no different from the beasts.

Concerning the estate of the sons of men.

In Hebrew this is a word that is very broad in its meaning, but in this form it means "manner, habitude, order, or way of life." Thus in Ps. 110:4: "You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." I think that it properly means "a state." The Epistle to the Hebrews has interpreted this term from the psalm in an outstanding way (Heb. 7:1–17). "For as Melchizedek did not have father or mother," it says, "so Thou also art in the same manner or mode." The word comes from דָּבָר, which means "thing" or "cause." Therefore it means "habitude" or "how things go," so that the meaning is: "I said in my heart concerning the estate, that is, how men fare on earth, how things go for men and what their condition is."

For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same.

That is, the same things happen to, the same things befall, both men and beasts. He wants to say: "The human race wanders around just as the beasts do, and it does not gain any more from life than the beasts do." "As the beasts die, so men die also." He is speaking about the hour of death, not about death itself. That is, as the hour of death for the beasts is unsure, so it is with men. A beast does not know when it will have sickness or health or when it will die, and neither does a man. Why then are we proud, when we have no more information about the hour of death than the beasts do?

They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts; for all is vanity.
20. All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again.

This passage cannot be twisted to refer to the mortality of the soul, for he is speaking about things under the sun. The world, of course, cannot understand or believe that the soul is immortal. In fact, if you look at how things go and at the appearance, about which Solomon is speaking when he says, "Man dies as the beast does," they do have the same breath as the beast. In appearance, therefore, we coincide. The philosophers have indeed disputed about the immortality of the soul, but so coldly that they seem to be setting forth mere fables. Aristotle above all argues about the soul in such a way that he diligently and shrewdly avoids discussing its immortality anywhere; nor did he want to express what he thought about it.9 Plato related what he had heard rather than his own opinion. Nor can its immortality be proved by any human reason, for it is not a thing "under the sun" to believe that the soul is immortal. In the world it is neither seen nor understood as certain that souls are immortal.

All go to one place, etc.

That is, if the Lord did not give His Spirit to man, no one could say that man is different from the beast, because men and cattle, being made of the same dust, also return to the same dust. This return to the same place is an argument for the similarity between men and beasts—not because it is so, but because the world, which judges on the basis of appearance and their common outcome, thinks this way and cannot think otherwise, since believing otherwise requires something more sublime than the world.

God is testing them.

The Hebrew word means "to purify" or "to elect." God, he says, permits both men and cattle to go about and live in the same manner and form. But God permits this in order to test men, whether they look only at these external things, and whether they are persuaded by these arguments, to which the wicked pay attention without believing otherwise. But the godly are exercised in this way so that they may acquire more faith. They go in the same way as the wicked and the beasts do, but inwardly, in the spirit, they receive comfort and peace.

21. Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down to the earth?

"Simply show me," he says, "one man who is not among the godly but among those who are under the sun, or in the world, one man who can assert that the soul lives after this life, when he sees that the spirit of men and that of cattle are not different from each other; for death comes immediately to both of them when their breath fails." No one among men knows this. That we do know it is not on the basis of what we know as men but of what we know as sons of God and above the sun, inasmuch as we are in the heavenly places (cf. Eph. 2:6) and belong to heaven. But in the world there is neither this knowledge nor peace, but everything is carried on as it is among the beasts. There were outstanding geniuses in Greece, who nevertheless did not say anything solid about this matter. Lucian, a man of great understanding and delight, argues about it vigorously but only ridicules the opinions of the philosophers about the soul.

22. So I saw that there is nothing better than that a man should enjoy his work, for that is his lot; who can bring him to see what will be after him?

This is how godly men feel, for they have comprehended this teaching. The ungodly are vexed by their similarity to the beasts, and they get nothing out of their labors but vanity; for they neither know nor believe this teaching, because their reason does not persuade them of it. This passage also convicts the whole mob of the philosophers, who compile many arguments about the immortality of the soul, although they themselves do not believe it. This, therefore, is the portion of the righteous: to enjoy the things that are present and not to be afflicted by the things that are in the future. But this does not happen under the sun. Those who act otherwise, take a double burden upon themselves: they do not make use of the things that are present, and they do not gain the things that are in the future. The same thing happens to them that happened to the dog in Aesop, which snapped at its shadow and lost the meat. Thus they also become bored with the things that are present and look for other things. Until now Solomon has been setting forth general arguments about the vanity of the world. Now the particular arguments follow.

Martin Luther, Luther's Works, Vol. 15: Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Last Words of David, 2 Samuel 23:1-7, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 15 (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999), 57–61.

