Soul Sleep before Adventism

[Humble Disciple]

There's plenty of evidence that early Jews, early Muslims, early Arab Christians, early Anabaptists, and even Martin Luther taught the doctrine of soul sleep. Why do non-Adventists Christians today act like Adventists just made up the doctrine out of nothing? 

[TrevorL]

Greetings Humble Disciple,

1 hour ago, Humble Disciple said:

There's plenty of evidence that early Jews, early Muslims, early Arab Christians, early Anabaptists, and even Martin Luther taught the doctrine of soul sleep.

I have some reservation about the term "soul sleep" as I consider that man does not have a "soul", but he is a soul, either a living soul or a dead soul. I understand that when we die we return to the dust, awaiting the resurrection.

Genesis 3:17–19 (KJV): 17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Daniel 12:2 (KJV): And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Kind regards Trevor 

[Humble Disciple]

I understand, but that seems to be a difference of semantics. 

[Gustave]

On 8/21/2021 at 11:10 PM, Humble Disciple said:

There's plenty of evidence that early Jews, early Muslims, early Arab Christians, early Anabaptists, and even Martin Luther taught the doctrine of soul sleep. Why do non-Adventists Christians today act like Adventists just made up the doctrine out of nothing? 

Because the evidence is scant compared to the opposite. Martin Luther (for a time) declared that certain Books of the Bible SHOULDN'T be in the Bible and in fact removed them until reality set in.  

[Humble Disciple]

6 hours ago, Gustave said:

Because the evidence is scant compared to the opposite. Martin Luther (for a time) declared that certain Books of the Bible SHOULDN'T be in the Bible and in fact removed them until reality set in.  

I don't understand what you mean. 

[Gustave]

3 hours ago, Humble Disciple said:

I don't understand what you mean. 

If you were to compile the individuals who taught anything approximating soul sleep throughout Christian history and set those cases aside and compared the anomalies with the affirmations of the opposite you'd be forced to agree the support for soul sleep is scant. 

Additionally, Martin Luther, for a time,  wasn't sure that he could support the souls' consciousness after death but settled his mind on the matter and affirmed indeed Scripture teaches that the soul is very conscious. Luther, for a time,  kicked a few Books OUT of the Bible - that doesn't mean he was right when he did that. 

Some individuals believe that if a small group of folks go down one path it must be the right path (reasoning that the path to destruction is WIDE thus the narrow path has fewer people = must be right). 

When it comes to Doctrine this is Alien to Scripture. 

[Humble Disciple]

14 hours ago, Gustave said:

If you were to compile the individuals who taught anything approximating soul sleep throughout Christian history and set those cases aside and compared the anomalies with the affirmations of the opposite you'd be forced to agree the support for soul sleep is scant. 

Additionally, Martin Luther, for a time,  wasn't sure that he could support the souls' consciousness after death but settled his mind on the matter and affirmed indeed Scripture teaches that the soul is very conscious. Luther, for a time,  kicked a few Books OUT of the Bible - that doesn't mean he was right when he did that. 

Some individuals believe that if a small group of folks go down one path it must be the right path (reasoning that the path to destruction is WIDE thus the narrow path has fewer people = must be right). 

When it comes to Doctrine this is Alien to Scripture. 

Are you familiar with the fact that early Arab-speaking Christians specifically taught the doctrine of soul sleep, and that it wasn't rejected by the mainstream church until praying to the saints became popular? 

[Gustave]

4 minutes ago, Humble Disciple said:

Are you familiar with the fact that early Arab-speaking Christians specifically taught the doctrine of soul sleep, and that it wasn't rejected by the mainstream church until praying to the saints became popular? 

Assign an approximate date to what you're claiming. What approximate point in early Christian history was it that early Arab speaking Christians specifically taught the doctrine of soul sleep?

[Humble Disciple]

11 minutes ago, Gustave said:

Assign an approximate date to what you're claiming. What approximate point in early Christian history was it that early Arab speaking Christians specifically taught the doctrine of soul sleep?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mortalism#Christian_views

[Gustave]

8 hours ago, Humble Disciple said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mortalism#Christian_views

Like I said, that's very scant. 

There was a small fraction of Christians who promulgated Gnosticism and still others who denied various aspects of the Trinity Doctrine. Because these groups were small is hardly an argument that they were right. I've heard this argument from many Adventists (JW's, SDA's, Christadelphians, etc.) over the years. If one is to go by the Bible its always the minority that follow after strange doctrines (Korah comes to mind). 

Jesus literally slammed the Sadducees over this very question. 

