The "Inconvenient Tale" of the Original King James Bible

Handsonapologetics ^ | Gary Michuta

[GonzoII]

The "Inconvenient Tale" of the Original King James Bible

By Gary Michuta

King James I at the Hampton Court Conference

"Dr. Reynolds...insisted boldly on various points ; but when he came to the demand for the disuse of the apocrypha in the church service James could bear it no longer. He called for a Bible, read a chapter out of Ecclesiasticus, and expounded it according to his own views ; then turning to the lords of his council, he said, " What trow ye makes these men so angry with Ecclesiasticus ? By my soul, I think Ecclesiasticus was a bishop, or they would never use him so."

(John Cassell’s Illustrated History of England, text by William Howitt, (W. Kent & Co.:London), 1859, vol. 3p. 15)

In 1604, the Church of England commissioned a new English translation of the Scripture, which later became known as the King JamesVersion. According to it dedication to the king, the hope was that this new version would “counteract the barbs” of Catholics and a foil to the “self-conceited” Protestants “who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil…” [Preface and dedication to the King, 1611 King James Bible], namely religious dissenters like the Baptists and others. Ironically, the Church of England had moved to other translations and the King James Bible (K.J.V.) had become, at least for a time, the translation for those groups that would have been considered dissenters. Today, the New International Version has become the best selling translation among Protestants, but the King James is still widely used and revered by non-Catholics.

Bible translations are interesting in that they can provide a snapshot of the beliefs of their translators at that time. The Latin Vulgate, for example, can show us how certain words were understood in the fourth century when it was translated by St. Jerome. The King James Bible is no exception. When one compares the original 1611 edition with subsequent editions, one can discern some very important changes in viewpoints. If you own a King James Bible, the first and biggest change you will notice is that the original 1611 edition contained several extra books in an appendix between the Old and New Testaments labeled “The books of the Apocrypha.” The appendix includes several books, which are found in the Catholic Old Testament such as the books of  Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1st and 2nd Maccabees and others.

Table of Contents KJV 1611

Some may be tempted to dismiss the omission of these books from the King James Bible as superfluous “add on” to the translation and that its omission really does not change anything important about the King James Bible. On the contrary, the so-called "Apocrypha” formed an integral part of the text, so much so that the Protestant scholar E. G. Goodspeed once wrote:

“[W]hatever may be our personal opinions of the Apocrypha, it is a historical fact that they formed an integral part of the King James Version, and any Bible claiming to represent that version should either include the Apocrypha, or state that it is omitting them.  Otherwise a false impression is created.” [Story of the Apocrypha (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939, p. 7]

If you pick up a modern copy of the King James Version and open to the title page, chances are you’ll not see any mention of the deliberate omission of these books (e.g. “The King James Version without the Apocrypha”). After all, who would want to put a negative statement about a product on the title page? However, perhaps to avoid false advertising, publishers do notify you that books are missing by cleverly stating the contents in a positive fashion like “The King James Version Containing the Old and New Testaments.” If you didn’t know that the Apocrypha was omitted, you’d probably assume that complete King James Bible since most modern Protestant Bibles contain only the Old and New Testaments anyway. Hence, as Goodspeed warns “a false impression is created.”

The Cross-references

The King James “Apocrypha” had a much more integral roll in its early editions than simply being an appendix unconnected to the two Testaments. Instead, the 1611 King James Bible included (like the Geneva Bible) cross-references from the Old and New Testaments to the so-called “Apocrypha.” Like modern cross-references, these were meant to refer the reader back to the text cited in order to provide further light on what had just been read. There were 11 cross-references in the New Testament and 102 Old Testament that referred Protestant readers back to the “Apocrypha.” The New Testament cross-references were:

	Mat 6:7	Sirach 7:14
	Mat 27:43	Wisdom 2:15-16
	Luke 6:31	Tobit 4:15
	Luke 14:13	Tobit 4:7
	John 10:22	1 Maccabees 4:59
	Rom 9:21	Wisdom 15:7
	Rom 11:34	Wisdom 9:13
	2 Cor 9:7	Sirach 35:9
	Heb 1:3	Wisdom 7:26
	Heb 11:35	2 Maccabees 7:7





1611 KJV Heb. 11:35 - 2 Mac. 7:7

1611 KJV Matt. 27:43 - Wisdom 2:15-16





1611 KJV Heb. 11:3 - Ws. 7:26

1611 KJV Luke 14:13 - Tobit 4:7

Like the early editions of the Geneva Bible, the editors of the Authorized Version believe that the non-Catholic readers should aware of what the “Apocrypha” had to say in regards to these passage. While some are mere correspondences of thought, others point to an awareness or even a dependence upon the “Apocrypha” by inspired New Testament writers. I detail these important passages in Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger: The Untold Story of the Lost Books of the Protestant Bible (Grotto Press, 2007).

