"In Christ" what does that mean?

[Robert]

We do need to stand up to error. Most certainly we should forgive but we should also not condone error.

I've got an idea....I'm not trying to be your conscience or anything like this....Forgive Mark just like Christ forgave the woman caught in adultery. She didn't ask....Just say "Mark, I forgive you."

And John, I forgive you too in your partiality. I, by the grace of God, won't bring this up again...or Mark's sin. You guys are forgiven. Now I can move on to other things....

Rob

[Robert]

The reason I say this, Redwood, is because the more we try to expose these sins the more some folks will justify their own actions....It goes no where....

It's hard to shallow one's pride and admit "I did wrong", but no matter how much we expose them these folks will just become more self-righteous. It's a no win situation....

Rob

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Hey, what has happened to you? I have noticed a distinct difference in your posts - for the better for sure!!! The spiritual tone is quite different from before your re-appearance.

Hi Gerry,

thanks for the encouraging words. I notice the difference in what I write as well. I read what I have written before I post it and ask, where is this coming from? Some of it, I have known for a while and just have not been able to express it as clearly. Some of it comes as I am studying and typing. Time is short and I believe that the Lord is opening the eyes of His children. I thank God for the clarity He gives us when we want to know the truth.

I do care more about people being confused and/or misled than to "be right" or win an argument. That's not gonna help many people.

We are in a time when we have to help each other, not only because things are going to change for the worse and I believe rapidly; but because we must love each other and let the Lord make this Gospel real in us so we can begin to live more consistently the things we preach and thereby be more effective.

in Christ and His service.

Norman

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: John317

Thanks for that very helpful post, Norman. What you say makes perfect sense biblically. I agree with you completely. The "in Christ" motif, if misapplied, leads to many serious mistakes in NT theology. See post #306419 on this thread.

Jack Sequeira is a man of God....This church needs this truth....This church needs to escape the legalism and bondage that sincere, but misguided folks have preached for years.....This truth will cause the shaking...the legalists will leave and from that God's people will make up His remnant....

I agree regarding Jack Sequeira, but I see many things you say that I've not read in his teachings. I fear that those reading what you have written, and your endorsements of Sequeira, will wrongly conclude that you represent his ideas.

The best advice is for each one to read for themselves what Sequeira (or anyone else being discussed) has written for themselves.

[pnattmbtc]

Regarding what Mark wrote, I think it's clear from the context that what he meant was, "If this is what you really believe, then you are not saved," or something like that. However, it is correct that Mark misspoke, saying "You are not saved," which he shouldn't have. I think this was a "slip of the pen." We shouldn't make a brother an "offender for a word," so I think your wanting to forgive him for his misspeaking is a wonderful idea.

I think there's far too much name calling all around in these discussions. Just because someone disagrees with an idea we have is not reason for us to think ill of them, or consider them not to be friends.

[Guest]

Time is short and I believe that the Lord is opening the eyes of His children.

I agree whole heartedly.

[pnattmbtc]

Hi pnattmbtc,

If you look carefully at what Jesus is saying, He clearly states that those who don't come to Him and are not in Him.

[pnattmbtc]

Why am I concerned about this "in Christ" teaching? Because of what I saw it doing to me when I believed it and what I have seen in my friend's lives who believe it.

[pnattmbtc]

Here's how that happens, watch carefully and you'll see it. In Acts 15 Paul and others go to Jerusalem to find out what to do about the Jews who followed him just about everywhere teaching that you could believe in Christ but you need to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses. These two things are what was done away with at the cross. there was a big discussion and a decision was made.

This is what Paul's letter are mainly dealing with; the law of circumcision and it's related laws. He is refuting the teachings of these false teachers. Romans starts out by revealing how sinful man is. I used to wonder why he did that. Then I learned that it is because he wanted to prove without a doubt that man is sinful. That is what we are like with out Christ. Therefore if man is like this, then what good would it do him to be circumcised? How would that make him righteous or justify him? He sets a tone by using a phrase "under the law" and what he means is this; if you are going to be circumcised, you are trying to be made righteous by works of the law of circumcision and that is futile and impossible. WE are made righteous by faith. Then he exemplifies Abraham.

