Ronald R. Walker, M.D.
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2003 9:23 am Post subject: Harold Kupp -- The Blind Guide |
 |
|
Dear ARCA:
A common Scriptural verse, so frequently quoted, and just as frequently misinterpreted, by Harold Kupp is the following, and it has been written:
"... the soul that sinneth, it shall die." (Ezekiel 18:4)
Harold Kupp has attempted to use this verse to support his "God hates sinners" heresy, in that Christians who commit a known sin are forever lost, even if they confess and repent of that sin.
However, the verb "sinneth" in this verse is a "qal participle", which indicates ongoing action, similar to the use of the present participle in the Greek. As a matter of fact, the LXX, the OT of the early Christian Church, "sinneth" is "he hamartanousa", a present, active participle (feminine singular), which in Greek indicates, not isolated acts in the past, but ongoing, habitual acts.
So, does this Scriptural verse teach that, if a Christian sins, then that Christian is forever lost, if they confess and repent of that sin? Definitely not!
It is interesting that Harold Kupp would quote Ezekiel 18:20-21 and it has been written ...
"If the wicked will turn from all his sins ... he shall not die."
.... since that fact that, "if the wicked will turn from all his sins ... he shall not die" indicates that someone who sins can confess and repent of their sins and be saved, which contradicts Harold Kupp's "God hates sinners" heresy.
Of course, Ezekiel 18 was discussed at length in some earlier posts, known to Harold Kupp, so his posting these verses in a futile effort to back his heresies to deliberately deceptive, only providing additional proof that Harold Kupp, who claims "I do not commit sin", deliberately violates the Law of God, whenever it suits his purposes.
As for Ezekiel 18, here is a copy of one of the previous posts:
__________
Recently, the following verse from Ezekiel 18 has been used (or more accurately, misused) in an attempt to "prove" that, if a righteous man sins, he is forever lost:
"But if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked man does, will he live? None of the righteous things he has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness he is guilty of and because of the sins he has committed, he will die." (Ezekiel 18:24)
This verse has also been "misused" to "prove" that King David could not have been righteous before his sin of adultery with Bathsheba and his murder of Uriah the Hittite. After all, according to this false reasoning, if King David were righteous before his willful and serious sins, he would have been forever lost.
However, let us see what Ezekiel 18 actually teaches ...
Ezekiel 18 discusses the final fate of the "wicked" and the "righteous", and begins with a "proverb", as it is written:
The word of the LORD came to me: "What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel: 'The fathers eat sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge'?" (Ezekiel 18:1-2)
The Israelites falsely believed that the children basically "inherited" the sins of the father (or parent) and God would punish not only the father, but also the children. God rejected this, for it is written:
"As surely as I live", declares the Sovereign LORD, "you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son -- both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die." (Ezekiel 18:3-4)
While the father and the children may suffer as a result of the sins committed, according to God, only the person who sins will die, will be lost.
Ezekiel then proceeds to give examples of this principle. First, he describes the fate of a "righteous" man, as it is written:
"Suppose there is a righteous man who does what is just and right. He does not eat at the mountain shrines or look to the idols of the house of Israel. He does not defile his neighbor's wife or lie with a woman during her period. He does not oppress anyone, but returns what he took in pledge for a loan. He does not commit robbery but gives his food to the hungry and provides clothing for the naked. He does not lend at usury or take excessive interest. He withholds his hand from doing wrong and judges fairly between man and man. He follows my decrees and faithfully keeps my laws. That man is righteous; he will surely live," declares the Sovereign LORD. (Ezekiel 18:5-9)
In other words, if a man is righteous, that is, in a relationship with God, his fruits will be righteous acts. As a result, the "righteous man" will be saved.
We see this also in the New Testament, for it is written:
"No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers. The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks." (Luke 6:43-45)
Next, Ezekiel describes the fate of a "wicked", violent son of this "righteous" man, as it is written:
"Suppose he has a violent son, who sheds blood or does any of these other things (though the father has done none of them): He eats at the mountain shrines. He defiles his neighbor's wife. He oppresses the poor and needy. He commits robbery. He does not return what he took in pledge. He looks to the idols. He does detestable things. He lends at usury and takes excessive interest. Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he will surely be put to death and his blood will be on his own head." (Ezekiel 18:10-13)
In other words, if a man is wicked, that is, not in a relationship with God, his fruits will be wicked acts. As a result, the "wicked" son, or man, will be lost. We again see this also in the New Testament. The father, who is righteous, is not lost, because of the sins of his son.
