Why Luther rejected James- it refuted his faith alone doctrine

[BJ Bear]

Stay where you are...... Hide.

You're still saved.

So says the guy who in this thread in his own challenge insists on not teaching what Scripture says and means. It is only the evil one who convinces people that a right understanding of Scripture is apart from and different from the marks on the page. It is a modern variation on, "Did God really say?" Now it is, "Did God really write?"

 

[GeneZ]

So says the guy who in this thread in his own challenge insists on not teaching what Scripture says and means. It is only the evil one who convinces people that a right understanding of Scripture is apart from and different from the marks on the page. It is a modern variation on, "Did God really say?" Now it is, "Did God really write?"

Everything I showed you about Matthew 4:3 can be verified by any COMPETENT person who knows koine Greek.

And, its the Greek that expresses the Word of God with accuracy. Its why God chose Greek to be used.

Your English translation that you have been depending upon has let you down in this case.

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching,
rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."

2 Timothy 3:16
​

In Matthew 4:3, Satan was not trying to get Jesus to prove who He was. The Greek reveals that Satan knew Jesus was the Son of God. Your English translation is misleading, and makes it look like Satan was taunting Jesus to prove He is the Son of God by performing a miracle of turning stones into bread.

The real temptation was to get Jesus to step outside of the Father's plan for Jesus to remain as a man. To take back up His powers of Deity.
Jesus had to remain as a man to qualify to die in our place.. as a man. Satan wanted to tempt Jesus to disqualify Himself to be able to take the place of all men when He hung on the Cross! If He gave in and returned to being as God .. and no longer as a man.... salvation for all men would have been lost.

Learn something for once that requires one to be humbled to accept it.
..........................

 

[BJ Bear]

Everything I showed you about Matthew 4:3 can be verified by any COMPETENT person who knows koine Greek.

And, its the Greek that expresses the Word of God with accuracy. Its why God chose Greek to be used.

Your English translation that you have been depending upon has let you down in this case.

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching,
rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."

2 Timothy 3:16​

If you knew koine or had a working knowledge of it then you would realize that your claims are illogical because they don't accurately reflect the text.

In Matthew 4:3, Satan was not trying to get Jesus to prove who He was. The Greek reveals that Satan knew Jesus was the Son of God. Your English translation is misleading, and makes it look like Satan was taunting Jesus to prove He is the Son of God by performing a miracle of turning stones into bread. The real temptation was to get Jesus to step outside of the Father's plan for Jesus to remain as a man. Jesus had to remain as a man to qualify to die in our place.. as a man.

That's a nice story built on illogical conjecture which from what you have posted has apparently lead you to reach unnecessary conclusions.

Learn something for once that requires one to be humbled to accept it.
..........................

Learn to use an English dictionary. If you do then you will know why the almost universal English translation of the pertinent section of Matt 4:3 is not misleading.

And after you do that you can explain why you appeal to pagan philosophy to justify the soothsayer interpretation you keep insisting is correct.

For everyone's convenience, a person can click on the link below for an entry for if in a run of the mill dictionary.

Definition of if | Dictionary.com

If definition, in case that; granting or supposing that; on condition that: Sing if you want to. Stay indoors if it rains. I'll go if you do. See more.

www.dictionary.com

Since there was a link on that page to synonyms for the word if that link is also posted for who would prefer that..

Synonyms of if | Thesaurus.com

Synonyms for if from Thesaurus.com, the world’s leading online source for synonyms, antonyms, and more.

www.thesaurus.com

 

[GeneZ]

If you knew koine or had a working knowledge of it then you would realize that your claims are illogical because they don't accurately reflect the text.

Do you know what the first class condition in the koine Greek is?

Second class condition?

Third class condition?

And.. forth class condition.

Do you?

They were created by the Greeks for debating.
The Greek culture adored watching debates.

 

[Nic]

@GeneZ
With your apparent preferential method of interpretation and in view of the fact that you freely admit errors occur some or more of the time, how does one identify and consequently correct such an error while following that method?

In other words from an epistemological argument,
how do you know what you know, especially when the results, at least some of the time, remain fluid and are subject to change?

I would have to say I don't find much comfort with those conditions and results, but I should, right?

Thanks...

Follow up questioning would be, what do you see as advantages and disadvantages, if any from your point of view, of your opined and apparent dispensational approach?

Why again is this method better than any other methods of interpretation?

Personally, I came to appreciate that different starting points result in different emphases and different conclusions. For me this amount of uncertainty was most unsettling. Am I wrong here? If so, why?

