Missing Verses -- What's the Big Deal?

Peter "denied" Christ, and I agree he did not deny in the sense of "there is no Christ" (no faithful Jew would do that), but he denied *knowing* Jesus. He "denied" being with him, when someone thought they saw him with Jesus. The meaning of the word is still the same, for he is speaking directly against the accusation of being with Jesus.

I think "opposite" is the key word. If I "confess" that apples exist, and don't even mention oranges, that doesn't mean I "deny" oranges. Just as I had to make a specific statement about apples to "confess" it, I have to make a specific statement about oranges to "deny" them.

I guess I'm not a judicious person then. Scripture defines antichrist as:

- denying Jesus is the Christ
- denying the Father and the Son
- denying Jesus Christ came in the flesh

The pope does not deny any of these things. But maybe that's a topic for another thread in another forum.

The verse qualifies it, by "in work" they are denying. The key meaning of the word is still the same, it is only the method the denial is evident that is different. In other words, the verse means they may profess Christ with their mouth, but they are denying in their heart because if they truly believed, the would not act that way. The word still has the same meaning, it's just not a *verbal* denial.

Without evidence, those are just slanderous words. Do you have any evidence? Are you saying that just because he doesn't hold the same view of the translation issue as you do, or do you actually have evidence?

Provide quote (with references) and explanations, or give it a rest.

Provide quote (with references) and explanations, or give it a rest.

Provide quote (with references) and explanations, or give it a rest.

Hey, since you believe the KJV translators and Erasmus and Luther and so on also were heretical, how did they manage to give us Bibles you generally like? Doesn't that go against all you've just talked about?

 

Harald I have already reminded you that the scripture says He was tempted as we yet without sin. #1 Temptation is not sin but rather the falling to temptation. The devil set out to tempt Christ in the wilderness but failed because He did not sin. #2 If He could not sin then his humanity was useless, the payment was made possible by the fact that he walked a sinless life, if the "fix" was in and there was no possibility of sin then satan could have rightly protested, God is even fair to satan. satan knew that Jesus was fully human and that is why he tempted Him, your opinion if true would make the sinless walk of our Lord less important. I may not convince you but I do ask you to explain the scripture away which says He was tempted.
Murph

 

Um, what?

Askjo, show me. Make it clear. No more games. </font>[/QUOTE]Nida wrote: "Most scholars, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, interpret the references to the redemption of the believer by Jesus Christ, not as evidence of any commerical transaction by any quid pro quo between Christ and God or between the 'two natures of God' (his love and his justice), but as a figure of the 'cost,' in terms of suffering." ("Theory and Practice" p.53, n 19.)

Nida also wrote: "Blood is used in this passage (Rom. 3:25) in the same way that it is used in a number of other places in the New Testament, that is, to indicate a violent death. Although this noun [propitiation] (and its related forms) is sometimes used by pagan writers in the sense of propitiation (that is, an act to appease or placate a god), it is never used this way in the Old Testament." (A Translator's Handbook on Paul's Letter to the Romans).

 

Matthew 4:1-11 show that the Satan tempted Jesus thrice times; Jesus experienced the temptation and got victory over the Satan. To understand that the Satan ONLY tempts the humanity, not spirit. God is Spirit whom the Satan can't tempt.

 

Thanks for the reference this time, I'll see if I can find this book so we can look at context.

Where in the quote does Nida deny the atonement? Where in the quote does Nida deny *anything*? Where in the quote does Nida even mention the atonement? Where in the quote does Nida mention what his personal view is, instead of just discussing "most scholars, both Protestant and Roman Catholic"?

Thanks for the reference this time, I'll see if I can find this book so we can look at context.

Where in the quote does Nida deny the atonement? Where in the quote does Nida deny *anything*? Where in the quote does Nida even mention the atonement?

 

And I will repeat again, if Jesus was not tempted and had the possibility to sin (in His humanity), then you make the Scriptures out to be lies and you have a Christ that was not 100% human. DO NOT read what I did not write. Jesus DID NOT sin. He WAS tempted and He had a choice before Him. He chose the Father's will and was the ultimate Servant. What does it mean that Jesus was 100% human? If Jesus was not able to sin, then He was not 100% human. However, He was able NOT to sin. In that, He can relate to man and know what it is like to be tempted and the struggle that comes with that. How could He relate to us if He was not able to sin (in His humanity)? I affirm again, He was able not to sin and in fact was "tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15, NASB). He is able to "sympathize with our weaknesses" (Heb. 4:15, NASB) because He was faced with those same weaknesses and had a choice before Him. Do not be afraid of His humanity. I don't think anyone here is saying that Jesus sinned. I am not. I do affirm that the possibility was there but that He did not sin because He was able not to sin and instead chose to be the Servant of the Father.

In the Gracious Lord Jesus Christ,
Neal

 

BrianT

QUOTE:
"I think "opposite" is the key word. If I "confess" that apples exist, and don't even mention oranges, that doesn't mean I "deny" oranges. Just as I had to make a specific statement about apples to "confess" it, I have to make a specific statement about oranges to "deny" them."