Then in Rom Ch 4 he concludes Rom 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe,(not the world) though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: 12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. 13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

It is clear that this is referring to the law of circumcision. Then they take these kinds of verses (which refer to circumcision) and apply them to the Ten Commandments.

Look at what Paul said in the following verses; Rom 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. 16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

Remember when Moses did not circumcise His sons? what did God do? He sent angels to kill him! But now there is no law and therefore no transgression. It is by faith and that is how Abraham was justified and declared righteous.

Now if you take all that is said about circumcision and realized that Paul was saying, "this is not how we are justified" then the book of Romans and Gal and other make sense. But if you take what Paul has said about being justified by faith and NOT by circumcision or keeping that law and all others that pertain to it (which excludes the 10 Commandments - 1Cor 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.) and then you think he's saying you are justified by faith and you don't have to keep law (which to them means the 10 commandments).... what do you come up with?

Confusion and a highly unbalanced understanding of how we are justified and saved, which opens the door to the teaching that everyone is forgiven and saved in Christ. I can go on, but it's getting late; but you pray and think this through and see what kind of misunderstandings are supported by not seeing what Paul is dealing with in Romans, Galatians and other books of the NT.

_________________________

Christ pardons none but the penitent, but whom He pardons He first makes penitent. The provision made is complete, and the eternal righteousness of Christ is placed to the account of every believing soul. (SM1 394)

Have you read "The Gospel in Galatians" by Waggoner? Butler had the idea that Galatians was primarily in regards to the law of circumcision, while Waggoner argued that Galatians was primarily about the moral law. Waggoner was correct. I don't know if your familiar with the arguments involved or not. From a cursory reading here, it sounds like you may be taking the wrong side of this controversy. What do you think?

[pnattmbtc]

Thanks for that very helpful post, Norman. What you say makes perfect sense biblically. I agree with you completely. The "in Christ" motif, if misapplied, leads to many serious mistakes in NT theology. See post #306419 on this thread.

I have some concerns about what Norman wrote, because it sounds like he may be taking Butler's side of the law controversy that Waggoner and Butler engaged in. The arguments of both are available online in "The Law in Galatians" and "The Gospel in Galatians" respectively (easy to find by Google). I'm hoping I've misunderstood Norman here, and awaiting for clarification from him, but I think Waggoner's arguments are very convincing, and he also has the support of the SOP (although his arguments I think are so convincing, that even without the SOP it should be evident that he was correct).

Regarding post #306419, I've never heard of anyone who have used the "in Christ" motif to teach that Christ's death releases us from the obedience of the law, and I know dozens of people who have this idea. If Robert has this idea (which isn't at all clear to me) he would be the only person I know who has this. To suggest there is any connection between the "in Christ" motif and antinominism would be a very large straw man.

Waggoner was the first to clearly articulate the concept (as I recall; I studied this quite extensively, but this was some time ago, and I don't recall all the details; it's just possible that Ellen White predates him on htis, but I don't think so; of course, I'm not including Scripture here), and, pardoning the double negative, nobody was less antinomian than he.

[Steve Billiter]

Jack Sequeria teaches an unbiblical cheap grace theology just like the 1888 MSC.

Beyond Belief, by Jack Sequeria.

2. Universal/Particular. “In Christ,” all humanity was redeemed — legally justified and reconciled to God [see Romans 5:18; 2 Corinthians 5:18-19; 1 Timothy 4:10; Titus 2:11; 1 John 2:2]. “Christ in you” applies only to believers who have by faith experienced the new birth [see John 3:16; Romans 8:9-10; 1 Corinthians 6:17-20; 2 Corinthians 3:17-18; 6:14-16; 1 Timothy 4:10].