Next, Ezekiel describes the fate of a "righteous" son of the "wicked" man just described, as it is written:
"But suppose this son has a son who sees all the sins his father commits, and though he sees them, he does not do such things: He does not eat at the mountain shrines or look to the idols of the house of Israel. He does not defile his neighbor's wife. He does not oppress anyone or require a pledge for a loan. He does not commit robbery but gives his food to the hungry and provides clothing for the naked. He withholds his hand from sin and takes no usury or excessive interest. He keeps my laws and follows my decrees. He will not die for his father's sin; he will surely live. But his father will die for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people." (Ezekiel 18:14-16)
In other words if the son of a wicked man is righteous, that is, in a relationship with God even though his father is not, the "righteous" son will be saved, even if his father is "wicked" and lost.
Ezekiel then answers objections and re-summarizes the principle, for it is written:
"Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him." (Ezekiel 18:19-20)
Having dealt with the "hereditary" issue of sin, God through Ezekiel addresses those who turn away from their wickedness and those who turn away from their righteousness.
First, Ezekiel describes a "wicked" man who turns from his wickedness, as it is written:
"But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live." (Ezekiel 18:21-22)
In other words, if a wicked man turns from his wickedness, he will be considered righteous and will be saved -- all his prior wicked acts will not condemn him.
God gives the principle behind this, for it is written:
"Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. "Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?" (Ezekiel 18:23)
This principle is seen in the New Testament as well, for it is written:
"The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9)
Next, Ezekiel describes a "righteous" man, who turns from his righteousness, as it is written:
"But if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked man does, will he live? None of the righteous things he has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness he is guilty of and because of the sins he has committed, he will die." (Ezekiel 18:24)
In other words, if a righteous man turns from his righteousness, he will be consider "wicked" and will be lost -- all his prior righteous acts will not save him. Just as the wicked acts of the wicked man who turns from his wickedness will not be used against him, the righteous acts of the righteous man who turns from his righteousness and becomes "wicked" will not be used to save him. However, there is nothing in this verse to indicate that the righteous man who turns wicked cannot turn away from his wickedness back to righteousness. As a matter of fact, the "righteous" man who turns "wicked" now falls under the principle noted above:
"Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?" (Ezekiel 18:23)
The "righteous" man who turns "wicked" can turn from his wickedness and live. This is what happened to King David. He was a righteous man who turned from his righteousness and became wicked with his willful and serious sins. However, God does not take any pleasure in the death of the wicked and is pleased when the wicked turn from their wickedness -- as King David did (as we have seen in prior posts).
Of course, some of the Israelites might object, as it is written:
"Yet you say, 'The way of the Lord is not just.' Hear, O house of Israel: Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust?"
There was a prevalent philosophy among the Israelites, and especially among the Pharisees later, that God measured your good deeds and bad deeds -- if your good deeds exceeded your bad deeds, you were saved, but, if your bad deeds exceeded your good deeds, you were lost. God rejects this philosophy.
The wicked man, who turns from his wickedness, is not now required to perform more righteous acts than his prior wicked acts before he can be saved -- his wicked acts are not remembered. Similarly, the righteous man cannot build up a "credit" of good deeds and "cash them in", if later he decides to turn away from his relationship with God and do wickedness -- his righteous acts will not be remembered.
God then reiterates His principle of justice, for it is written:
"If a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin, he will die for it; because of the sin he has committed he will die. But if a wicked man turns away from the wickedness he has committed and does what is just and right, he will save his life. Because he considers all the offenses he has committed and turns away from them, he will surely live; he will not die. Yet the house of Israel says, 'The way of the Lord is not just.' Are my ways unjust, O house of Israel? Is it not your ways that are unjust? Therefore, O house of Israel, I will judge you, each one according to his ways," declares the Sovereign LORD. "Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone," declares the Sovereign LORD. "Repent and live!" (Ezekiel 18:26-32)
God's principle of justice is simple -- if a "wicked" man repents of his wickedness, he is saved; if a "righteous" man turns to wickedness, but later repents of his wickedness, he is saved. Only those who remain "wicked" are lost.
Remember, for it is written:
"Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?" (Ezekiel 18:23)
and:
"For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!" (Ezekiel 18:32)
and:
"The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9)
__________
As we have seen, Ezekiel 18 does not support Harold Kupp's heresies, but contradicts them.
Harold Kupp also attempts to support his "God hates sinners" heresies using verses from 1 John.
For example, he quotes 1 John 3:4 from the KJV, and it has been written:
"Whoever committeth sin trangresseth also the law: for sin is transgression of the law."
Of course, we have addressed Harold Kupp misinterpretations of 1 John verses extensively in other posts, but this does not prevent Harold Kupp from posting the same misinterpretations, repeatedly.