This last set of queries is often the biggest difference with understanding a reformation view [Lutheran here] vs. a more synergistic view of salvation.

Would you say salvation occurs outside of man and his will or is it dependent on man's will? And why? (Brevity here in particular is fine.)

Thanks again. I ask all these things because these are things I feel I can more or less adequately addressed from a Lutheran perspective and these questions would serve to highlight our differences as I see it.

Ask away as you see fit?

Nic?

 

[GeneZ]

@GeneZ
With your apparent preferential method of interpretation and in view of the fact that you freely admit errors occur some or more of the time, how does one identify and consequently correct such an error while following that method?

Its good old fashioned exegesis. Haven't you ever seen it in action from some pulpit?

 

[Nic]

Its good old fashioned exegesis. Haven't you ever seen it in action from some pulpit?

Personally in varying settings I have seen some people perform or attempt exegesis, sometimes it's enlightening. At other times it's stilted and contrived resulting in confirmation bias. In my view that's a pretty sizable spectrum to navigate and to avoid error; subtle or otherwise. One problem for me is, it essentially makes me the editor of God's word.

Well you previously stated using your method can result in error, so am I to conclude that error can be expected with good old exegesis any number of times?

The follow up would be, how can something once thought to be true by good old exegesis now be considered error by the same good old exegesis perhaps by the very same individual?

How is that reckoned? What does that process even look like?

How then do you know, you won't later dispose and replace your present conclusions on the same matter in the future?

How is that for surety or comfort of God's word to the believer?

What do you consider the most valuable revelation to glean from God's holy writ? Eg. The Reformed will typically say, God is Sovereign, what do you say?

Thanks.?
p.s. added joke for levity
Exegesis was good enough for Paul, it's good enough for me... ( Often expressed KJV in place of 'exegesis')

 

[BJ Bear]

Do you know what the first class condition in the koine Greek is?

Second class condition?

Third class condition?

And.. forth class condition.

Do you?

They were created by the Greeks for debating.
The Greek culture adored watching debates.

Yes, but you are only digging the proverbial hole deeper.

That attempt at misdirection isn't going to work because for the benefit of all, perhaps even you, here is a simple description and slightly more detailed summary pdf for all to follow along.

The description.

The pdf.

The English word if is an adequate and accurate translation in all four classes. The same help necessary for the Greek conditional to be used in each class is available to the English word if.

Getting back to what Scripture says and means:

We all still know that the point you have been trying to make because of the conditional in Matt. 4:3 is irrelevant because it is out of context. Read the text closely and you will find that neither Jesus or Satan are Greek philosophers, neither one is engaged in a debate, and Jesus doesn't even acknowledge the words, "If you are the Son of God."

In each temptation Jesus responded with the law given through Moses. The one which He came to fulfill rather than abolish, the one which testifies of Him.

Jesus did what the sinless man does.

 

[BJ Bear]

Personally, I came to appreciate that different starting points result in different emphases and different conclusions. For me this amount of uncertainty was most unsettling. Am I wrong here? If so, why?

Maybe you should change your sig to Hawkeye?

 

[GeneZ]

Personally in varying settings I have seen some people perform or attempt exegesis, sometimes it's enlightening. At other times it's stilted and contrived resulting in confirmation bias. In my view that's a pretty sizable spectrum to navigate and to avoid error; subtle or otherwise. One problem for me is, it essentially makes me the editor of God's word.

Well you previously stated using your method can result in error, so am I to conclude that error can be expected with good old exegesis any number of times?

The follow up would be, how can something once thought to be true by good old exegesis now be considered error by the same good old exegesis perhaps by the very same individual?

How is that reckoned? What does that process even look like?

How then do you know, you won't later dispose and replace your present conclusions on the same matter in the future?

How is that for surety or comfort of God's word to the believer?

What do you consider the most valuable revelation to glean from God's holy writ? Eg. The Reformed will typically say, God is Sovereign, what do you say?

Thanks.?
p.s. added joke for levity
Exegesis was good enough for Paul, it's good enough for me... ( Often expressed KJV in place of 'exegesis')

I have no idea what your background is.... And, it seems its the filter from which you evaluate what I say.
You tell me about 'good exegesis' and 'bad exegesis.'

Its the good that counts. The bad does not nullify to good. But, with you? I wonder what you are looking for in Christ.

And, with that in mind?

I wish you a 'good day!'

 

[GeneZ]

Yes, but you are only digging the proverbial hole deeper.

That attempt at misdirection isn't going to work because for the benefit of all, perhaps even you, here is a simple description and slightly more detailed summary pdf for all to follow along.