Not much new here. Luther believes in the immortality of the soul, but also refers to the peace and comfort of those who have died, as elsewhere referring to the sleep of the soul. Although, in the quotes I provided he does not dwell on the soul sleeping or not. He simply states that death is like or but a sleep, many times over.  I suspect the verses we are examining presently, to be the result of a search concerning Luther's views on the soul, or perhaps simply a search for statements by him concerning the immortality of the soul, by one wanting to prove perhaps that this is what he believed. Such as yourself. I on the other hand, having read statements by him concerning the sleep of the dead, searched his writings for this specific topic. Therefore my quotes are of course more centered on what he said pertaining specifically to that, rather than immortal souls or not. Which statements apparently, do not mention or concern that subject. Nevertheless, they do quite conclusively state his position, that death is but a sleep from which all the saved will be awakened by their Savior unto eternal life. The following are more comments from Luther from this same volume concerning Ecc 9, where the topic of the sleep of the dead is commented upon again.

QuoteChapter Nine

.......................................................................................
5. For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward; but the memory of them is lost. 6. Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished, and they have no more in the world any share in all that is done under the sun.

The living, he says, know that they will die, and therefore in life they use this hope. Therefore they should not postpone acting or doing well from one day to the next, as do the fools and softies, who always pay attention to the examples of others and will not do right until they see others do right. But the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward. Jerome has clumsily distorted this passage to apply to the reward of the dead in purgatory. Solomon seems to feel that the dead are asleep in such a way that they know nothing whatever. And I do not believe that there is a more powerful passage in Scripture to show that the dead are asleep and do not know anything about our affairs—this in opposition to the invocation of the saints and the fiction of purgatory. They have no reward is a Hebraism for what we would say in German this way: "It is all over for those who are dead." All that was theirs is nothing; they no longer do what would have been beneficial. As we read elsewhere, "There is a reward for your work"; and Paul says (1 Cor. 15:58): "Your labor is not in vain." Their love and their hate. You must understand all of this in an active sense, as it was understood earlier, that all the good deeds they did by loving, obeying, etc., are handed over to oblivion. But when Jerome raises the quibble that although the dead do not know anything of what goes on in the world, they do know other things, namely, those that go on in heaven, this is an error, and a foolish one at that. And they have no more in the world any share, that is, they have no traffic with us. He describes the dead as unfeeling corpses. Therefore he wants us to use life as much as is permitted and to work as much as we can. For we are forced to relinquish the larger part of the world to Satan and can scarcely gain a thousandth part of it for God. And so if your lion dies, you had better not kill your dog.

7. Go, eat your bread with enjoyment, and drink your wine with a merry heart; for God has already approved what you do.

Just as Solomon made it a point, after recalling the vanity in the world, to add comfort and exhortation, so that we might have a happy and peaceful spirit, so he does here also. It is as though he were saying: "As long as we are obliged to live in the midst of such perversity, it is best for us to be happy and relaxed." We cannot change things and we will not accomplish anything, no matter how much we may torture ourselves with worrying. Now, he says your bread and your wine, namely, that which you have earned by your labor, with the blessing of God. Thus Is. 4:1 says: "We will eat our own bread," and Paul says to the Thessalonians (2 Thess. 3:12): "Let them eat their own bread."
For God has already approved what you do. This exhortation applies to the godly, to those who fear God, as though he were saying: "You who are godly, do what you can, because you know that God approves what you do." This is the height of spiritual wisdom, to know that one has a gracious God, who approves our works and actions. Thus Rom. 8:16 says: "It is the Spirit Himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God." For unless our heart immerses itself in the will and good pleasure of God, it can never sweeten its bitterness of heart; it will always remain bitter unless the heart is filled with the good pleasure of God. This passage ought to refute those who conclude from the mistranslation of the earlier words (v. 1), whether it is love or hate man does not know, that men should be uncertain about the will of God toward us.

8 Let your garments be always white; let not oil be lacking on your head.

Solomon is speaking in accordance with the customs of that area. The Romans and Greeks favor a purple garment; but the Orientals, and especially the Jews, favor a white one, on account of the washings and cleanliness which they practiced so scrupulously. Thus the Turk wears linen garments as the most splendid, and we under the papacy wore the alb for the highest festivals. Therefore he says: "Always be happy. Use the garments that you are accustomed to wear for banquets and festivals." Let not oil be lacking on your head, that is, "Use the ointments which God has given you." Once more he is speaking in accordance with the custom of his people, who took the greatest pleasure in ointments. Therefore he says: "You are living in the midst of vanity. Therefore enjoy life, and do not let yourself come to ruin through your indignation, but drive the grief from your mind. You cannot mock the world more effectively than by laughing when it grows angry. Let it be enough for you that you have a gracious God. For what is the malice of the world in comparison with the sweetness of God?" He is not urging a life of pleasure and luxury characteristic of those who do not sense this vanity, for that would be putting oil on fire; but he is speaking of godly men, who sense the vexation and troubles of the world. It is their downcast hearts that he wants to encourage. It is to them that he recommends merriment, not to men who are incorrigible and wicked, who are already overflowing with pleasures and delights. He does the same when he says:

9. Enjoy life with the wife whom you love, all the days of your vain life which He has given you under the sun, because that is your portion in life and in your toil at which you toil under the sun.