As for 1 John 3:4, I have addressed this verse in prior posts (below is an article I posted to Frank M):
__________
Dear Frank M:
Actually, Frank, what I had written in this post regarding 1 John 3:4, "sin is the transgression of the law", was an abbreviated reply of a much longer response that I posted to Cindy in "Questions on Falling" back in July (which in turn was only a part of what I have posted to this NG on this subject), at which time I pointed out the underlying Greek for 1 John 3:4 myself and at which time I also pointed out the importance of relating Romans 14:23 (and other Scriptures) to 1 John 3:4.
A portion of that post follows:
_____
Regarding the word "wrongdoing" ...
I use the NIV a great deal (although for in-depth study I go to the Greek text; my Hebrew is poor so I go to the Septuagint for OT studies) and this is the NIV translation of the Greek word "adikia", which means "wrongdoing (NIV), injustice, unrighteousness (KJV), iniquity, a deed or deeds violating law and justice (similar to the Greek word "adikeema", "injustice").
Basically, "adikia" is a comprehensive term for doing wrong, whether explicitly stated in a written law or not.
It is interesting that the apostle John, when "defining" sin in 1 John 3:4, does not write:
"hee hamartia estin hee parabasis tou nomou [toon entoloon]" (sin is transgression of the law [of the commandments])
as translated by the KJV, but, instead:
"hee hamartia estin hee anomia" (sin is lawlessness).
While the Greek word "anomia" may mean breaking of the law, it has the connotation of a REJECTION of the Law, or will, of God.
I believe that the apostle John is addressing a possible problem, in that some would see sin as ONLY the breaking of the LETTER of the Law, as given in the 10 Commandments, and in both cases in 1 John (1 John 3:4 & 1 John 5:17) avoids defining sin as the transgression of a law or commandment.
In prior discussions on this NG, I pointed out that Christ Jesus showed that the Law was MORE than the LETTER of the Law, but also the SPIRIT of the Law (and I believe that you recognize this point as well -- I have explained this further in recent posts and used EGW quotes for support, since I know that you respect her writings).
In 1 John, the apostle John is doing the same, he uses words that define sin as being more than breaking the letter of a law, but, as with Christ Jesus, also breaking the spirit of the law, i.e., lawlessness.
For example:
According to the letter of the Law, "You shall not murder." It is a sin to murder. Does this mean it is not sin to beat someone to within an inch of his life and claim that you have not violated the Law, because you did not murder him? No. Beating someone is "anomia/adikia" (lawlessness/wrongdoing/unrighteousness -- unless you are God or have been given a direct command by God to beat that person), because it violates the principle behind the commandment against murder -- to love your neighbor as yourself. Therefore, beating someone is a violation of the spirit of the Law and is also sin, even though not explicitly stated in the 10 Commandments.
As for the apostle Paul ....
I believe that the apostle Paul in "his" definition of sin addresses a different aspect of sin than the apostle John. The apostle John points to the underlying principle behind the Law (love), whereas, the apostle Paul points to the underlying means in which the Law is kept.
The prophet Isaiah said, and it is written:
"All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags...." (Isaiah 64:6)
Therefore, any acts that we do, which are not acts done by God through us, are like filthy rags, they are unrighteous, and therefore, according to the apostle John, sins, even if the 10 Commandments are not violated.
As stated in my prior post, the apostle Paul said, and it is written:
"... everything that does not come from faith is sin." (Romans 14:23)
Like Isaiah, the apostle Paul writes that any acts that we do, not done in a faith relationship with God (cf. Philippians 2:13), no matter how outwardly correct, no matter how much we may follow the Law, are sin.
_____
This is the reason that I wrote in the current thread:
In 1 John, the apostle John is doing the same -- while sin is transgression of the Law, ALL WRONGDOING / UNRIGHTEOUSNESS is also sin.
The stress on WRONGDOING, which I previously discussed with Cindy, was an effort to either point her to use her Strongs to research "wrongdoing", "adikia", or point her back to my original discussion of this term.
I believe that 1 John 3:4 is a definition of sin par excellence. The problem I have is not with 1 John 3:4, but the inadequate translation of that verse in the KJV, which is why I kept quoting the KJV in questioning this definition of sin, as opposed to quoting from the Greek (or even the NIV, from which I also frequently quote).
You wrote:
Actually the quote in John is better translated in the newer versions. Sin is lawlessness. The question is, which law. Is John talking about the Ten Commandments only, all of the "moral law," of the OT, or is he speaking of the law of love that Jesus said was the basis of the law and the prophets.
This underscores the problem of translating "adikia" as "transgression of the law", instead of "lawlessness". Some (and they know who they are) try to use the term "transgression of the law" to limit sin to the breaking the letter of the 10 Commandment Law in order to support their "I do not commit sin" hypocrisy.