Here he says “all humanity was redeemed and justified and reconciled” he “forgot” to say we need to accept it first! This is Universal Justification, just like the 1888 group teaches. Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

No one is justified by God until they meet the conditions for salvation. His book is riddled with heretical errors, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

His main proof text?

Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came on all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came on all men to justification of life.

All this means is that Jesus died for the whole world.We must ACCEPT the gift thats offered; we are not redeemed and justified just because the gift is offered.

Universal Justification is the same error that A.F. Ballenger was defrocked for.

continued.....

[Steve Billiter]

Elder Sequeira seems to embrace another popular, but erroneous belief in contemporary Adventism-the idea that the Biblical "fight of faith" means fighting with self, but not with specific sins (p. 137). At the series of meetings we have referred to several times, Brother Sequeria stipulated, "God doesn't need our help. All He wants is our permission.” {112} (Sequeria, Questions and Answers, Nov. 6, 1993, 4:45 P.M. on tape) this "let go and let God" approach to Christian living is not formulated either in the Scriptures or in the Spirit of Prophecy.

The apostle Paul writes: "Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." 2 Corinthians7:1. "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Ephesians 6:12. "Ye have not yet resisted

unto blood, striving against sin. " Hebrews 12:4. Ellen White agrees: The fact that Christ has conquered should inspire his followers with courage to fight manfully the battle against sin and Satan. {GC88 510.3}

(Pastor Kevin Paulson, Beyond Belief Reviewed)

[Gerr]

The LORD can/will part the Red Sea or the Jordan, but the believer still has to walk across.

[pnattmbtc]

Jack Sequeria teaches an unbiblical cheap grace theology just like the 1888 MSC.

[pnattmbtc]

Elder Sequeira seems to embrace another popular, but erroneous belief in contemporary Adventism-the idea that the Biblical "fight of faith" means fighting with self, but not with specific sins (p. 137). At the series of meetings we have referred to several times, Brother Sequeria stipulated, "God doesn't need our help. All He wants is our permission.” {112} (Sequeria, Questions and Answers, Nov. 6, 1993, 4:45 P.M. on tape) this "let go and let God" approach to Christian living is not formulated either in the Scriptures or in the Spirit of Prophecy.

The apostle Paul writes: "Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." 2 Corinthians7:1. "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Ephesians 6:12. "Ye have not yet resisted

unto blood, striving against sin. " Hebrews 12:4. Ellen White agrees: The fact that Christ has conquered should inspire his followers with courage to fight manfully the battle against sin and Satan. {GC88 510.3}

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Hi pnattmbtc,

the way you reply to my posts makes it difficult for me to address your comments. Can you reply to it as a whole? We must expand our minds from small bite size news clips to whole themes of truth. This way context can be preserved. This is a major cause for the confusion we have today; people take one sentence out of a larger thought and comment on it and they tend to loose the context.

It is hard to stay focused and bring together a gem of truth while trying to find the correct words and also think about all possible objections and it make sense and be in context. I can see why EGW was exhausted from writing (besides the fact that she wrote so much). Even though the Holy Spirit moves us to speak or write the process takes a certain kind of surrender and sacrifice to be complete.

But, there are times where the words flow without much effort. My point is; please look at what I have said and make a comment or statement that addresses the whole of what I am saying. If you don't want to do that, I don't mind as you can choose to reply as you wish.

Yes EGW said, "saved the world" but it is not the same thing as saying the have been justified, (forgiven) sanctified and glorified and now the world has eternal life and can only lose it by rejecting it. This is what is being taught by the people who promote that other false "in Christ" theory.

Take a look at this statement which reveals that it would be a contradiction of her writings if she were saying the whole world was saved as I described above. I realize you are not saying that but just want to point this out.

The Review and Herald, November 4, 1890, paragraph 4

Article Title: Christ the Way of Life.-By Mrs. E. G. White.-

"But while God can be just, and yet justify the sinner through the merits of Christ, no man can cover his soul with the garments of Christ's righteousness while practicing known sins, or neglecting known duties. God requires the entire surrender of the heart, before justification can take place; and in order for man to retain justification, there must be continual obedience, through active, living faith that works by love and purifies the soul."