The description.

The pdf.

The English word if is an adequate and accurate translation in all four classes. The same help necessary for the Greek conditional to be used in each class is available to the English word if.

Getting back to what Scripture says and means:

We all still know that the point you have been trying to make because of the conditional in Matt. 4:3 is irrelevant because it is out of context. Read the text closely and you will find that neither Jesus or Satan are Greek philosophers, neither one is engaged in a debate, and Jesus doesn't even acknowledge the words, "If you are the Son of God."

In each temptation Jesus responded with the law given through Moses. The one which He came to fulfill rather than abolish, the one which testifies of Him.

Jesus did what the sinless man does.

You make declarations about translations in hopes that they are true.

 

[Nic]

I have no idea what your background is.... And, it seems its the filter from which you evaluate what I say.
You tell me about 'good exegesis' and 'bad exegesis.'

Its the good that counts. The bad does not nullify to good. But, with you? I wonder what you are looking for in Christ.

And, with that in mind?

I wish you a 'good day!'

Everyone has a "filter" as you call it, that we view, hear, experience and process in attempts to better understand whatever a given context may be. I would take it a step further and say everyone is prone to error, with wickedly sinful hearts bent towards sin with all things. Eg. Sinful reason, sinful good works, etc....

You're are the fellow who spoke of errors occuring after my inquiry. You restated as much in this reply where you say the bad doesn't nullify the good.
I've asked twice, I'll try one more time how is it one knows with certainty what they know is true? Bearing in mind your position in the least is somewhat or potentially fluid and can be different later than what believed today.

Christ rescues us solely, purely and freely by given gift of faith by means of the gospel, I'm quite comfortable with that.

Please allow me to give you a few starting points that result in differences. Think of n-centered as being the interpretative key of scripture for that group, where n = a specific group.
The Roman church is episcopate-centered w/ unity through the pope.
The Reformed church is Theo-centered w/ Sovereignty of God and the Doctrines of Grace.
Dispensational bodies are Israel-centered.
And Lutheran bodies are Christ-centered.
These differences result in different outcomes across the board in varying degrees. It would be likey that most of us are comfortable believing that our personal starting points are true.

Thanks.

 

[BJ Bear]

You make declarations about translations in hopes that they are true.

Scripture tells us that all men who are not God incarnate are sinful and sin. An obvious result of this is that we all make mistakes as we go through life.

I don't know if you read either of the previous links regarding Greek conditionals, but the author based his work on Wallace's GGBB. If a person goes to the cited section of GGBB he will read the following.

"First Class Condition (Assumed True For Argument's Sake)
...
b. Amplification
1) Not "Since"
There are two views of the first class condition that need to be avoided. First is the error of saying too much about its meaning. The first class condition is popularly taken to mean the condition of reality or the condition of truth. Many have heard this from the pulpit, "In the Greek this condition means 'since.' 11" Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics, p. 690, (c)Zondervan (emphasis mine)

In footnote 11 Wallace lists several Grammarians whose words have been misunderstood. "But their language has been often misunderstood: "assumption of truth" has been interpreted to mean "truth." ibid.

For your convenience, here is an example of the misunderstood words from BDF.

"371.Introduction. The following five forms of conditional sentence are represented in classical Greek: (1) Ei with the indicative of all tenses denotes a simple conditional assumption with
emphasis on the reality of the assumption (not of what is being assumed): the condition is considered‘a real case’." BDF, 1961, p. 188 (emphasis mine)

The reasoning and consequent imaginative misinterpretation you offered for Matthew 4:3-4 appear to be downstream from the misunderstanding of which Wallace wrote. The one error led to further errors.

Sticking with the immediate context and the interpretive key given by Jesus would have excluded those out of context errors.

Peace.

 

[Bonnie]

Everything I showed you about Matthew 4:3 can be verified by any COMPETENT person who knows koine Greek.

And, its the Greek that expresses the Word of God with accuracy. Its why God chose Greek to be used.

Your English translation that you have been depending upon has let you down in this case.

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching,
rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."

2 Timothy 3:16
​

In Matthew 4:3, Satan was not trying to get Jesus to prove who He was. The Greek reveals that Satan knew Jesus was the Son of God. Your English translation is misleading, and makes it look like Satan was taunting Jesus to prove He is the Son of God by performing a miracle of turning stones into bread.

The real temptation was to get Jesus to step outside of the Father's plan for Jesus to remain as a man. To take back up His powers of Deity.
Jesus had to remain as a man to qualify to die in our place.. as a man. Satan wanted to tempt Jesus to disqualify Himself to be able to take the place of all men when He hung on the Cross! If He gave in and returned to being as God .. and no longer as a man.... salvation for all men would have been lost.