H: If I transfer your thoughts about "confessing" apples to "confessing" Christ Jesus. To "confess" (in the Biblical sense) Christ Jesus one must make a specific statement about Him. This is true, but it needs specifying. If you go to 1John and look at the instances where John uses the word for "confess", homologeô, you will learn that the verb as to tense is always (if I recall not amiss) in the present. So for example in 1John 4:2-3, twice, and both instances in the indicative. In 2John 7 a present tense participle. This means in turn that a biblical "confessing" of Christ is not a one time occurence, but it is a thing which is progressive or continuous. Multitudes of false professors during the centuries have "confessed" Christ IF the word "confess" is understood as a one time verbal statement (or a few occasional or sporadic statements), e.g. "Jesus is Lord". Now, obviously the short but specific statement about Christ that he is "Lord" is true per se. Christ is "Lord" in many ways, so a general "confession" that "Christ is Lord" is nothing extraordinary. Christ is Lord inasmuch as He is God Almighty. I take it in this sense most "confess" His lordship (including the pope/Antichrist). But there are other capacities also in which He is Lord. But the lordship which Paul touches upon in Romans 10, and the related "confessing", is not so much a confessing of His lordship as Almighty God and Creator. Nor is it in the sense as many brag that "I have made Christ Lord and Master of my life, and now I obey only him." The most important aspect of lordship as it pertains to the Messias, and the capacity in which He is most often referred to as "Lord" (Gr. kyrios) is the one called "mediatorial Lordship of Christ". Not many today who profess to know God and Christ have a sound understanding of Christ's mediatorial lordship, if they at all know what it is. And of those who know something of it in the letter of it the majority are not genuinely subjected to that lordship of His.

If a man would make a one time "confession" of "Christ as Lord" he must be strictly biblical in his verbal declaration, meaning all that he states pertaining to Christ's person and work must be in accordance with all that the Bible reveals as to the same, i.e. it must be wholly congruous with the whole counsel of God's word as to God the Son incarnate. Cp. Isa. 8:20, 1Tim. 6:3-4. If e.g. the Pope of Rome came before me and says "Jesus is Lord". I could say to him "O no, Mr. Wojtyla, that is no "confession" of Jesus Christ, even the devils admit that and they tremble". If I pressed the Antichrist to make a longer statement as to Christ's person I would be better equipped to ascertain whether before me is a genuine confessor of Christ or not. If the pope would make a valid one time "confession" as to Christ's person and His lordship he would have to expound for me a bit on the mediatorial lordship of Christ, and that wholly in accordance with the revealed Scriptures. The pope cannot ever do this, or else he would deny his own position as "the Vicar of Christ" (Gr. Anti-Christos in 1John and 2John.). The pope, as the judicious student of Church history knows, is "God on earth". Such a facinorous deceiver would have a real hard time making even a one time valid "confession" (biblical) of Christ's Lordship. But even if he succeeded somehow to make a one time valid statement as to Christ's person and Lordship that would not do, because the Bible and chiefly John the apostle says that the "confessing" must be constant and permanent. Compare with John's most solemn words:

"Every one transgressing, and not abiding in the doctrine of the Christ, hath not God. The one abiding in the doctrine of the Christ, this one hath both the Father and the Son."

Therefore it is seen that the Bible is the sole definer of what a Biblical "confessing" of Christ and His Lordship is. It is and must be permanent and constant as to its nature. A one time "confession", even if lining up with what the Bible says, will not do before God and before the true household of faith. Faith without works is dead, and all "confession" of Christ which is not constant and permantent in nature, and biblically consistent as to quality is but evidence of dead faith. Once more I refer to Isa. 8:20 and 1John 6:3-5. To "deny" Christ and His Father as a one time act is any verbal statement as to these two which contradict the whole counsel of God's word as to them. But when John in his first epistle talks about "deny" he uses the present tense thrice in 1John 2:22-23. More specifically the inspired form of the verb is present participle, thrice so. So the denial John is concerned with is a denying of God the Son and His Father which is continuous in nature, yea, permanent, characterized by habitude. An example of denying both the Father and the Son would be the denial of Nida, when he denies propitiation. A man who denies that God must be propitiated has obviously and evidently not believed the Gospel revealed in the Bible. Another example of denying Christ are seen in the statements of such who go on affirming that Christ was not absolutely impeccable. They manifestly go against such testimony of Christ Himself as the following:

"The prince of this world cometh and hath nothing in me"

These professors deny Christ Jesus by imputing peccability to Him while the divinely revealed record testifies He was absolutely holy and absolutely impeccable, incapable of sinning, not possessed of ordinary Adamic defilement. Such professors impugn the holy person and character of the Jesus of God. They manifest by their unbiblical beliefs that they have not experimentally known him. For the Lord Christ Himself said that "they shall all be taught ones of God" (John 6:45). Those then that have been experimentally taught of the Father of Jesus Christ do know Him, and they NEVER impute peccability to His person. It is not in the constitution of their nature to do so, because they have been begotten of God. Peccability involves the possibility (and reality) of experiencing temptation to commit sin, which may or may not result in yielding. But not so with absolute impeccability, that of the Lord Christ.

Harald

 

QUOTE:
I guess I'm not a judicious person then. Scripture defines antichrist as:

- denying Jesus is the Christ
- denying the Father and the Son
- denying Jesus Christ came in the flesh

The pope does not deny any of these things. But maybe that's a topic for another thread in another forum"

H: The word Antichristos as defined by the biblical writers means one who both opposes the real Christ and replaces him by bringing another Christ before men. The Antichrist with capital A both opposes the real and biblically revealed Christ as well as replaces Him in the sense of claiming to be a vicar of His, all this constitutes a denial of the true Christ. Such is the pope of Rome, every pope in fact, at least in the last 1000 years or so. Antichrists others than the pope are such who deny the true Christ of God, and by giving false character descriptions ("denying", through contradicting the Gospel and doctrine of Christ) of Him they bring "another Jesus", 2Cor. 11:4, all of which constitutes a kind of opposition as well. The pope denies all of the three above by constantly bringing Bible contradicting doctrines of demons.