The best way I can think of to describe this is to look at what man lost in Eden. The first thing was he died spiritually the next thing was he lost his connection with God and then the dominion of the world by giving it to Satan. Instead of love for God fear of God set in. There was a huge separation that man could never close. When He was created he was perfect and sin did not marred his love for God, but now things were different. It was no longer possible to love and the Holy Spirit that was in him was now outside of him convicting and trying to get him to come to the point where he could be saved from self destruction by the workings of Satan.

When Christ came to earth He was born as Adam was created, full of the Holy Spirit, connected with heaven, no fear of God and no separation. He was and is the way back to this union that Adam lost. All laws that were ever given were to point man to His work of redemption and teach how man could be as Christ and as the 1st Adam was in relationship with God. So now that that connection has been made man has favor with God again and are saved from self destruction. Believers who have been taught and wooed of God see in Christ; a way to get where we were created to be and have deep inside, always wanted to be; at one with God and man.

The 10 Commandments on the other hand were not specifically for this purpose. The were not like the laws of Moses in being a school master to bring us to Christ or... to teach us about Him. The purpose of the 10 Commandments is to reveal loyalty or sin, provide a vehicle for mercy or judgment and help man embrace the character of God or reject Him. All other laws were added because the 10 commandments were violated by man. Gal 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, (of the 10 Commandments) till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

Now that Christ has made away for us we no longer in any of those laws that were added in order to teach us about Him; the Substance has come. Remember the goal of the Godhead was to bring man back into harmony with them resulting in us being in harmony with the universe. Once man is in harmony then He can be safe to be brought into the universe with eternal life.

This is not given to the whole world. Why? Because Rom 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. Therefore they must be conditional otherwise, sin would always exist. and that's why EGW says;

"The condition of eternal life is now just what it always has been--just what it was in Paradise before the fall of our first parents--perfect obedience to the law of God, perfect righteousness. If eternal life were granted on any condition short of this, then the happiness of the whole universe would be imperiled. The way would be open for sin, with all its train of woe and misery, to be immortalized.

Christ does not lessen the claims of the law. In unmistakable language He presents obedience to it as the condition of eternal life--the same condition that was required of Adam before his fall. . . . The requirement under the covenant of grace is just as broad as the requirement made in Eden--harmony with God's law, which is holy, just, and good."

from God's Amazing Grace (1973), page 134, paragraph 5, 6

Chapter Title: Terms of the Covenant.

Time has run out for me, off to work.

in Christ and His service,

Norman

[Woody]

Quote:

Yes EGW said, "saved the world" but it is not the same thing as saying the have been justified, (forgiven) sanctified and glorified and now the world has eternal life and can only lose it by rejecting it. This is what is being taught by the people who promote that other false "in Christ" theory.

I've never heard of anyone believing or saying this. For certain ... no SDA has said this. Perhaps you are inserting your own bias or lack of understanding into their beliefs?

There seems to be a lot of people doing this lately. :)

[pnattmbtc]

Norman, I'm happy to respond to your post as a whole, if you prefer. The reason I respond to posts as I did is to leave no doubt that I'm accurately quoting the person I'm responding to. But I'm happy to dialog as you've requested.

Regarding the "in Christ" claim regarding what others teach, you're simply mistaken. They don't teach anything different than the EGW quotes I presented. I could quote tons of things to substantiate this, but really, the onus is on you to substantiate your claim that they're saying something different, since you're making the accusation. Those I know personally who teach the "in Christ" idea are familiar the quotes I've been presenting.