When "adikia" is viewed as "lawlessness", as ALL WRONGDOING, then not only the letter, but the spirit, of the Moral Law defines sin. This includes not only sin by actions, but by thoughts and words (as taught by Christ Jesus), as well as, sins of omission, for it is written:
Therefore, to him who knows to do good and is not doing it, it is sin. (James 4:17)
This also defines sin in terms of the 2 Great [OT] Commandments spoken by Christ Jesus, for it is written:
And He [Christ Jesus] said to him, "You will love [the] Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your understanding. This is the great and first commandment. [The] second is like to it: You will love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hangs all the law and the prophets." (Matthew 22:37-40)
You wrote:
If one studies this out just a little it can be found that when John used the word Law (Greek nomos) he often referred to the law of Moses. He sometimes referred to verses outside of Moses writings. However, he never used the word to mean the Ten Commandments alone.
If you do a word search for "nomos" in 1 John, it will return 0 results. The apostle John, I believe, as I have already stated, deliberately avoided using the term "nomos" in order to prevent some from defining sin in terms of only the letter of the 10 Commandment Law. Of course, this still did not prevent some from attempting to misuse this verse.
You wrote:
In 1 John 3:4 John doesn't use the word Law [actually, as I wrote above, John doesn't use the word "nomos" anywhere in 1 John], he actually says that sin is without law (Greek anomia). The word has the same root but it is prefixed with "a" changing the meaning of the root to mean to be without. Just as in English a person who is amoral has no morality or a person who is apolitical has no political beliefs. I think that one would be hard pressed to make a case that John was making a reference to the OT law, and even harder pressed that he was referring to the Ten Commandments.
Again, this was the point that I was making and it supportive of the definition of sin that I use, based on more than a single Scriptural verse:
Any deviation from the will of God, whether by thought, word or action, is sin.
This definition includes both the letter and the spirit of God's Moral Law, the 2 Great Commandments, sins of omission, etc. With such a definition we cannot hide from sin; we must recognize sin when it occurs in our life and turn to the One Who forgives and heals us. Of course, those who try to hide behind a narrow view of sin criticize this definition of sin.
You wrote:
One of the more common words in 1 John, is "love." "That we should love one another;" "because we love the brethren;" "love one another, just as He commanded us." I think that it is the law of love that John is referring to. Love God with all your being, love your neighbor as yourself, love your brother as Christ loved us. One could say that sin is acting (in word, thought, or deed) without love. This is the standard that we will be judged by. This is the standard that most on this news group judge themselves by. When we judge ourselves by this standard, we see how woefully inadequate we are, and how much we need the forgiveness of God. Only one who judges himself by a minimal standard like the letter of the Ten Commandments could say that they are wilfully sinless.
I agree. Some have tried to minimize the definition of sin in order to hide their sinfulness, claim that they are "wilfully sinless" and avoid coming to the One Who can forgive and heals them. This is the heresy that I have been writing against, both in many, many prior posts and in these recent posts.
__________
The foresight of the apostle John is clearly seen by the attempts by Harold Kupp to minimize the definition of sin to actions, excluding sinful thoughts and evil desires, and, considering his posts, sinful words, as well. As a matter of fact, Harold Kupp has strong objected to the definition of sin that I presented in that article, i.e.:
"Any deviation from the will of God, whether by thought, word or action, is sin."
Is this definition consistent with SDA theology? Yes, as I previously posted to Harold:
__________
The following is an excerpt from "Justified" by Arnold Valentin Wallenkampf, a former professor of religion at Loma Linda University, California (among other SDA teaching facilities). While I have not had the opportunity to fully study his book, I found his discussion of sin interesting, because, as a physician, I have also frequently compared the breaking of the Law as a symptom of sin, whereas sin itself is a relational problem with God (capitalization used in place of italics in text):
"Natural man rebels against God in attitude, though, word and deed. And this is sin. Sin is therefore not always an act. Too often we limit sin, or opposition to God, only to wrong deeds or words. But in the parable of the great separation (Matt. 25:31-46), Jesus enumerated no overt wrong acts committed by those designated as goats. They were not rejected for having performed wrong deeds or spoken unseemly words. They had DONE nothing wrong, but they had sinned because they had differed from God in motive and attitude.
A confusion as to what constitutes sin or makes a sinner springs from the altogether too prevalent concept that only ACTS of sin constitute sin. But
sinful deeds or words are SYMPTOMS of sin rather than themselves being intrinsic sin. They are expressions of an attitude of mental or spiritual departure from God's will. This a inward evil, or the essence of sin.