QUOTE:
Nida is manifestly a denier of God and Christ. (H)

"Without evidence, those are just slanderous words. Do you have any evidence? Are you saying that just because he doesn't hold the same view of the translation issue as you do, or do you actually have evidence?"

H: Not slander but truth. And I do not say because he disagree on translation issues, but because it is true of him. Another already gave quote of him being on record as denying propitiation.

Below is a quote of Nida I found on the net from and interview with him in a magazine named Christianity Today.

"In the case of "The righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith," is this God's own personal righteousness? Or is it the way in which God makes us righteous through our faith in Jesus Christ?"

H: Nida says that they way of God's making men righteous is through their faith in Jesus Christ. This is not biblical and thus heretical. It constitutes a denial of Christ and God in the sense that Nida denies the biblical way of how God justifies sinners, not by subjective faith in Christ, but solely by the redemptions which is in Christ Jesus, i.e. by the Person, blood and righteousness of Christ Jesus, God the Son incarnate. The divine method of Justification according to the word of God is that God imputes a perfect righteousness to the persons of His elect people, which righteousness (Christ's) justifies them savingly in the sight of God as Judge. This took place at Calvary's cross when the representative of the election of grace, Jesus Christ, willingly and actively yielded up His spirit. Nida has never believed the Biblical Gospel in the powerful teaching of the Spirit of Christ, 1Thess. 1:4-6, 9. If he had so he would have been a staunch defender of justification by Christ alone until this day.

QUOTE:

Nida says the accounts of angels and miracles are not necessarily to be interpreted literally.
".. wrestling with an angel all have different meanings than in our own culture" (Nida, Message and Mission, p. 41).
(from David Cloud's "Dynamic Equivalency" booklet)

H: Nida does not literally believe the written record God has given through His Son as to the above happening in the OT. This constitutes a denial of God and Christ as to their veracity.

QUOTE:
The vast majority of the translators of the RSV were manifest Christ-denying heretics, men who denied many teachings of the Bible. (H)

"Provide quote (with references) and explanations, or give it a rest."

H: I will quote David Cloud, who in his book "For Love of the Bible" directly quotes some of the RSV translators.

Walter Russell Bowie (1882-1969) served on the RSV NT committee. He has said:

"The story of Abraham comes down from ancient times; and how much of it is fact and how much of it is LEGEND, no one can positively tell" (Bowie, Great Men of the Bible, p. 13)

"The impecatory (sic?) psalms and other utterances like them reflect a God who is dead and ought to be dead-and never was alive except in unredeemed imagination" (Bowie, Where You Find God, p. 25)

Frederick Clifton Grant (1891-1974) served on the RSV NT committee. He has said:

"We may admit at once that the older view of Jesus' life and ministry was NOT ENTIRELY HISTORICAL" (Frederick Grant, The Beginnings of our Religion, New York: Macmillan Co., 1934)

Fleming James (1877-1959) served on the RSV NT committee, and has said:

"What REALLY happened at the Red Sea WE CAN NO LONGER KNOW" (James, The Beginnings of our Religion)

James Moffatt (1870-1944) served on the translation committee for the RSV NT and has said:

"The writers of the New Testament made mistakes in interpreting some of the Old Testament prophecies" ( James Moffatt, The Approach to the New Testament)

William Learoy Sperry (1882-1954) was on the RSV OT committee and has said:

"Plainly no divine fiat compounded man out of the dust of the earth and the universal spirit on a Friday in the year 4004 B.C. It is harder than once it was to see God walking in that garden in the cool of the evening" ( Sperry, Signs of These Times, New York: Doubleday, 1929, p. 110)

These were just a few examples from Cloud's book. He gave many more infidel quotes from men involved with the RSV. No comments nor explanations are needed. If you do not see from the above what kind of wicked men were responsible for the RSV I can but greatly pity your lack of perception.

QUOTE:
"Hey, since you believe the KJV translators and Erasmus and Luther and so on also were heretical, how did they manage to give us Bibles you generally like? Doesn't that go against all you've just talked about? "

H: Yes, I believe that Erasmus and Luther and the KJV translators were unregenerate men. I have Luther's Bible, but I do not like it. I know it is considered a good version in general. I do not like it for the chief reason that Luther removed and attacked a cardinal point of doctrine from his version by mistranslating. Look up Romans 3:22 and Gal. 2:16 in Luther and then compare to the KJV and the Greek. I have just obtained Erasmus Latin NT and it shall be interested to assess its accuracy. I also have his 1522 TR, and I do not think I will find anything in it to complain over. As for the KJV I like it in spite of its heretical translators. The fact that men like Erasmus and Beza and the KJV translators were able to give good versions in spite of their hereticalness in some areas was most probably due to God's overruling influence. Not inspiration like as (some) KJVo's impute to the KJV translators. The hereticalness of the KJV translators and Erasmus et.al. was not of the same serious degree as that of the modernist RSV producers. The men of old were not modernists, but believed what the Bible said about itself, that it was inerrant and plenary inspired etc. The RSV men were such who denied these cardinal tenets. That is obvious from their quotes. The KJV translators were devote men, as "devote" as unregenerate men can be.
They were conscientious men as regards the word of God and were serious in their translating. I do not think that critics of the KJV and its translators can pinpoint many inconsistencies in the lives and beliefs of the translators apart from their baptismal regeneration heresy, high churchianism, and persecution of Baptists, which they claimedly did. Not to say such as the above is to be condoned, far from it, but by way of comparison with the RSV men the KJV men were decent and judicious, while the RSVites had such negative qualities which disqualified them from Bible translation work, instead their product turned out manifestly corrupt. God was not with them at all, as it is reason He was with the KJV translators to a certain degree, in spite of their not knowing him experimentally.