In addition to the eleven cross-references in the New Testament, the 1611 King James also sported 102 cross-reference  in the Old Testament as well bringing to total up to 113 cross-references to and from the Apocrypha overall. No wonder Goodspeed could say that the "Apocrypha" was an integral part of the King James Bible!

The King James Bible was not the only early Protestant Bible to contain the “Apocrypha” with cross-references. As we have seen in a previous article (Pilgrims’ Regress: The Geneva Bible and the “Apocrypha”), the "Apocrypha" also played an integral role in other Protestant Bibles as well.

As I mentioned earlier, translations serve as historical snapshots of the beliefs of the translators and readers. The very presence of these cross-references shows that the translators believed that the "Apocrypha" was at work within the New Testament writings and that Protestant Bible readers would benefit from reading and studying the New and Old Testaments in light of these books. Sadly, today this noble heritage has been lost.

Now You Read Them, Now You Don’t…

Those who viewed the "Apocrypha" as somehow being the last vestige of "popery" pressed for the Apocrypha appendix and its cross-references to be removed altogether from the Bible. In 1615, George Abbott, the Archbishop of Canterbury, went so far as to employ the power of law to censure any publisher who did not produce the Bible in its entirety (i.e. including the "Apocrypha") as prescribed by the Thirty-nine Articles. However, anti-Catholic hatred and the obvious financial advantages of printing smaller Protestant Bibles began to win out against the traditionalists who wanted the Bible in the form that was given in all previous Protestant translations up until that point (in the form of Luther's Bible - with the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments). The "Apocrypha" remained in the King James Bible through the 1626, 1629, 1630, and the 1633 editions. By 1632, public opinion began to decidedly turn against the "bigger" Protestant Bibles. Of the 227 printings of the Bible between 1632 and 1826, about 40% of Protestant Bibles contained the "Apocrypha." The Apocrypha Controversy of the early 1800's enabled English Bible Societies to flood the bible-buying market with Apocrypha-less Protestant Bibles and in 1885 the "Apocrypha" was officially removed with the advent of the Revised Standard Version, which replaced the King James Version.

It is hard to pin point the exact date where the King James Bible no longer contained the "Apocrypha." It is clear that later editions of the KJV removed the "Apocrypha" appendix, but they continued to include cross-references to the "Apocrypha" until they too (like the Geneva Bible) were removed as well. Why were they removed? Was it do to over-crowded margins? The Anglican scholar William H. Daubney points out the obvious:

“These objectionable omissions [of the cross-references] were made after the custom arose of publishing Bibles without the Apocrypha. These apparently profess to be what they are not, entire copies of the Authorized Version … Plainly, the references to the Apocrypha told an inconvenient tale of the use which the Church intended should be made of it; so, either from dissenting influence without, or from prejudice within the Church, these references disappeared from the margin.” [The Use of the Apocrypha In the Christian Church (London: C. J. Clay and Sons, 1900), 17]

What was the inconvenient tale these cross-references told? They showed that the so-called Apocrypha actually plays a much greater role that most modern Protestants are willing to admit. Moreover, the cross-references showed that the church believed that knowledge of the so-called "Apocrypha" and their use in the New Testament benefited Christians who wished to understand the Bible. Sadly today, many Protestants use the King James Bible have been handed on to them in an unaltered and uncompromised form. The reality is that its contents had undergone several substantial changes beginning with Martin Luther's gathering together the Deuterocanon and placing it in an "Apocrypha" appendix and later when that appendix (and its cross-references) were removed altogether from Protestant Bibles.

 

[MarkBsnr]

You embrace perverted sects with a perverted Gospel.

When your particular shrinking sect fits into a telephone booth, you've gotta get attention somehow.

[HarleyD]

HD-"There is no such thing as free will."...If you have free will, then why don’t you do God’s will every single moment of your Christian life?

Because I'm not perfect.

Why do you choose to repeat this as you demonstrate otherwise?...One last question before I'm off for a few days. It's one I asked twice earlier; if you'd give it your best shot, I'd appreciate it. If it were demonstrated to you that you have free will, would you believe it is true?

Perhaps you misunderstood my response. There is God's will and man's will. We can't "will" ourselves to do God's will simply because we are imperfect creatures as you point out. You can't demonstrate to me that I have "free" will because what you would be demonstrating is that I am totally capable of carrying out God's will all the time.

But our imperfection does not negate free will. Free will does not necessarily require perfection.