Sin is basically relational. "Sin is anything which breaks a man's fellowship with God and causes a separation between man and God." We sin when we rupture our God-intended, intimate union or fellowship with Him. And fellowship with God, as Watchman Nee perceptively observes, exists only when a person's will is "united with God's."
Sin is not merely ethics, consisting in the violation of a code of law. It is rather religious, consisting in departure from God...." (page 13)
This is SDA theology, it is the theology of EGW, regardless of how many of her quotations you cite, out of context with her other writings.
__________
and:
__________
"Seventh-day Adventist Believe ... A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines", "a. The definition of sin.":
"One broad inclusive definition of sin is: 'Any deviation from the known will of God, either of neglect to do what He has specifically commanded or
of doing what He has specifically forbidden.'" (from "Sin, I" SDA Bible Dictionary)
__________
Is this definition of sin, which includes thoughts, words and actions consistent with EGW? Yes, as I showed in a recent article:
__________
[Harold, quoting EGW]
"Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin," -- break the law of Jehovah. If a man is born of God, he will respect the principles of the divine government, and will not wilfully transgress the law of God in thought, or word, or action. {ST, 30 April 1896, par. 1}
.... Andrew, it is very interesting that Harold would quote EGW's article in ST. He has criticized my defining sin in terms of not only actions, but in terms of thoughts and words, yet he quotes EGW stating -- "If a man is born of God, he ... will not wilfully transgress the law of God in thought, or word, or action."
__________
Amazing how Harold Kupp objects to a definition of sin that includes thoughts and words, then quotes from EGW, where EGW defines sin in terms of transgression the Law of God in thought, or word, or action! As has been shown on so many occasions in the past, Harold Kupp, a non-SDA, not only does not understand the writings of EGW, but quotes from EGW, when he thinks he can misinterpret her writings to support his heresies, yet ignores her writings, when they contradict his heresies.
Of course, Harold Kupp knew that his limitations on what constituted sin was contrary to the teachings of EGW even before my recent posts, since I also informed him of this in prior posts (over a year ago):
__________
Regarding EGW and the spirit of the Law:
"... it is not the greatness of the act of disobedience that constitutes sin, but the fact of variance from God's expressed will in the least particular." [EGW, TMB, 51]
"The law of God takes note of the jealously, envy, hatred, malignity, revenge, lust, and ambition that surge through the soul." [EGW, SM, 1:217]
Commenting on this in "Justified", AVW writes:
"As long as we vary from God's will in any respect, we are sinning." (page 16)
__________
and:
__________
Some additional EGW quotations:
"The curse of God rests upon many of the ill-timed, inappropriate connections that are formed in this age of the world. If the Bible left these questions in a vague, uncertain light, then the course that many youth of today are pursuing in their attachments for one another would be more excusable. But the requirements of the Bible are not halfway injunctions; they demand perfect purity of thought, of word, and of deed. We are grateful to God that His word is a light to the feet, and that none need mistake the path of duty. The young should make it a business to consult its pages and heed its counsels, for sad mistakes are always made in departing from its precepts. {AH, 62-63}
"Be as true as steel to your marriage vows, refusing, in thought, word, or deed, to spoil your record as a man who fears God and obeys His commandments." {AH, 121}
"But few realize the sinfulness of sin. . . . The cases of Moses and Aaron . . . show that it is not a safe thing to sin in word or thought or deed." {C&C, 109}
"We have reason for everlasting gratitude to God in that He has left us a perfect example. Every Christian should strive to earnestly follow in the footsteps of the Saviour. We should offer grateful praise and gratitude for giving us such a mighty helper, a safeguard against every temptation, against every species of impropriety in thought, deed, and word." {COH, 594}
"We are to be guided by true theology and common sense. Our souls are to be surrounded by the atmosphere of heaven. Men and women are to watch themselves; they are to be constantly on guard, allowing no word or act that would cause their good to be evil spoken of. He who professes to be a follower of Christ is to watch himself, keeping himself pure and undefiled in thought, word, and deed. His influence upon others is to be uplifting. His life is to reflect the bright beams of the Sun of Righteousness." {CPTS, 257}
"To the multitude, and afterward more fully to His disciples, Jesus explained that defilement comes not from without, but from within. Purity and impurity pertain to the soul. It is the evil deed, the evil word, the evil thought, the transgression of the law of God, not the neglect of external, man-made ceremonies, that defiles a man." {DA, 397}
"We have before us the highest, holiest example. In thought, word, and deed Jesus was sinless." {TFILB 219}
"God expects those who bear the name of Christ to represent Him in thought, word, and deed. Their thoughts are to be pure and their words and deeds noble and uplifting, drawing those around them nearer to the Saviour." {IHP, 166, 332}
"Can we ever find a surer guide than the Lord Jesus? True religion is embodied in the Word of God and consists in being under the guidance of the Holy One in thought, word, and deed." {IHP, 492}
"The eye of the Lord is upon all the work, all the plans, all the imaginings of every mind; He sees beneath the surface of things, discerning the thoughts and intents of the heart. There is not a deed of darkness, not a plan, not an imagination of the heart, not a thought of the mind, but that He reads it as an open book. Every act, every word, every motive, is faithfully chronicled in the records of the great Heart-searcher, who said, 'I know thy works.'" {LSEGW, 322}
__________
Of course, as usual, Harold Kupp tries to excuse his sins by actually accusing Christ Jesus of having lusts and evil thoughts -- those who have monitored this NG for some time are well acquainted with Harold Kupp's character attacks, when he has been shown to be wrong, either in his interpretation of the Scriptures or the writings of EGW, but to attack the very character of Christ Jesus! For example, Harold Kupp wrote:
Since we know that "Sin is transgression of the law", we may say that ONLY transgression of the law is sin! As a man, Jesus was tempted with evil thoughts, but He was "in all points tempted like as we are, YET WITHOUT SIN." (Heb 4:15) His thoughts were not sin, and neither are yours!