Harald

 

QUOTE:
I guess I'm not a judicious person then. Scripture defines antichrist as:

- denying Jesus is the Christ
- denying the Father and the Son
- denying Jesus Christ came in the flesh

The pope does not deny any of these things. But maybe that's a topic for another thread in another forum"

H: The word Antichristos as defined by the biblical writers means one who both opposes the real Christ and replaces him by bringing another Christ before men. The Antichrist with capital A both opposes the real and biblically revealed Christ as well as replaces Him in the sense of claiming to be a vicar of His, all this constitutes a denial of the true Christ. Such is the pope of Rome, every pope in fact, at least in the last 1000 years or so. Antichrists others than the pope are such who deny the true Christ of God, and by giving false character descriptions ("denying", through contradicting the Gospel and doctrine of Christ) of Him they bring "another Jesus", 2Cor. 11:4, all of which constitutes a kind of opposition as well. The pope denies all of the three above by constantly bringing Bible contradicting doctrines of demons.

QUOTE:
Nida is manifestly a denier of God and Christ. (H)

"Without evidence, those are just slanderous words. Do you have any evidence? Are you saying that just because he doesn't hold the same view of the translation issue as you do, or do you actually have evidence?"

H: Not slander but truth. And I do not say because he disagree on translation issues, but because it is true of him. Another already gave quote of him being on record as denying propitiation.

Below is a quote of Nida I found on the net from and interview with him in a magazine named Christianity Today.

"In the case of "The righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith," is this God's own personal righteousness? Or is it the way in which God makes us righteous through our faith in Jesus Christ?"

H: Nida says that they way of God's making men righteous is through their faith in Jesus Christ. This is not biblical and thus heretical. It constitutes a denial of Christ and God in the sense that Nida denies the biblical way of how God justifies sinners, not by subjective faith in Christ, but solely by the redemptions which is in Christ Jesus, i.e. by the Person, blood and righteousness of Christ Jesus, God the Son incarnate. The divine method of Justification according to the word of God is that God imputes a perfect righteousness to the persons of His elect people, which righteousness (Christ's) justifies them savingly in the sight of God as Judge. This took place at Calvary's cross when the representative of the election of grace, Jesus Christ, willingly and actively yielded up His spirit. Nida has never believed the Biblical Gospel in the powerful teaching of the Spirit of Christ, 1Thess. 1:4-6, 9. If he had so he would have been a staunch defender of justification by Christ alone until this day.

QUOTE:

Nida says the accounts of angels and miracles are not necessarily to be interpreted literally.
".. wrestling with an angel all have different meanings than in our own culture" (Nida, Message and Mission, p. 41).
(from David Cloud's "Dynamic Equivalency" booklet)

H: Nida does not literally believe the written record God has given through His Son as to the above happening in the OT. This constitutes a denial of God and Christ as to their veracity.

QUOTE:
The vast majority of the translators of the RSV were manifest Christ-denying heretics, men who denied many teachings of the Bible. (H)

"Provide quote (with references) and explanations, or give it a rest."

H: I will quote David Cloud, who in his book "For Love of the Bible" directly quotes some of the RSV translators.

Walter Russell Bowie (1882-1969) served on the RSV NT committee. He has said:

"The story of Abraham comes down from ancient times; and how much of it is fact and how much of it is LEGEND, no one can positively tell" (Bowie, Great Men of the Bible, p. 13)

"The impecatory (sic?) psalms and other utterances like them reflect a God who is dead and ought to be dead-and never was alive except in unredeemed imagination" (Bowie, Where You Find God, p. 25)

Frederick Clifton Grant (1891-1974) served on the RSV NT committee. He has said:

"We may admit at once that the older view of Jesus' life and ministry was NOT ENTIRELY HISTORICAL" (Frederick Grant, The Beginnings of our Religion, New York: Macmillan Co., 1934)

Fleming James (1877-1959) served on the RSV NT committee, and has said:

"What REALLY happened at the Red Sea WE CAN NO LONGER KNOW" (James, The Beginnings of our Religion)

James Moffatt (1870-1944) served on the translation committee for the RSV NT and has said:

"The writers of the New Testament made mistakes in interpreting some of the Old Testament prophecies" ( James Moffatt, The Approach to the New Testament)

William Learoy Sperry (1882-1954) was on the RSV OT committee and has said:

"Plainly no divine fiat compounded man out of the dust of the earth and the universal spirit on a Friday in the year 4004 B.C. It is harder than once it was to see God walking in that garden in the cool of the evening" ( Sperry, Signs of These Times, New York: Doubleday, 1929, p. 110)

These were just a few examples from Cloud's book. He gave many more infidel quotes from men involved with the RSV. No comments nor explanations are needed. If you do not see from the above what kind of wicked men were responsible for the RSV I can but greatly pity your lack of perception.