It's simple logic that since we cannot free choose to do God's will 100% of the time, then our wills are not truly free.

To you it makes sense..

I would submit to you that every Christian deep down understands exactly what I'm saying to be correct. You yourself realized that you are incapable of "freely" doing God's will simply because you're "not perfect". BINGO! So then what percentage of time does one spend on exercising their "free will" to follow God? 90%? 50%? 25%?

God tells us that the real answer to this is we do not follow His advise 100% of the time.

Gen 6:5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

There are many, many more of these verses throughout scripture where God constantly uses the term that we are "wicked", "stubborn", "rebellious", etc. God doesn't use these terms because He's frustrated with us. God uses these terms because they describe us. It's like Christ saying:

Mat 7:11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

I can just here how people must have bristle at that but it's completely true. Our Lord wasn't judging us but simply stating the obvious about our nature.

I would hope that every Christian would agree that if they had free will, then they would exercise that will to do God's will 100% of the time. And we should not expect any kudos from God because that is precisely what He requires from us. For us to say we are imperfect creatures is really an excuse for our wicked and rebellious nature just as Adam tried to make excuses.

And deep down that is what "free will" theology is all about; failure to acknowledge our behavior and repent for our slothfulness and to take the credit when God gives us victory in spite of ourselves.

[HarleyD]

As a side note, do you believe that the Gospels are not meant for Christians, as some do?

All the scriptures is the inspired word of God communicating to mankind-both Christians and non-Christians; just as the early church fathers agreed.

But I would be interested as well to find out if you believe that Israel is God's chosen people, special to Him

We read in Hebrews that there were those who looked forward to the coming of the promise. We look back to the promise being fulfilled. God's chosen people has always been those to whom believed in God's salvational promise. If a person is without Christ, they are without hope. That is the gospel truth.

Do you see 'compelling' as a combination of God's Grace influencing us, and our willing cooperation because of that influence, or as an overwhelming involuntary compulsion?

Our will is stirred by the Holy Spirit to do love and good works. This isn't "willing cooperation" because if God told me to do love and good things, most likely I would not do them-at least not for the people who I really don't like. Neither is it overwhelming involuntary compulsion which implies God forcing me to do something.

God creates the events which results in any good works that I might do. All I need to be concerned about is trying to abide in Christ and be faithful to His commandments. He promised if I did that, then I would have good works. And His promise is good enough for me.

[MarkBsnr]

Very good, Harley.

We are, within the context of this exchange, fairly close on most points, the exception being conditional versus imposed.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

If you "think you are fairly close on most points," you do not understand the distinctions.

God's will is 180 degrees from man's will and "conditional vs. imposed" is not the point. Man in unable<\I> to please and obey God unless God first regenerates his dead heart - something only God can do. It's His decision. He's God.

[MarkBsnr]

If you "think you are fairly close on most points," you do not understand the distinctions.

Thank you for your concern. Pray enlighten me.

God's will is 180 degrees from man's will

Do you even understand how provincial and unlearned that statement is? God's will is. Man's will varies according to his own whims and the working of the Grace of God within him. Again, you give us another illustration of the belief that the Reformed God is a puppet master, imposing a programming upon one's soul and taking it over. A Dagonesque god who delights and takes pleasure in the seemingly random destruction of the majority of his creations.

and "conditional vs. imposed" is not the point.

It is precisely the point.

Man in unable<\I> to please and obey God unless God first regenerates his dead heart - something only God can do. It's His decision. He's God.

On the surface, we Catholics agree with that statement, with the caveat that we believe that men are not dead. They are mortally wounded. It is when we delve into the hideous attachments to the Reformed understanding of that statement, that Catholics disagree with the Reformed.

[HarleyD]

Dr. E-"God's will is 180 degrees from man's will"

MB-"Do you even understand how provincial and unlearned that statement is? God's will is. "

Dr. E is absolutely correct and is precisely what I'm trying to point out. There is God's will and there is man's will. They are completely opposite.

On the surface, we Catholics agree with that statement, with the caveat that we believe that men are not dead. They are mortally wounded.

Actually, the nature of man cannot be mortally wounded. If one were to go back and review the events of Adam, we see that Adam sinned before judgment took place. Reading through the curse of Adam we see that he goes back to dust, the ground is cursed, his life is going to be difficult, etc. It did nothing to change his nature. All God's command not to eat the fruit served to show that man will NOT keep God's command-no matter how simple. We are, by nature, disobedient and rebellious.