Regarding what you wrote in regards to Gal. 3:19 and so forth, first of all, I don't know why you went from the "in Christ" motif to this, but evidently you see a connection here. Here's what Waggoner wrote in regards to this section of Scripture, in response to Butler's arguments, which are similar to yours:

Quote:

But you say that it is not proper to apply the term “added” to the moral law. The Bible itself must decide that matter. In the fifth chapter of Deuteronomy Moses rehearses to the children of Israel the circumstances of the giving of the law. Verses 5-21 contain the substance of the ten commandments, and of these Moses says in the twenty-second verse:

“These words the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice; and He ADDED no more.”

The term “added,” in this verse, is in the Septuagint exactly the same as that rendered “added” in Galatians 3:19. The Hebrew word is the same that is rendered “add” in Genesis 30:24. That it has unmistakable reference in Deuteronomy 5:22 to the moral law, and to that alone, no one can deny. I care not whether you render it “added,” “spoken,” or “promulgated’‘—it makes no difference.

In Hebrews 12:18, 19 we have unmistakable reference to the voice of God speaking the law from Sinai, and the request of the people that God should not speak to them any more (Exodus 20:18, 19), in the words, “which voice they that heard entreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more.” Here the word rendered “spoken” is the same as that rendered “added” in Galatians 3:19 and Deuteronomy 5:22.

If we chose we might render it, “they entreated that the word should not be added to them any more,” and then we would have a uniform rendering. Or we might render it uniformly “spoken,” and then we would read in Deuteronomy that the Lord spoke all those words in the mount, out of the midst of the fire, etc., with a great voice, “and He spoke no more;” and this would be the exact truth and a good rendering. And likewise for uniformity we might justly render Galatians 5:19, “it was spoken because of transgressions.”

Or we might take the word in Deuteronomy 5:22 in the same sense in which it is used in Genesis 30:24, and the same idea would appear. When Rachel said, “God shall add to me another son,” it was the same as though she had said, “God will give me another son.” So the meaning in Deuteronomy 5:22 is that after the Lord had given them the commandments recorded in the preceding verses, He gave them no more. It seems to me very reasonable to apply the term “added” to the moral law; and whether it is reasonable or not I have certainly quoted two texts besides Galatians 3:19 which apply it so.

But you cannot find in the Bible a single instance of the use of the word “added,” as applied to the ceremonial law, to substantiate your view on Galatians 3:19. Deuteronomy 5:22 plainly says that the ten commandments were spoken by the Lord, and that nothing but the ten commandments was spoken, or given, or “added.”

Galatians 3:19 tells us why they were spoken. It was because of transgressions; that is, because people were largely ignorant, of the law. We may not play upon the word “added,” and use it in a mathematical sense, but must necessarily use it in the sense of declaring or speaking. There was no more moral law after God spoke it from Sinai than there was before, but it was certainly known a great deal better than it was before, and there was less excuse for sin than there was before.

In the preceding verses the apostle has spoken of the promise to Abraham, and the covenant made to him. The statement that that covenant was confirmed in Christ shows plainly that the covenant to Abraham confirmed the forgiveness of sins through Christ. But the forgiveness of sin necessarily implies a knowledge of sin. Only the righteous can be heirs of the promise, and a knowledge of sin and righteousness can only be obtained through the moral law. Therefore the giving of the law in a more specific manner than ever before was necessary, in order that the people might be partakers of the blessings promised to Abraham.

The very same thing is stated in Romans 5:20, “Moreover, the law entered that the offense might abound;” and I never knew any Seventhday Adventist to have any trouble in applying that to the moral law, yet it is certainly as difficult a text as Galatians 3:10. The word rendered “entered” is, literally, “came in.” The revised version has it, “came in beside.”

But the moral law existed before the days of Moses, as is evident from verses 13, 14 of the same chapter, and also from the expression in the same verse, “that the offense might abound,” showing that sin—the transgression of the law—existed before the law came in. Although the law existed in all its force before the exodus, yet it “came in,” “entered,” was spoken or given, or “added” at that time. And why? That the offense might abound, i.e., “that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful;” that what was sin before might the more plainly be seen to be sin. Thus it entered, or was added, “because of transgressions.” If it had not been for transgressions there would have been no necessity for the law to enter at Sinai. Why did it enter because of transgressions? “That the offense might abound;” in order to make sin seem greater than ever before, so that men might be driven to the super-abounding grace of God as manifested in Christ.