QUOTE:
"Hey, since you believe the KJV translators and Erasmus and Luther and so on also were heretical, how did they manage to give us Bibles you generally like? Doesn't that go against all you've just talked about? "

H: Yes, I believe that Erasmus and Luther and the KJV translators were unregenerate men. I have Luther's Bible, but I do not like it. I know it is considered a good version in general. I do not like it for the chief reason that Luther removed and attacked a cardinal point of doctrine from his version by mistranslating. Look up Romans 3:22 and Gal. 2:16 in Luther and then compare to the KJV and the Greek. I have just obtained Erasmus Latin NT and it shall be interested to assess its accuracy. I also have his 1522 TR, and I do not think I will find anything in it to complain over. As for the KJV I like it in spite of its heretical translators. The fact that men like Erasmus and Beza and the KJV translators were able to give good versions in spite of their hereticalness in some areas was most probably due to God's overruling influence. Not inspiration like as (some) KJVo's impute to the KJV translators. The hereticalness of the KJV translators and Erasmus et.al. was not of the same serious degree as that of the modernist RSV producers. The men of old were not modernists, but believed what the Bible said about itself, that it was inerrant and plenary inspired etc. The RSV men were such who denied these cardinal tenets. That is obvious from their quotes. The KJV translators were devote men, as "devote" as unregenerate men can be.
They were conscientious men as regards the word of God and were serious in their translating. I do not think that critics of the KJV and its translators can pinpoint many inconsistencies in the lives and beliefs of the translators apart from their baptismal regeneration heresy, high churchianism, and persecution of Baptists, which they claimedly did. Not to say such as the above is to be condoned, far from it, but by way of comparison with the RSV men the KJV men were decent and judicious, while the RSVites had such negative qualities which disqualified them from Bible translation work, instead their product turned out manifestly corrupt. God was not with them at all, as it is reason He was with the KJV translators to a certain degree, in spite of their not knowing him experimentally.

Harald

 

Before I didn't agree with you. Now I don't even understand you.

Except he didn't deny propitiation, as far as I can tell. Care to simply disect the quote and explain how?

Let's see... I can believe you, or I can believe Heb 2:14-18 and Heb 4:15.

No, the word is only used in 1 John 2:18, 2:22, 4:3 and 2 John 1:7. It is defined by John to mean exactly what I posted earlier.

If you want to debate the Pope being the Antichrist, you should probably start a thread in a different forum.

Why is it so hard to get people to provide references?!? Harald, if you found it on the net, it is a *simple* matter to provide the link so we all can look at context. Please do so.

What???? If it is solely by Christ, with no need of faith from us, then our faith is useless and God should use Christ's redemptive act to save everyone, regardless of their faith or lack thereof.

This one reeks of being ripped out of context.

No, sorry to burst your bubble, but "having a different interpretation that Harald about a cliche about angels" does not equal "denial of God and Christ".

Ah, good old Cloud.

I've seen other quotes from Bowie, and it appears to me that in this book he is not talking solely of scripture, but of "enthusiastic traditions which had come down through the folklore of the people of Israel" (ibid, p. 1). Thus, his quote would in fact be true.

I'd love to see context for this one.

So what is "the older view of Jesus' life and ministry" that he is referring to? Context would provide the answer.

Context? Is this referring to the parting of the sea, or other events that are part of Jewish tradition?

Context? Is this referring to what they wrote in the NT, or what they thought but didn't write in the NT? Also, are you saying it's heretical to believe the NT authors didn't always have perfect understanding of prophecy?

Context? Also, a "divine fiat" is not God himself, but a decree. In other words, a decree didn't create man, God created man. Maybe that's what he's saying. His quote may also be referring not to the creation, but the year 4004 B.C. - maybe that's what he disagrees with.

Cloud, as do most KJV-only authors, have a reputation of ripping quotes out of context. I've been examining quotes for several years, and it's pretty unusual that someone they quote is accurately represented.

Thank you for your pity. The fact is, a small snippet of a quote, without context, is hardly enough to make a sound judgment on. You should know that.

I was not asking why you don't like them, but simply pointing out the fact that you are rejecting other Bibles because you don't like the men behind them, yet you accept these Bibles despite not liking the men behind them. This is a double standard.

BTW, who from history *do* you like? Who *isn't* a heretic? It sounds like it should be a short list.

 

Herald,
Why do you make such blanket statements about things as though you alone know what the facts are? You constantly take Scripture verses and split hairs over meaningless issues.

For instance, you say,

" Nida says that they way of God's making men righteous is through their faith in Jesus Christ. This is not biblical and thus heretical."

Now, almost every Christian I know of would agree with the statement, "God's way of making men righteous is through their faith in Jesus Christ." I do not believe that they are all "heretics" as you would say. And, I do not believe that just because they do not break everything down to its express Greek or Hebrew root word means that these people are unbelievers.

Herald, you are so quick to judge everyone's motives. It seems that few people, other than you, yourself, are able to live up to your theological expectations. You do not have any idea about the spiritual condition of the people you actually know and associate with on a day to day basis. How could you possible know the spiritual condition of men who lived hundreds of years ago? It is preposterous for you to even make such unprovable claims as these.

Herald, you also refer to the fact that true believers would understand the impeccability of Christ. These are theological debates that have been going on for thousands of years and now you speak as though anyone who does not agree with you is obviously just some type of "anti-Christ," or in the case of the Pope, the "Anti-Christ." How is it that you, alone, have been able to solve all these mysteries by yourself. Doesn't this seem a little presumptuous on your part?

 

Harald I would love for you to explain away the Bibles assertion that Jesus was tempted as we.
Murpgh

 

QUOTE:
"Harald I have already reminded you that the scripture says He was tempted as we yet without sin. #1 Temptation is not sin but rather the falling to temptation. The devil set out to tempt Christ in the wilderness but failed because He did not sin. #2 If He could not sin then his humanity was useless, the payment was made possible by the fact that he walked a sinless life, if the "fix" was in and there was no possibility of sin then satan could have rightly protested, God is even fair to satan. satan knew that Jesus was fully human and that is why he tempted Him, your opinion if true would make the sinless walk of our Lord less important. I may not convince you but I do ask you to explain the scripture away which says He was tempted.
Murph "

H: Murphy. The below, read it, and hopefully learn something as to what has been discussed:

"The idea that Jesus Christ could be tempted is unfounded in the Biblical concept of Christ’s Person. Since Christ did not have a sin nature, solicitation to do something contrary to God’s will could not be entertained in His holy thought. Therefore, He could not be tempted. A study of James 1:2-15 proves that temptation has no power over a perfect Person, but it does over a depraved person.