and:
If Jesus was a man he had impure thoughts just as we do.
and:
Jesus was TEMPTED when He was drawn away of his own lust.
Naturally, those of us on this NG, who, unlike Harold Kupp, love the Lord, objected to Harold Kupp's attack on the character of our Lord. Of course, as has been pointed out to Harold Kupp, he was not only contradicting the Scriptures, but he was also contradicting the writings of EGW:
He is a brother in our infirmities, but not in possessing like passions. As the sinless One, His nature recoiled from evil. He endured struggles and torture of soul in a world of sin. His humanity made prayer a necessity and privilege. {FLB 49.3}
He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. {FLB 49.4}
In taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin. He was subject to the infirmities and weaknesses by which man is encompassed .... He was touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and was in all points tempted like as we are. And yet He "knew no sin." He was the lamb "without blemish and without spot." Could Satan in the least particular have tempted Christ to sin, he would have bruised the Saviour's head. As it was, he could only touch His heel. Had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished. Divine wrath would have come upon Christ as it came upon Adam. Christ and the church would have been without hope. {FLB 49.5}
Not even by a thought could Christ be brought to yield to the power of temptation .... Christ declared of Himself, "The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me." {FLB 49.6}
__________
I find it interesting that Harold Kupp, who seems to argue so strongly for keeping the Law, has repeatedly attempted to narrow the definition of the Law or find excuses for sin.
For example, from a recent post, Harold Kupp wrote:
Many will say that our thoughts are sin because Jesus gave this warning to the disciples:
"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Matt 5:28 (KJV)
Although that verse does seem to say that what we are thinking can be sin, we also know that "sin is the transgression of the law" How can we make these two ideas fit together? The answer is this: Jesus was explaining that we could break God's law not only by the outward physical act, but also by the INTENT of the mind.
Therefore, if a man looks upon a woman with the intent to commit adultery (i.e. he would if he had the opportunity), then he has already sinned because he has already decided to break God's law.
Harold Kupp, who has been frequently compared to a modern-day pharisee, uses the same argument that the NT pharisees historically used in order to excuse lustful thoughts.
This is the reason Christ prefaced his discussion of Matthew 5 with an admonition regarding the righteousness of the Pharisees, and it has been written:
"For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:20)
The Pharisees were constantly trying to find "loopholes" in keeping the Law of God, while appearing to be righteous and keeping the Law of God.
According to Harold Kupp's heresies, we could have lustful fantasies towards another person and, as long as we did not intend to actually fulfill those fantasies by committing adultery with that person, we would not be guilt of sin.
However, EGW wrote (as quoted above) ...
But the requirements of the Bible are not halfway injunctions; they demand perfect purity of thought, of word, and of deed. {AH, 62}
and:
We should offer grateful praise and gratitude for giving us such a mighty helper, a safeguard against every temptation, against every species of impropriety in thought, deed, and word." {COH, 594}
and:
"God expects those who bear the name of Christ to represent Him in thought, word, and deed. Their thoughts are to be pure .... " {IHP, 166, 332}
.... to mention only a few quotations from her writings.
In keeping with the pharisaical belief of finding "loopholes" in keeping the Law of God, while appearing to be righteous and keeping the Law of God, Harold Kupp uses a number of excuses for sinning, such as, he did know it was a sin; he didn't mean it, it was unintentional, not willful; it wasn't really a sin, it was a trespass .... Naturally, this is contrary to the Scriptures that condemn all sin. Of course, excusing sin is necessary in order for Harold Kupp to habitually sin on this NG, will attempting to maintain the facade, "I do not commit sin."