It is as though he were saying: "You will not get any more out of it anyway." Thus Paul says in 1 Tim. 6:8: "If we have food and clothing, with these we shall be content." But those who are not content with these, but yearn for other things in addition and torture themselves with indignation over troublesome and painful things will simply add sorrow to sorrow, vanity to vanity, and in the process deprive themselves of everything good.

10. Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in the pit, to which you are going.

This is the second part of the exhortation. In it he opposes those idle men who, because they see that the world is ungrateful and because they are aware of its pain, refuse to achieve anything at all or to do any good. Therefore he commands both, that we should be merry, but in such a way that we do not become idle but labor in accordance with the command in Gen. 3:17–19. The labor must be present, but the burdensome and troublesome anxieties must not. One must tire his body with labor, but one's heart must be free of anxiety and be content with what is in the present. Add a third element: Do not afflict your heart with grief because you see that the world is ungrateful. Now, he says finds deliberately; that is, "do not pursue your own plans but what lies at hand, what God has commanded and provided, without any concern about the future." When he says with your might, he is demanding industry and diligence. For there is no work, etc., in the pit. This is another passage which proves that the dead do not feel anything. There is, he says, no thought or art or knowledge or wisdom there. Therefore Solomon thought that the dead are completely asleep and do not feel anything at all. The dead lie there without counting days or years; but when they are raised, it will seem to them that they have only slept for a moment. Pit means the grave or the sepulcher. In my opinion it refers to the hidden resting-place in which the dead sleep outside of the present life, where the soul departs to its place. Whatever it may be, it cannot be physical. Thus you should understand the pit to mean the place where the souls are kept, a sort of sepulcher of the soul outside this physical world, just as the earth is the sepulcher of the body. What this is, however, is unknown to us. So in Gen. 42:38 and 44:29: "I shall descend with sorrow to the pit" and "You will bring down my gray hairs in sorrow to the pit." For true saints do not descend to the pit in order to suffer something there. Therefore the dead are outside of space, because whatever is outside of this life is outside of space. In the same way we shall be removed from space and time after the resurrection. Thus also Christ is outside of space. This we say in opposition to those who want to take Christ captive in space, although He is everywhere. The Word of God is not separated from the flesh. Where God is, there the flesh of Christ is. But God is everywhere; therefore Christ is everywhere also.

Martin Luther, Luther's Works, Vol. 15: Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Last Words of David, 2 Samuel 23:1-7, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 15 (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999), 144–151.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Fri Jun 02, 2023 - 16:42:48
That chapter isn't about spiritual bodies or anything like it.  It's about adoption.

John says "we're already sons, what will we be later? we don't know" and that has to do with POSITION, not morphing into some kind of wraith.

Geez.

And now, little children, abide in him, so that when he appears we may have confidence and not shrink from him in shame at his coming. If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who practices righteousness has been born of him. See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him. Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is (1 John 2:28-3:2).

That is not about adoption per se; rather that clearly is about what those who have been adopted will be like when Jesus returns. There is no reason to assume that is only about position but rather about the person in his entirety. John is speaking of the transformation that we will experience at Jesus' return.

It is in preparation for that return that John then proceeds to urge the adopted, the child of God, to live the righteous life in the here and now.  That transformation is taking place even now in the righteous person even if we do not know how it will all turn out. It began with our being born again and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit.

That is right in line with what Paul says in 2 Corinthians: Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit (2 Cor 3:17-18).

incredibly verbose, it will take me some time to parse out your comments and respond.

Quote from: RB on Sun Jul 31, 2022 - 03:28:37What bible are you reading from? For sure not the word of God, or maybe I should ask~what voices are you listening to? Surely not God's voice. Is God the God of the dead or Living? Even the very scripture you quoted from in your confused post should have spoken to you showing your corruption of God's word. Martha was a little confused, she thought her brother would live again at the resurrection, but Christ corrected her and told her that he is LIVING NOW and proved it by bringing Lazarus from being natural dead back to life again, KNOWING that Lazarus was living! Listen carefully to what Christ said: Precious in the sight of the Lord at the death of his saints, because they depart from this body of sin and death and go to be with God at death. Remember what Christ said to the thief on the cross? When Christ died he DID NOT go to hell as many teach.... his spirit went to Paradise. He commended his spirit to God and both he and the thief went straight to Paradise. His body later after three days and nights in hell (or the grave).

Ellen G. White is a false prophetess. You need to listen to the scriptures, not her.

I think even if you have those with the changes in the modern versions, they dont deny what clealy is taught throughout the text of the Bible.