Learn something for once that requires one to be humbled to accept it.
..........................

I think what Satan did was trying to get Jesus to sin, which would have made it impossible for Him to become the perfect sacrifice for sin for us, and thus, there would have been NO salvation whatsoever for anyone.

Honestly, this ain't rocket science or brain surgery....

 

[GeneZ]

Scripture tells us that all men who are not God incarnate are sinful and sin. An obvious result of this is that we all make mistakes as we go through life.

I don't know if you read either of the previous links regarding Greek conditionals, but the author based his work on Wallace's GGBB. If a person goes to the cited section of GGBB he will read the following.

"First Class Condition (Assumed True For Argument's Sake)
...
b. Amplification
1) Not "Since"
There are two views of the first class condition that need to be avoided. First is the error of saying too much about its meaning. The first class condition is popularly taken to mean the condition of reality or the condition of truth. Many have heard this from the pulpit, "In the Greek this condition means 'since.' 11" Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics, p. 690, (c)Zondervan (emphasis mine)

In footnote 11 Wallace lists several Grammarians whose words have been misunderstood. "But their language has been often misunderstood: "assumption of truth" has been interpreted to mean "truth." ibid.

For your convenience, here is an example of the misunderstood words from BDF.

"371.Introduction. The following five forms of conditional sentence are represented in classical Greek: (1) Ei with the indicative of all tenses denotes a simple conditional assumption with
emphasis on the reality of the assumption (not of what is being assumed): the condition is considered‘a real case’." BDF, 1961, p. 188 (emphasis mine)

The reasoning and consequent imaginative misinterpretation you offered for Matthew 4:3-4 appear to be downstream from the misunderstanding of which Wallace wrote. The one error led to further errors.

Sticking with the immediate context and the interpretive key given by Jesus would have excluded those out of context errors.

Peace.

Moreover, demons came out of many people, shouting, “You are the Son of God!” ​

But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew he was ​

the Messiah." Luke 4:41​

Read that?

Satan had to know who Jesus was. He had to! For even the demons who Jesus cast out were declaring him to be the Son of God!
Jesus had to tell them to keep quiet about it.

Therefore, Matthew 4:3 could not be a matter of Satan wanting to prove he was the Son of God. The first class condition in the Greek simply
revealed that reality.

But, as I wished to point out. English translations are too many times deficient and in need of clarifying.... False doctrines find fertile ground in such a mess.

We need to seek those few God has provided for His body who can show us these factors, lest we float along in ignorant blisters.

That is why its true that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. We should have reason to fear when knowing we are helpless to know in our own strength what God has provided answers for.

For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit ​

their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say ​

what their itching ears want to hear." 2 Timothy 4:3​

And, we must learn the need to submit to God's ordained system for spirituality by allowing the Spirit to control our life to find the "few" who will be able to provide answers with sound doctrine as God would have it revealed for our own day.

Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, ​

but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear ​

and trembling." Philippians 2:12​

The subtle boastful confidence some express here is simply their defense against God placing us in such a state of mind with a desire to overcome the fear that must come. Their defense can be done with stubbornness and close mindedness. Making up their mind to just believe something and not budge.

Each one of us must work out our own salvation. Work out to overcome the fear that God's ways in our life makes inevitable. Demons will be fighting in our minds to keep us from truth. For they know that the truth will set us free from their influencing our lives.....


grace and peace ...............

 

[Nic]

I think what Satan did was trying to get Jesus to sin, which would have made it impossible for Him to become the perfect sacrifice for sin for us, and thus, there would have been NO salvation whatsoever for anyone.

Honestly, this ain't rocket science or brain surgery....

Sometimes a person can dig so deeply they abandon what the text plainly says altogether. BJ once had a thread, boards ago, about folks who literally conclude that a verse says the exact opposite that what was found on the page. It had to do with person's adding the word "not" into the text as a simple rewrite of their conclusion. Eg. Baptism does [NOT] save us....
This seems eerily similar to me. The guest continues to say we presume, yet the guest can say the same of himself if he only look deeper [as he says he fond of doing] into a mirror.

 

[BJ Bear]

I think what Satan did was trying to get Jesus to sin, which would have made it impossible for Him to become the perfect sacrifice for sin for us, and thus, there would have been NO salvation whatsoever for anyone.

Honestly, this ain't rocket science or brain surgery....