 

[GHansen]

On 9/1/2021 at 10:25 PM, Gustave said:

Luther, for a time,  kicked a few Books OUT of the Bible - that doesn't mean he was right when he did that. 

Would you provide a list of the books Luther "kicked out" of the Bible?

 

22 minutes ago, Gustave said:

If one is to go by the Bible its always the minority that follow after strange doctrines (Korah comes to mind). 

The concept of a "remnant" is premised on the supposition that it is a small group which are faithful to God e.g.,  those who had not bowed the knee to baal; Daniel and his friends would be another example; Caleb and Joshua, et al. Can you provide other examples of small groups who were wrong rather than right?

 

[Gustave]

46 minutes ago, GHansen said:

Would you provide a list of the books Luther "kicked out" of the Bible?

 

The concept of a "remnant" is premised on the supposition that it is a small group which are faithful to God e.g.,  those who had not bowed the knee to baal; Daniel and his friends would be another example; Caleb and Joshua, et al. Can you provide other examples of small groups who were wrong rather than right?

 

Remnant is what's left off the "main garment". While there are many Christians there will a remnant "of that body" that makes it. Consider a Church (could be any one) with 500 members - of that number a small amount, a remnant will be saved. That's the teaching - not a small group of people OUTSIDE the Church. 

The arians were NOT a remnant. 

In 1534 Luther translated "The Bible" into German and subsequently grouped the below 7 Books in a section he called Apocrypha - declaring that these Books were NOT Scripture. 

Removed from the Canon of Scripture: Tobit, Judith, 1st & 2nd Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach & Baruch. 

Attempted to remove: Hebrews, James, Jude & Revelation. 

[GHansen]

7 hours ago, Gustave said:

Remnant is what's left off the "main garment". While there are many Christians there will a remnant "of that body" that makes it. Consider a Church (could be any one) with 500 members - of that number a small amount, a remnant will be saved. That's the teaching - not a small group of people OUTSIDE the Church. 

The arians were NOT a remnant. 

In 1534 Luther translated "The Bible" into German and subsequently grouped the below 7 Books in a section he called Apocrypha - declaring that these Books were NOT Scripture. 

Removed from the Canon of Scripture: Tobit, Judith, 1st & 2nd Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach & Baruch. 

Attempted to remove: Hebrews, James, Jude & Revelation. 

Here's a parallelism which clearly defines "Remnant" as a small number: Jer 44:28  Yet a small number that escape the sword shall return out of the land of Egypt into the land of Judah, and all the remnant of Judah, that are gone into the land of Egypt to sojourn there, shall know whose words shall stand, mine, or theirs.

Romans 9:27 contrasts the "sand of the sea" with remnant: Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

Romans 11: 1-5 contrasts large the scale apostasy of Israel to Baal with the faithful 7,000. Obviously the concept of a "few" depends upon that with which the "few" are being contrasted.

As for Luther and the NT canon, lets have a look at what he actually said about the books you claim he " attempted to remove":

Re: Hebrews "However that may be, it is still a marvelously fine epistle. It discusses Christ’s priesthood masterfully and profoundly on the basis of the Scriptures and extensively interprets the Old Testament in a fine way, Thus it is plain that this is the work of an able and learned man; as a disciple of the apostles he had learned much from them and was greatly experienced in faith and practiced in the Scriptures. And although, as he himself testifies in chapter 6[:1], he does not lay the foundation of faith—that is the work of the apostles—nevertheless he does build well on it with gold, silver, precious stones, as St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 3[:12]. Therefore we should not be deterred if wood, straw, or hay are perhaps mixed with them, but accept this fine teaching with all honor; though, to be sure, we cannot put it on the same level with the apostolic epistles."

Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 35: Word and Sacrament I. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, & H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 35, p. 395). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Re: James:  "Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle; and my reasons follow."

Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 35: Word and Sacrament I. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, & H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 35, pp. 395–396). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

"Therefore I cannot include him [James] among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him."

Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 35: Word and Sacrament I. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, & H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 35, p. 397). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Re Jude: "Therefore, although I value this book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of faith."

Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 35: Word and Sacrament I. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, & H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 35, p. 398). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

RE Revelation: Luther wrote 2 prefaces to Revelation. His view of the book changed. The following is from the first preface in his 1522 NT:   "About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic."

Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 35: Word and Sacrament I. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, & H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 35, p. 398). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

1530 Preface: "This is the way it has been with this book heretofore. Many have tried their hands at it, but until this very day they have attained no certainty. Some have even brewed it into many stupid things out of their own heads. Because its interpretation is uncertain and its meaning hidden, we have also let it alone until now, especially because some of the ancient fathers held that it was not the work of St. John, the Apostle—as is stated in The Ecclesiastical History, Book III, chapter 25.63. For our part, we still share this doubt. By that, however, no one should be prevented from regarding this as the work of St. John the Apostle, or of whomever else he chooses. Since we would nonetheless like to be sure of its meaning or interpretation, we will give other and higher minds something to think about by stating our own views."

Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 35: Word and Sacrament I. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, & H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 35, p. 400). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

[Gustave]

In the Apostolic age "The Church" was otherwise known as the Body of Christ. 

1st John 2, 18: "Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour.  They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us".

The remnant, by definition, will be what's left of  those who continued WITH (followed)  the Apostles & their successors Doctrinally. 

2nd Thessalonians 2, 15: So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

IF a group of Christians in the Apostolic era 10 years past the Cross started to promulgate that Jesus was going to return on an exact date AND a "prophet" arose within this group that rebuked anyone who appealed to the Sacred Tradition that would eventually become Matthew 24, 36 do you seriously think those who "continued" with the Apostles would have accepted this "message"? Would the Apostles and those who continued with the traditions of the Apostles have viewed the group claiming to know the day and the hour as part of the same body - or would they say they were apart from the Body of Christ? 

I submit to you that the Apostles and those who held onto the Apostles traditions would have classified such a group as ALIEN to the body of Christ. That while the group may have been part of the Christian assembly they didn't continue. Which would make the group a remnant of what? 

We know from Matthew 18, 17 that only ONE body has the real authority to set the record straight because as soon as you bring in another Church that disagrees with the other one you have a worthless mechanism. Its because of this and a whole host of other logical reasons that when Scripture refers to the remnant it's referring to what's left off the main body and not remnants from a multitude of bodies alien from the main. 

I've seen these arguments pertaining to Luther's dislike of certain Books - the fact is that private individuals interpretations did not have binding authority on what constituted the Canon of Scripture, The Church did. The other unavoidable fact is that Luther translated THE BIBLE into German and somewhere along the process he didn't care for some of the things he found in THE BIBLE. 

I am forced to commend you on your command of Luther's writings, you've obviously spent considerable time in them. I'll give you that. 

[GHansen]

Gustav, As I'm sure you know, there is some controversy as to what constituted the Biblical canon in Luther's time. Canonical lists were accepted in previous local church councils. Trent was the first ecumenical council to pronounce on the Scriptural canon in it's 4th session; consequently, it can be said that there was no authoritative Scriptural Canon when Luther translated the Bible into German [see The Canon Debate ed. McDonald and Sanders 2002 p.205].

There's a big difference between kicking things out of the Bible and preferring certain books to others, which is what Luther did. He was especially fond or 1 Peter, for example. Luther is often faulted for describing James as an "epistle of straw." But what he actually said was that compared to certain other Scripture such as John, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians and 1 Peter it was an epistle of straw "because it has nothing of the nature of gospel about it." He still praised it and considered it a good book. 

"Luther's Works" from Logos are a reasonably priced and convenient resource

[GHansen]

7 hours ago, Gustave said:

IF a group of Christians in the Apostolic era 10 years past the Cross started to promulgate that Jesus was going to return on an exact date AND a "prophet" arose within this group that rebuked anyone who appealed to the Sacred Tradition that would eventually become Matthew 24, 36 do you seriously think those who "continued" with the Apostles would have accepted this "message"? Would the Apostles and those who continued with the traditions of the Apostles have viewed the group claiming to know the day and the hour as part of the same body - or would they say they were apart from the Body of Christ? 

Gustav, Here you go indulging in the theology of imagination, again. Instead of imagining schemes which support your view, produce some Scripture that supports it i.e., places where the term "remnant" is used in a way that illustrates/defines its meaning. The parallelism from Jeremiah 44:28 is a good indicator that remnant refers to a small number. The term "remnant" is used 3 times in Jeremiah 44. Unfortunately, this remnant of Jerusalem's destruction were bent on idolatry.

[Gregory Matthews]

In an earlier post, it was suggested that the SDA position on the condition of people at death has very little support from the standpoint of history.  I disagree with that comment.

In 1965 The Conditionalist Faith of our Fathers, authored by L E. Froom.  This was a two vol. set of books.

Vol 1 was 1,132 pages in length.

Vol. 2 was 1,344 pages in length.