The very heart of Christianity is the Person of Christ. Moreover, the Scriptures focus not only on the Person of Jesus Christ but also on His Work. However, we must ever keep in mind that Christ’s Person preceded His Work, for He is the eternal Son of God.
Salvation, the redemptive Work of Jesus Christ, is vitally connected with His Person. His Person and not His Work gives value to His Work. If Jesus Christ is not who the Bible represents Him to be, then His Work as Redeemer and Savior would be invalid. Thus, those who affirm His peccability invalidate His Work. There is such an inseparability between Christ’s Person and Work that any separation would cause one to go astray with respect to both. Thus, the slightest abstract notion of His Person would take from the real essence of His Work. Moreover, an isolated consideration of His Work is impossible because it can only be known in connection with His Person. His Person cannot be isolated from His Work, and His Work cannot be isolated from His Person.

Failure to know Jesus Christ is failure to understand His Work. Furthermore, failure to see His Work in its correct perspective is failure to understand His Person. The starting point of Christology must be the entire witness of Holy Scripture concerning both Christ’s Person and His Work.

Temptation has no power over a perfect Person, but it does over a depraved person. Jesus Christ, during His days in the flesh, was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners (Heb. 7:26). To suggest that He had a nature subject to sin is nothing short of blasphemy. On the other hand, depraved men are capable of sin because each one has a mind that is ready to receive an evil suggestion. Man is tempted when he is drawn away by his own lust (James 1:14). The Greek word for "lust" is epithumia. It means lust, desire, craving, or longing. A person is tempted when he is enticed by his own craving for that which is forbidden or unlawful. No one who understands the Biblical teaching concerning the Person of Jesus Christ could entertain a thought that He could desire the unlawful or forbidden. That is why James said, "God cannot be tempted with evil" (James 1:13).


The word "temptation" does not always carry the same connotation in every passage where it is used. It comes from the Greek word peirasmos, which means trial, proof, or temptation. The noun is related to the verb peiradzo, which means to test, to try, or to tempt. Both words may be used in either a good or a bad sense. For example, the noun is used in James 1:2 and 12; and the verb is used four times in James 1:13 and 14. In James 1:2 and 12, the noun would be better translated "trial." ...distinction must be made between remaining steadfast under trial and being ensnared by one’s own sinful nature. The former is outward, and the latter is inward. God tried Abraham (Heb. 11:17; Gen. 22:1), but He did not tempt Abraham. The word "tempt" of Genesis 22:1 should be "tried" or "tested," because "...God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man" (James 1:13). This means that God is incapable not only of being solicited to sin but of soliciting any man to sin. On the other hand, God does try or test man to prove to him what he really is (I Pet. 1:6; 4:12; Rev. 2:2, 10; 3:10). Outward trials are from God, but inward temptations are from the evil passion of depraved man.

Those who claim that Jesus Christ had the capacity to sin are forced to admit that He became less than God in the incarnation. Such thinking is in direct opposition to Scripture which states: "...God cannot be tempted (apeirastos, an adjective which means inexperienced in temptation; incapable of being tempted) with evil (kakon, genitive plural of kakos -of evils)..." (James 1:13). God can never be induced to act inconsistently with any attribute of His character. The human nature of the Son of God in His incarnation did not exist apart from the Divine Person. If Jesus Christ had the capacity to sin, the Divine Person had the capacity to sin. His holy, human nature united to His Divine nature eliminates any concept of peccability (Luke 1:35). There can never be any conflict between two absolutely holy natures. The Bible says Christ was made in the "likeness of men" (Phil. 2:7), but it never says He possessed a "sinful nature" or was nothing more than a mere man.

This is the question: Did Satan ever find a weak spot in Jesus Christ? Since there was no weakness in Him, He could never be solicited to do anything contrary to His holy character. Therefore, Jesus Christ could not be tempted with evil (James 1:13). It must be understood that evil exists in man before it comes forth from him in action. On the other hand, there was no evil in Christ. He could not be tempted by any suggestion or solicitation from without.
To say that Christ could have sinned as to His human nature but not as to His Divine nature forces one to conclude that there was a conflict between His two natures. This was impossible because His human nature was united to His Divine Person.


One cannot deny that the Devil made some offers to Christ in the wilderness. Neither can one deny that the eternal Son was eternally aware of every detail of the offers made by the Devil. But it is nothing short of blasphemy to entertain the thought that the Son of God wanted anything offered by the Devil. Some religious leaders are so full of iniquity that they maintain that the human nature of Jesus Christ was as fallen and rebellious as their own. The Bible teaches that the human nature is corrupt from head to foot (Is. 1:6), but it is a sign of spiritual blindness to imagine that Christ’s human nature was tainted with depravity. Christ’s human nature is called "that holy thing" (Luke 1:35).