Then there's "willful" sin ....
Harold Kupp has attempted to prove that, if a Christian commits a known sin, which he calls "willful" sin, then that Christian is forever lost. To support his heresies, Harold Kupp quotes Hebrews 10:26-27. I have dealt with the meaning of these verses in several prior posts.
Below is a copy of my exegesis of Hebrews 10:26-27 from a recent post:
__________
The KJV renders these verses as such:
For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
There are several interpretations for these verses (which have been debated for centuries), but let us look at this verse more closely, according to an expanded translation of the Greek text (based on the UBS 4 Greek NT):
"For, if we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the full knowledge of the truth, a sacrifice no longer remains for sins, rather a certain fearful expectation of judgment and zealous indignation of fire that will surely consume the adversaries." (Hebrews 10:26-27)
These verses bring out certain points that are often overlooked.
The word "deliberately" ("hekousioos") indicates something that is deliberate, defiant, voluntary, NOT due to coercion, omission or weakness.
The word "sin" ("hamartanontoon"), as translated in the KJV, is actually a present active participle that indicates continuous action, NOT an aorist active participle that would indicate single acts.
The word "knowledge", as translated in the KJV, is not "gnoosis", which means knowledge, but rather "epignoosis", which indicates a more complete knowledge, a full knowledge.
The phrase "no longer" is not from "ouk" ("no/not"), but "ouketi" ("the extension of time up to a certain point but not beyond"), which indicates that, at least for a time, those who kept on "sinning" were covered by the sacrifice of Christ Jesus, which again indicates that the author of Hebrews is referring to repetitive/habitual sinning, not single acts of sin, which is reinforced by the use of the plural "sins", not "sin".
The use of the words "judgment" and "fire" that "consume[s]" point to the final judgment, when the glory of God will finally destroy/devour/consume the wicked, who will be raised up in the second resurrection.
Finally, the word "adversaries" ("hupenantious") indicates those who constantly oppose and are hostile to God.
Therefore, in Hebrews 10:26-27, "willful sin" does NOT refer to single acts of sin, committed out of weakness, BUT to deliberate, persistent, defiant sins committed with the full knowledge of its sinfulness and due to the constant rejection of the working of the Holy Spirit to convict the Christian of sin.
As long as the Christian confesses and repents his (or her) sin to God, then that Christian is forgiven. However, if the Christian constantly rejects the working of the Holy Spirit to convict that Christian of sin, where that Christian no longer responds to the Holy Spirit and that Christian fails to confess and repent of sin and dies in that state (the "unpardonable sin"), then that Christian is finally lost, is apostate, is an adversary of God, and must face the judgment and consuming fire.
__________
Regarding "willful" sin, this is NOT simply "known" sin, as the analysis of Hebrews 10:26-27 indicates.
This is consistent with the writings of EGW. For example, as quoted in several articles on this NG, she wrote:
Even those who are striving in sincerity to keep the law of God, are not always free from sin. Through some deceptive temptation, they are deceived, and fall into error. But when their sin comes home to their conscience, they see themselves condemned in the light of the holy precepts of God's law; but they do not war against the law which condemns them; they repent of their sin, and seek pardon through the merit of Christ, who died for their sins in order that they might be justified by faith in his blood. They do not avoid confession and repentance when the neglected law of God is brought to their attention, by exclaiming, as do the self-righteous pretenders to holiness, "I am sanctified, I am holy, and I can not sin." This is the class whom the apostle rebukes; for he says, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." {ST, April 30, 1896, par. 5}
Notice that EGW writes, "...when their sin comes home to their conscience...", and not "... to their knowledge ...", indicating that this involved a "known" sin, committed by a Christian who was "striving in sincerity to keep the law of God ...." EGW did not refer to this as "wilful sin".
Another example:
When one errs, others too often feel at liberty to make the case appear as bad as possible. Those who perhaps are guilty of as great sins in some other direction will treat their brother with cruel severity. Errors committed through ignorance, thoughtlessness, or weakness are exaggerated into wilful, premeditated sin." {PUR, 10 April 1902, par. 7}
Notice that EGW excludes sins committed "thoughtlessness" or "weakness" from "wilful" sin.
Harold Kupp cited the following EGW quotation in a recent article:
But let none deceive themselves with the belief that God will accept and bless them while they are wilfully violating one of his requirements. The commission of a known sin silences the witnessing voice of the Spirit, and separates the soul from God. Jesus cannot abide in the heart that disregards the divine law. {4 SP 299.2}
I addressed this quotation in a prior post, but there are some additional points that should be addressed.