The following website is a 548-page discussion of the above.  Of, course 548 pages could only briefly sum up what the full books contain.  On the basis of what Froom wrote on the subject,, I will suggest that there is substantial support for the SDA position of what happens to a person inn death.   Of course, I will acknowledge that there is also substantial support for people who have believed otherwise.

http://creationismonline.com/Studies/1271.PDF

Personal note:  I once had the above two books in my library.  I seem not to have them now, so they may have been lost in one of the many moves I have made in my military service.

 

[Gustave]

2 hours ago, GHansen said:

Gustav, Here you go indulging in the theology of imagination, again. Instead of imagining schemes which support your view, produce some Scripture that supports it i.e., places where the term "remnant" is used in a way that illustrates/defines its meaning. The parallelism from Jeremiah 44:28 is a good indicator that remnant refers to a small number. The term "remnant" is used 3 times in Jeremiah 44. Unfortunately, this remnant of Jerusalem's destruction were bent on idolatry.

In the context of the Church, which is the body of Christ, and ultimately what's left of it at the end of time it's exactly what I what I said it was. To use one of your cited examples. 

Romans 9, 27: Literally countless Israelites BUT in the end, the ones saved, are described as "what's left" or "all that remains". In the case of the C.O.I. the saved are a minute fraction of a specific group of People. 

A specific group of people (Jew's)  who JOINED THE BODY OF CHRIST and remained within it (held fast to the Apostles traditions). Of course it's a small number, that's what a remnant is - what's LEFT over from the whole. The question I keep asking you is remnant of WHAT. 

 

The Canon

The Apostles used the Septuagint did they not? That closes out any argument IMHO. From the information I'm leveraging the New Testament leverages the LXX 340 times compared to the 33 times the Masoretic is. In any event why would any Christian defer authority to Jewish Religious Authority after the Resurrection of Christ? It can't be said that there wasn't an authoritative Canon of Scripture when Luther translated "THE BIBLE" into German. 

The Canon was defined as early as 382 and multiple times after that leading up to the point where the Magisterium was required to infallibly define it at Trent.  Claiming there was no authoritative Canon prior to Trent is like claiming that there was no authoritative teaching that Jesus was God prior to Nicaea. It's simply not accurate. 

 

 

 

 

 

[GHansen]

On 9/3/2021 at 11:33 PM, Gustave said:

In the context of the Church, which is the body of Christ, and ultimately what's left of it at the end of time it's exactly what I what I said it was. To use one of your cited examples. 

Romans 9, 27: Literally countless Israelites BUT in the end, the ones saved, are described as "what's left" or "all that remains". In the case of the C.O.I. the saved are a minute fraction of a specific group of People. 

A specific group of people (Jew's)  who JOINED THE BODY OF CHRIST and remained within it (held fast to the Apostles traditions). Of course it's a small number, that's what a remnant is - what's LEFT over from the whole. The question I keep asking you is remnant of WHAT. 

 

The Canon

The Apostles used the Septuagint did they not? That closes out any argument IMHO. From the information I'm leveraging the New Testament leverages the LXX 340 times compared to the 33 times the Masoretic is. In any event why would any Christian defer authority to Jewish Religious Authority after the Resurrection of Christ? It can't be said that there wasn't an authoritative Canon of Scripture when Luther translated "THE BIBLE" into German. 

The Canon was defined as early as 382 and multiple times after that leading up to the point where the Magisterium was required to infallibly define it at Trent.  Claiming there was no authoritative Canon prior to Trent is like claiming that there was no authoritative teaching that Jesus was God prior to Nicaea. It's simply not accurate. 

 

 

 

 

 

Gustave, Thanks for bringing up the subject of the "remnant."  I was taught what is probably a rather constricted view of the topic. In some cases the word/s translated do appear to refer to a specific group of people. Other times, it is a somewhat vague reference to  a portion of a group.  Sometimes the remnant is actually "bad" i.e., they are involved in some evil doings. Context, as usual, is important. Maybe I'll have more to say about the "remnant" down the road.

[Gregory Matthews]

*  In many ways Martin Luther was all over the map as to what he believed.  If you are searching to find him supporting what you want to say he believed, you can often find such support in his writings.  For several years, I once shared an office with a Lutheran clergyperson.   We once discussed this and he agreed with what I have said.

*  The Seventh-day Adventist position on the condition of a person at death is expressed by these words " . . . death is an unconscious state for all people."  This SDA position does NOT address the issue of whether or not the person has a soul.    The majority of SDAs believe that the SDA position denies that a person has a soul.  But, in actual fact, the SDA position would allow a person to believe that at death a person does have a soul, but that soul is not conscious.  That was the actual belief of a now dead, former SDA leader in Europe.  He was a person whom God used in many ways and to whom the SDA Chruch is indebted for the ministry that he provided.