Jesus Christ experienced only the suffering part of peirasmos; whereas, man experiences both the suffering and the sinning parts of temptation. Suggestion can do nothing without lust (desire). Christ had no lust; therefore, He did not suffer the sinning part of temptation. That which inwardly tempts the heart must come from within oneself: "...man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed" (James 1:14). Lust and enticement work together. The Greek word for "enticed" of verse 14 is deleadzo, which means to entrap, to catch with a bait, to allure, or entice. Hence, it can be said that one is enticed to sin when he is entrapped by his own craving. This means there is something in depraved man that is drawn (exelko, to draw out; metaphorically to hurry away-leap) to the lure of something within the temptation. Both "drawn" (exelkomenos) and "enticed" (deleadzomenos) are present passive participles. The passive voice means the subject was acted upon. But in James 1:15, the apostle went on to say, "Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin." The Greek word for "conceived" is sullabousa, second aorist active participle of sullambano, which means to seize, to apprehend, to conceive, or to become pregnant. This means that when the suggestion is embraced by the assent of the will, sin is brought forth. James is using the language of pregnancy and childbirth. As a child is alive before the actual moment of birth, sin does not begin to be sinful only when it is manifested in a visible action. Jesus Christ did not have a depraved will to give assent to any evil suggestion. Therefore, there could never be any conception, which proves Christ was not peccable.

When one understands the Biblical use of temptation, he will have no problem with the so-called "temptation of Christ." Jesus Christ was not tempted, but He was "tried" to prove to mankind who He is-God incarnate. Temptation, in the English language, is the act of tempting. It is something that tempts, entices, or allures. It is the fact or state of being tempted, especially to evil. On the other hand, the word "test" is the means by which the quality or genuineness of anything is determined, a means of trial. It is the trial of the quality of something. Jesus Christ asserted His own impeccability when He said, "...the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me" (John 14:30). Satan had nothing in the incarnate Word because Jesus Christ "...knew no sin..." (II Cor. 5:21) and "...in him is no sin" (I John 3:5). Therefore, He "...did no sin..." (I Pet. 2:22).

Religious institutions that embrace the doctrine that Christ was peccable (capable of sinning) are Laodicean organizations. Like the Laodicean Church of Revelation 3:14-22, they may be rich, increased with goods, and feel they have need of nothing. But they are spiritually wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked. They are Laodicean because they have closed the door to the impeccable Christ of Holy Scripture. Hence, the impeccable Christ of the Bible is standing at the door of those religious institutions knocking for entrance. Christ’s knocking is not at the door of unregenerate hearts but upon the door of regenerate hearts to repent and come out as witnesses against the apostates-those who have turned their backs on the Biblical truth of Christ’s impeccability. It is absolutely unthinkable to imagine that the Holy Spirit who regenerates the elect would lead the regenerated to embrace a peccable Christ. No one can have a true conversion experience by believing in a peccable savior. Jesus Christ comes into and has fellowship with only those who embrace Him as the impeccable Savior.
The teaching that Christ was peccable has become a popular doctrine among religionists. The following list briefly states the beliefs of some who teach that Christ could sin:
1. One believes that depravity was imparted to Christ in birth making it possible for Him to sin and to suffer for sin. Thus, He was more sympathetic to us in our depravity.
2. Another believes that Christ, as man, could have sinned but did not and was tempted but did not yield. The so-called temptation of Christ is regarded as real with a genuine appeal to Him as a man.
3. Still another believes that it was in God’s plan to give Satan occasion to try to cause Christ to sin. Passing this test would prove that Christ is the qualified God-Man.
4. This person says that Christ, being human, found Satan’s offers attractive; and although He did not, He could have chosen to sin.
5. This final view is more subtle. Although He did not experience sin, He was subjected to the temptation. Thus, His intercession for us is with greater understanding. His power of feeling for our needs is greater because He has experienced the strength of the temptation to sin. How can one feel what he has not experienced?

Impeccability means Christ could not sin, and peccability means He could sin. Some uninformed "church members" (religionists) may not feel that the controversy is serious enough to cause divisions. However, God’s elect who have been led by the Spirit of regeneration to embrace the impeccable Savior in a true conversion experience are responsible to cry out against the heresy of peccability. In fact, they, like Athanasius of old, cannot keep quiet when the Person of their Savior is being questioned.
Peccability is related to temptability. This means that man is tempted to outward sin by inward sin. Inward sin is the fruit of depravity. The aim of temptation is to persuade man to outwardly manifest inward sin and to bring him to the guilt of his inward and outward sin before others. No person can be tempted to sin without a sinful propensity. Thus, the difference between sin and temptation is revealed.

Those who embrace the doctrine of peccability say the impossibility for Christ to sin would destroy the whole meaning of temptation in the life of Christ. Their opinion is that although Christ was without sin, He was not without the susceptibility to temptation. Furthermore, they claim that the area of testing and the potential for falling were in His humanity. They conclude that since He was fully human, He could have made the wrong choice.

There is a more profound truth than "yet without sin" or "without committing sin." The Greek word choris is an adjective which means apart from, without, on a distinct footing from, or independently of. The most common interpretation of choris hamartias is "without yielding to sin," but it has a stronger meaning. In Christ’s statement, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her" (John 8:7), the Greek word for "without sin" is anamartatos (used only here), which means without sin or guiltless. In this case, it means he who has committed no sin. However, choris is stronger in meaning than anamartatos. The Greek word choris is used as an adjective with the ablative of separation in every place with the exception of John 20:7. There, it is used as an adverb. Christ was completely separated from sin because there was no sin in Him to be aroused by temptation. The Lord Jesus did not sin because He could not sin. He was impeccable. Therefore, He remained undefiled in a world of sin."

END OF QUOTE

The above was excerpted from a book named "Christ could not be tempted", written by W E Best.

Harald

 

BrianT

here the link to the Nida interview

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/011/2.46.html

QUOTE:
I was not asking why you don't like them, but simply pointing out the fact that you are rejecting other Bibles because you don't like the men behind them, yet you accept these Bibles despite not liking the men behind them. This is a double standard.