You are right. Satan is a Scripture twister who actually quotes Scripture, but in an alien context, in an out of context manner, for example, the three temptations in Matthew four and Luke four.

The Lord has provided people multiple examples of Satan's method of exegesis being an error which leads to more errors. Unfortunately, there are still some who try to teach others that Satan's method of interpretation is a good or correct method of exegesis which leads to a right understanding of the intended meaning of Scripture if they use it, or someone else holding to the same false story use it.

 

[BJ Bear]

Moreover, demons came out of many people, shouting, “You are the Son of God!” ​

But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew he was ​

the Messiah." Luke 4:41​

Read that?

Sure, but that is irrelevant to a right understanding of Matthew 4:3-4. Why? Because it is out of context. What occurs at one time in one place with regard to one person isn't overruled or modified by what occurs at another time in another place to other persons.

Satan had to know who Jesus was. He had to!

What a person thinks, or conjectures, about Satan's knowledge isn't relevant to Matthew 4:3-4 because it is not the topic and the Greek grammar doesn't support it.

For even the demons who Jesus cast out were declaring him to be the Son of God!
Jesus had to tell them to keep quiet about it.

Therefore, Matthew 4:3 could not be a matter of Satan wanting to prove he was the Son of God. The first class condition in the Greek simply
revealed that reality.

You are still working with a false dichotomy in which both alternatives are false according to the marks on the page, the grammar, and the syntax.

The last nails in the coffin of the falae claim that the misinterpretation you have been offering is based on Greek Grammar will come from a grammarian associated with a Dispensational seminary, if not personally a Dispensationalist.
In the same section regarding conditionals of the first class Wallace used the example of Matt. 13:27-28.

“27. And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. 28. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.” (Mat 12:27-28, KJVA)
Wallace's point regarding the two conditionals is that they can't consistently be translated "since."
And the direct hit are his comments regarding Luke 4:3.
“And the devil said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread.” (Luk 4:3, KJVA)

His comment is, "The force of this is "If--and let us assume that it is for the sake of argument--you are God's Son..." Wallace, GGBB, p.693, (c)Zondervan, (emphasis original)

But, as I wished to point out. English translations are too many times deficient and in need of clarifying.... False doctrines find fertile ground in such a mess.

The only mess you've shown so far is a false claim regarding the Greek grammar and and an imaginative misinterpretation of the Greek and the English.

We need to seek those few God has provided for His body who can show us these factors, lest we float along in ignorant blisters.

Obviously, whoever has mislead you regarding a correct method of exegesis in general and a misunderstanding of Matthew 4:3-4 is not one of those few.

 

[GeneZ]

Obviously, whoever has mislead you regarding a correct method of exegesis in general and a misunderstanding of Matthew 4:3-4 is not one of those few.

Even some bright kid could understand.

That is.. "If" he is bright.

https://deeperstudy.com/if-conditional-sentences-as-a-tool-for-interpreting-the-new-testament/

...............

 

[GeneZ]

Sure, but that is irrelevant to a right understanding of Matthew 4:3-4. Why? Because it is out of context. What occurs at one time in one place with regard to one person isn't overruled or modified by what occurs at another time in another place to other persons.

What a person thinks, or conjectures, about Satan's knowledge isn't relevant to Matthew 4:3-4 because it is not the topic and the Greek grammar doesn't support it.

You are still working with a false dichotomy in which both alternatives are false according to the marks on the page, the grammar, and the syntax.

The last nails in the coffin of the falae claim that the misinterpretation you have been offering is based on Greek Grammar will come from a grammarian associated with a Dispensational seminary, if not personally a Dispensationalist.
In the same section regarding conditionals of the first class Wallace used the example of Matt. 13:27-28.

“27. And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. 28. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.” (Mat 12:27-28, KJVA)
Wallace's point regarding the two conditionals is that they can't consistently be translated "since."
And the direct hit are his comments regarding Luke 4:3.
“And the devil said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread.” (Luk 4:3, KJVA)

His comment is, "The force of this is "If--and let us assume that it is for the sake of argument--you are God's Son..." Wallace, GGBB, p.693, (c)Zondervan, (emphasis original)


The only mess you've shown so far is a false claim regarding the Greek grammar and and an imaginative misinterpretation of the Greek and the English.

Obviously, whoever has mislead you regarding a correct method of exegesis in general and a misunderstanding of Matthew 4:3-4 is not one of those few.

So then?


What do you believe Matthew 4:3-4 is telling us? Since you are obviously a genius on the matter? It should be easy to make it known for our edification. Tell us, please. So that we may become built up in the Truth.


thank you! Awaiting your response.