First, as stated in my prior article:
__________
Again, absent from this quotation, as was absent in the RH quotation above, is the statement that once a person has sinned, they are no longer able to obtain forgiveness for their sins. As a matter of fact, EGW specifically states that it is a deception "that God will accept and bless them WHILE they are wilfully violating one of his requirements." According to EGW, if that person repents of their sin and seeks pardon, they will be justified by faith in the blood of Christ Jesus, as many of us have been posting on this NG.
__________
Second, before the phrase "the commission of a known sin ... " is misinterpreted on this NG, as some had tried to misinterpret this phrase in the time of EGW, to indicate that the commission of a known sin, done through weakness, was included in silencing the witnessing voice of the Holy Spirit, we should note that EGW specifically qualified that statement in her other writings:
1233. The wilful commission of a known sin silences the witnessing voice of the Spirit, and separates the soul from God. Jesus cannot abide in the heart that disregards the divine law. God will honor those only who honor him. -- S. of T. 1894, No. 24. {HL 306.3}
Notice that it is not simply the "commission of a known sin", but "the WILFUL commission of a known sin ...." that silences the witnessing voice of the Holy Spirit.
As previously stated, Harold Kupp teaches that committing a "willful sin" forever condemns a Christian, even if they confess and repent of that sin. Of course, we have seen from the study of Hebrews 10:26-27 that this heresy is not supported by the Scriptures, that:
As long as the Christian confesses and repents his (or her) sin to God, then that Christian is forgiven. However, if the Christian constantly rejects the working of the Holy Spirit to convict that Christian of sin, where that Christian no longer responds to the Holy Spirit and that Christian fails to confess and repent of sin and dies in that state (the "unpardonable sin"), then that Christian is finally lost, is apostate, is an adversary of God, and must face the judgment and consuming fire.
Since the writings of EGW are consistent with the Scriptures, then we would expect her writings to be in agreement with the Scriptures, that even "willful" sin may be forgiven, if confessed and repented of. Of course, we find this agreement in her writings. Not only did we note this in our discussion of 4 SP 299.2, above, but we know from the Scriptures that there is only one sin that will not be forgiven, and it has been written:
"And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." (Matthew 12:31-32)
Harold Kupp has argued that the commission of a known sin (or a willful sin) was this unpardonable sin.
I have argued differently, as stated above:
__________
As long as the Christian confesses and repents his (or her) sin to God, then that Christian is forgiven. However, if the Christian constantly rejects the working of the Holy Spirit to convict that Christian of sin, where that Christian no longer responds to the Holy Spirit and that Christian fails to confess and repent of sin and dies in that state (the "unpardonable sin"), then that Christian is finally lost, is apostate, is an adversary of God, and must face the judgment and consuming fire.
__________
How does EGW define the "unpardonable sin"?
No one need look upon the sin against the Holy Ghost as something mysterious and indefinable. The sin against the Holy Ghost is the sin of persistent refusal to respond to the invitations to repent. -- R. and H., 1897, No. 26 . {HL 306. 4}
So, according to EGW, consistent with the Scriptures and what I have presented in several posts, the "unpardonable sin" is not the commision of a known sin, it is not even the commission of a willful sin, as Harold Kupp falsely teaches, but the "sin against the Holy Spirit", the "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit", the "unpardonable sin", is "the sin of PERSISTENT refusal to respond to the invitations to repent."
According to the apostle John, and it has been written:
Everyone who has been born from God and is still born of God does not habitually commit sin .... (1 John 3:9)
[Of course, Harold Kupp prefers to quote from the KJV ...
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin .... (1 John 3:9)
.... but, as I have explained extensively in prior posts, the Greek of 1 John 3:9 indicates that habitual sin is meant in this verse. For a more complete exposition of the Greek in 1 John, refer to my article "Greek Tenses and 1 John.]
However, for Christians who do sin, the apostle John also taught, and it has been written:
If we habitually confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous, that He may forgive [our] sins and may cleanse us from ALL unrighteousness. (1 John 1:10)
Therefore, contrary to the heresies of Harold Kupp, the Scriptures and EGW teach:
As long as the Christian confesses and repents his (or her) sin to God, then that Christian is forgiven. However, if the Christian constantly rejects the working of the Holy Spirit to convict that Christian of sin, where that Christian no longer responds to the Holy Spirit and that Christian fails to confess and repent of sin and dies in that state (the "unpardonable sin"), then that Christian is finally lost, is apostate, is an adversary of God, and must face the judgment and consuming fire.
?????? ???st?? ??s??,
Ron R. Walker, M.D. |
|