H: I already explained and you do not want to understand. There is no double standard. One line of Bibles were translated by men whose theological understanding was superior to that of the RSV. The quality difference is great. The fact of their unregeneracy does not affect this assessment of fact. I reject inferior versions like the RSV. The theological views of its translators just explain why it is so inferior.

QUOTE:
BTW, who from history *do* you like? Who *isn't* a heretic? It sounds like it should be a short list.

H: There are some men in history I admire for their work in God's vineyard. The following list are men I know were not heretics and who I lift my hat to.

Paul, Peter, John, Barnabas, Luke, Apollos, Jude, James, Titus, Timothy, Philemon, Mark, Matthew, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Moses, Enoch, Noah, Joshua, David, Samuel and other men of God named in the Scriptures

Then post apostolic times:
John Wycliffe, William Kiffin, John Spilsbury, Hercules Collins, Benjamin Cox, Hanserd Knollys, Thomas Patient, Henry D'Anvers, Vavasor Powell, Samuel Richardson, John Skepp, John Brine, John Gill, William Gadsby, John Warburton Sr., John Kershaw, Joseph Charles Philpot, William Rushton, John Warburton Jr., William Tiptaft, John McKenzie, Frank Luther Gosden, Abel Morgan, Obadiah Holmes, John Gano, John Clark, Samuel Jones, Fred Windridge, Caleb Sawyer, Wingfred J Berry


Harald

 

Funny. I know of two perfect people who gave into temptation to sin.

Ummm....three words: Adam and Eve.

I am not saying (nor do I believe anyone else here) that He was 'subject' to sin. I am saying that He was tempted, real temptation, and yet He chose not to sin and instead to be obedient to the Father.

And those who claim that Christ was not able to sin are forced to admit He did not fully become human in the incarnation.

Wrong. Evil has no essence in and of itself. It is the privation of good. Without good, there would be no such thing as evil. It does not just simply exist.

Sure seems He was solicited in Matt. 4, Mark 1, Luke 4, Heb. 2:18, and Heb. 4:15.

How is that different from soliciting?

I am not saying He 'wanted' what the devil had to offer. However, He had a choice before Him. He could have chose either way. He chose the Father's will.

I seriously doubt that anyone here is doing that.

And those who say He did not face a real choice deny that Christ was truly human. That seems to be heresy (denying Christ truly became human). Christ is the last Adam. Adam was perfect. He chose wrong. Christ was perfect (I am only talking of His humanity here). He chose right.

This sounds great. But the whole argument falls apart when you think about Adam and Eve. Surely you would not say that God created them with a sin nature, would you? They were completely separated from sin. There was nothing to be aroused (using the logic from the quote). So how in the world did they ever sin? However, it is clear that even though they were perfect and had no sin nature they could give into sin, and did. Christ chose to be obedient to the Father. Good try, but you must take the whole of Scripture. All this 'proof' in the article could equally apply to Adam and Eve's humanity, yet they sinned. Thus the 'proof' is no proof at all.

In the Lord Jesus Christ,
Neal

 

Adam and Eve are never called holy, they were created innocent.

Jesus Christ IS holy from birth to death.

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

The tempter was Satan, he found nothing to put his hooks into with Christ, He did not have the wherewithal to sin.

John 14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.

There was not one particle of darkness in Him.

James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Is the Son any different in nature and essence than the Father!?

If we say that the Son could sin then we of necessity must say that the Father can sin.

John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

"The Father and I are one".

Jesus is/was the perfect human being. It is we who are the defiled and imperfect.

HankD

 

So Adam and Eve were not set apart to the Lord, created for Him? (Remember, holy means "set apart")

Absolutely agreed. I just don't see Jesus having a leg up because of His divinity. If it was easier for Jesus, i.e. He could not sin in the flesh, then He was not fully human. It is really very simple. At best, you have Him putting on a show during His temptation and the Scriptures being less than truthful in Heb. 2:18 and 4:15. Also, it was a fiasco when He was praying in the garden before His betrayal. There was no choice for Him. Why would He ever pray for the Father to take the cup from Him, yet defer to the Father's will if He did not have a choice? Or did He?

I appreciate your effort, but bottom line, the argument falls apart when you think of Adam and Eve. Unless you are willing to say that Christ was not the last Adam. If Christ's temptation was a mere formality then why was it not before a group of people to witness it? But it was alone in the desert. There has to be something more to it that just going through the motions. Christ was fully human and fully God. If His divinity helped out His humanity then He was NOT fully human.

God Bless and Praise to the Lord Jesus!
Neal

 

Please show me where the Bible says they were created innocent.

God Bless,
Neal

 

OK so it doesn't use that word.

They are/were created beings and No where does the Word of God call them holy.

Use whatever word you want as to their condition.

Christ' temptation was at the hand of Satan.
It was for our benefit to show that He could not sin even it meant He had to sacrifice His life.

He suffered death because of this test-temptation. He suffered the consequence of sin but not the sin.

So if He was able to sin and sinned what then, would have He become perfectly human.

A perfect human, as we will be one day is sinless and not only that, unable to sin.

HankD

[ July 07, 2003, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Okay. So why is it okay for you to go around inferring that they were innocent? (Which I agree with.) Were they not set apart for God, created for Him? Were they perfect people?

You have changed the subject to holiness. They above article was using things related to perfection. Adam and Eve were perfect, without a sin nature. Thus, the argument falls apart.

In Christ,
Neal

P.S. No, I do not think that Adam and Eve were equal to Christ. They did not have a divine nature. However, in respects to humanness, they were on the same playing field as Christ. Adam made the wrong choices. Christ made the right ones.