 

[GHansen]

On 9/11/2021 at 7:58 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

  In many ways Martin Luther was all over the map as to what he believed.  If you are searching to find him supporting what you want to say he believed, you can often find such support in his writings.  For several years, I once shared an office with a Lutheran clergyperson.   We once discussed this and he agreed with what I have said.

Chaplain Matthew, Would you like to provide some specific examples of what areas  "Luther was all over the map as to what he believed"?

[Gregory Matthews]

Do you need to ask? They are pretty well known.

However, here is a reference to one well known subject:

Martin Luther and antisemitism - Wikipedia

 

[stinsonmarri]

On 8/22/2021 at 2:10 AM, Humble Disciple said:

There's plenty of evidence that early Jews, early Muslims, early Arab Christians, early Anabaptists, and even Martin Luther taught the doctrine of soul sleep. Why do non-Adventists Christians today act like Adventists just made up the doctrine out of nothing? 

Greetings to you Humble Disciple: Not to disrespect anyone, but to answer your question is to let the Bible speak.

YAHWEH ELOHIM formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Gen 2:7

 For in death there is no remembrance of THEE: in the grave who shall give THEE thanks? Psa 6:5

For the living know that they will die, but the dead don’t know anything, neither do they have any more a reward; for their memory is forgotten. Also their love, their hatred, and their envy has perished long ago; neither have they any more a portion forever in anything that is done under the sun. Ecc 9:5, 6

YAHSHUA saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see THE MAJESTY OF ELOHIYM?  Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And YAHSHUA lifted up HIS EYES, and said, FATHER, I thank THEE that THOU hast HEARD ME. And I knew that THOU HEAREST ME always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that THOU HAST sent ME.  And when HE thus had SPOKEN, HE Cried with a LOUD VOICE, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with grave clothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. YAHSHUA saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go. John 11:41-44

I have one thing to say, the soul lives and it is no longer a soul without LIFE! That was given to the male and the female and they also ate from THE Tree of LIFE and that LIFE has continue to all of us until death comes upon us. 

Blessings to all on this forum pray for me as I pray for you!

[GHansen]

8 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Do you need to ask? They are pretty well known.

Since all you can refer to is a Wikipedia article on Luther's "antiSemitism," I do need to ask. The real question is why did Luther change his views on the Jews. What did they do to provoke him to wrote  in "On the Jews and Their Lies."

He had a Jewish manservant, a converted Jew [Bernard?]. Luther cared for him and his family. He also studied Hebrew from Jewish Hebrew scholars.

His "That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew" is  apologetic literature written on behalf of the Jews. Few people have even heard of it, much less quote from it.  When Jews needed safe conduct through certain territories, they asked Luther to help them obtain it, which he did.

Luther's Antisemitism is not really all over the map. They betrayed his friendship, using opportunities he provided, to agitate against the gospel. It's unfortunate he responded the way he did but what they did to provoke  that response is of greater interest, except to those who have an  agenda to diminish his gospel influence. It's much easier to smear him as an antiSemite than refute his clear teaching on the gospel.

Aside from his "Antisemitism," can you  provide better examples, if he was, indeed, "all over the map?" 

That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew, 1523

"If the Jews should take offense because we confess our Jesus to be a man, and yet true God, we will deal forcefully with that from Scripture in due time. But this is too harsh for a beginning. Let them first be suckled with milk, and begin by recognizing this man Jesus as the true Messiah; after that they may drink wine, and learn also that he is true God. For they have been led astray so long and so far that one must deal gently with them, as people who have been all too strongly indoctrinated to believe that God cannot be man.

Therefore, I would request and advise that one deal gently with them and instruct them from Scripture; then some of them may come along. Instead of this we are trying only to drive them by force, slandering them, accusing them of having Christian blood if they don’t stink, and I know not what other foolishness. So long as we thus treat them like dogs, how can we expect to work any good among them? Again, when we forbid them to labor and do business and have any human fellowship with us, thereby forcing them into usury, how is that supposed to do them any good?"

Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 45 : The Christian in Society II. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, & H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 45, p. 229). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

[Gregory Matthews]

I use Wikipedia because it is an easy source, not because it is a sole source.

I am fine for you to disagree with me.   However, I consider that in your reply you have made statements that support my position.

I am acquainted with Lutherans who agree with my basic position, but would probably state it with a little less force.  I am fine with that because that position supports my basic position.