And so it became a school-master, pedagogue, to bring men to Christ, in order that they might be justified by faith, and be made the righteousness of God in Him. And so it is stated later that the law is not against the promises of God. It works in harmony with the promise, for without it the promise would be of no effect. And this most emphatically attests the perpetuity of the law.(The Gospel in Galatians;http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/1888/waggonerbutler_twolaws3.html#added)

I'll await your comments.

You're taking Butler's side of this dispute. I would invite you to consider Waggoner's pamphlet, if you haven't already done so.

By the way, this pamphlet was presented at the 1888 General Conference session, and was part of Waggoner's presentations which Ellen White said made "every fiber of her heart say 'Amen!'"

[Steve Billiter]

Why Don't you just show me where Sequeria teaches the real gospel?

Confession of sin and repentance,that should result in us keeping the commandments.

He should be teaching something very similar to whats in Steps to Christ, thats what I do.

There is no corporate and individual justification, thats unbiblical.

You think because he gives the references for Bible texts he is correct? Why do you think he does not post the whole text and then explain it?

He tries to break down the gospel in all these confusing parts no way.Its all heresy.Him and Desmond Ford could almost be twins.

"Beyond Belief"

"If the downside of the idea of corporate oneness is that we all fell in the one man, Adam, the glorious upside of the idea is that God likewise has redeemed all of us in the one man, Jesus Christ, who is the “second Adam” [see Romans 5:12-21; 1 Corinthians 15:19-23; 45-49]. God has legally justified all mankind in Christ just as surely as Satan has brought about the condemnation of all mankind in Adam" [see Romans 5:18]

Here is Universal Justification again. Not only that, but because the world inherited a sinful nature from Adam, he tries to stretch that into the whole world being justified by Christ. Where does the Bible say this?

Sequeria:

The entire human race is corporately one “in Him” just as we are one “in Adam.” What Jesus did, we have done, because we are corporately one in Him. Thus His life and death, which fully met the positive demands of God’s holy law as well as its justice, are considered to be our life and death also.

This is nuts, we did what Jesus did? Sequeria is living in a fantasy world

[Steve Billiter]

The Good News is better than You Think,

by Robert Wieland, page 73

“You Are Predestined to Be Saved! Really? The News gets better and better!”

Page 74, “God has predestined everyone to be saved, and the only way anyone can be lost is to veto the vote that God has already given in his favor; in other words they must undo the salvation that the Lord has already wrought out for him.”

Again Wieland has bypassed the conditions for salvation, acceptance, confession of sin, repentance, and lifelong sanctification. He is saying God forces us to be saved unless we reject it willfully. This is resurrected Calvinism.

Eternal life is too important not to study to show ourselves approved and not listen to other men.

Jer 17:5 Thus said the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusts in man, and makes flesh his arm, and whose heart departs from the LORD.

[wayfinder]

Ephesians 1:3-7 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace

Ephesians 2:4-10 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved ), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith ; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God ; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

[wayfinder]

Martin Luther writes to his friend Malanchton: “If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God's glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.” (A Letter From Luther to Melanchthon, Letter 99, 1 August 1521).

[wayfinder]

The Great Controversy (1888), page 120, paragraph 1

Chapter Title: Chapter VII - Luther's Separation from Rome

Foremost among those who were called to lead the church from the darkness of popery into the light of a purer faith, stood Martin Luther. Zealous, ardent, and devoted, knowing no fear but the fear of God, and acknowledging no foundation for religious faith but the Holy Scriptures, Luther was the man for his time; through him, God accomplished a great work for the reformation of the church and the enlightenment of the world.

[Gerr]

Quote:

No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.” (A Letter From Luther to Melanchthon, Letter 99, 1 August 1521).

Do you agree with this?

[wayfinder]

Absolutly not!