We could complain to God that this isn't fair because of the way He made us; but then that is one of the reasons Christ came in His humanity-to show us that this isn't a flaw in mankind. Rather we could obey God's commands if we really wanted to as Christ did. We, children of Adam, just don't want to. That is why as Christians God has to replace our hearts of stones and "cause" us to walk in His statutes and obey His ordinances.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

“Provincial?”

Lolol

Sorry, Mark. God’s in control. You’re not. And it’s quite Scripturally “unlearned” to presume so.

Just try to change the date of your birth. Your death. Try to surprise God. I’d love to see you try.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

We could complain to God that this isn't fair because of the way He made us; but then that is one of the reasons Christ came in His humanity-to show us that this isn't a flaw in mankind. Rather we could obey God's commands if we really wanted to as Christ did. We, children of Adam, just don't want to. That is why as Christians God has to replace our hearts of stones and "cause" us to walk in His statutes and obey His ordinances.

Think how great life would be if all men understood your brilliant synopsis.

One day, God willing.

[MarkBsnr]

Dr. E-"God's will is 180 degrees from man's will" MB-"Do you even understand how provincial and unlearned that statement is? God's will is. "

Dr. E is absolutely correct and is precisely what I'm trying to point out. There is God's will and there is man's will. They are completely opposite.

I'd suggest that the both of you relook at these statements and at what 180 degrees opposite means. One way of looking at it is to say that you are attempting to compare the finite (man) to the Infinite (God) by attempting to put them both on a one dimensional line pointing in opposite directions.

God's will is. The entire universe is part of God's will. His will is All and it is constant. Man's will varies according to whim, for the most part. One cannot compare them, because they are incomparable, not opposite.

Actually, the nature of man cannot be mortally wounded. If one were to go back and review the events of Adam, we see that Adam sinned before judgment took place. Reading through the curse of Adam we see that he goes back to dust, the ground is cursed, his life is going to be difficult, etc. It did nothing to change his nature. All God's command not to eat the fruit served to show that man will NOT keep God's command-no matter how simple. We are, by nature, disobedient and rebellious.

The consequence of Adam and Eve disobeying God was that their children would inherit original sin. Remember in Genesis 2? Adam and Eve were made without sin, without the capacity to sin. They didn't know what it was. The devil got them transformed with the fruit of the tree. That is the point where mankind's nature changed.

What does Paul say?

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

1 Corinthians 15: 21For by a man came death, and by a man the resurrection of the dead. 22And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.

So, there was a change.

We could complain to God that this isn't fair because of the way He made us; but then that is one of the reasons Christ came in His humanity-to show us that this isn't a flaw in mankind. Rather we could obey God's commands if we really wanted to as Christ did. We, children of Adam, just don't want to. That is why as Christians God has to replace our hearts of stones and "cause" us to walk in His statutes and obey His ordinances.

Influence (with His Grace)? Or compel (computer programming)? Did Jesus really come to redeem the entire world? Does He wish all men to be saved? Or is He simply a housewife grocery shopping and picking over the produce?

[MarkBsnr]

“Provincial?” Lolol

Provincial. And unScriptural and unmathematical.

Sorry, Mark. God’s in control. You’re not. And it’s quite Scripturally “unlearned” to presume so.

Non sequitur. To both points.

Just try to change the date of your birth. Your death. Try to surprise God. I’d love to see you try.

Another non sequitur. Come on; you and I have dealt with each other for years. The points stated are entirely unrelated to the topic we were discussing and to each other. My POV is that the attempt to show that man's will and God's will are 180 degrees apart are meaningless; especially if you understand Scripture as well I believe you do, and understand mathematics as well as modern American public schools teach (well, okay, that last point is a little shaky).

[MarkBsnr]

Think how great life would be if all men understood your brilliant synopsis. One day, God willing.

Under the Reformed POV, this doesn't make any sense. The Reformed teach that God saves His prepicked individuals regardless of anything else, including what they know or don't know. If one was going to the Reformed hell, what would be the point? If one was going to the Reformed heaven, again, what would be the point.

[HarleyD]

God's will is. The entire universe is part of God's will. ...Man's will varies according to whim, for the most part. One cannot compare them, because they are incomparable, not opposite.

If they are incomparable, then how can you say the are not opposite? Instead of saying "man's will varies according to whim", you could really just say "man sometimes does God's will and sometimes his own". That is what you're really suggesting and is at the heart of "free will". But not only are there numerous verses that states man's heart is continuously corrupt and our ways are evil, there is also numerous examples in scriptures that simply shows this to us. And, as we know with Adam, just one sin is enough to cast us out of the presence of God.

Remember in Genesis 2? Adam and Eve were made without sin, without the capacity to sin.

If Adam and Eve did not have the capacity to sin, they would never have sinned. If Christ did not have the capacity to sin, He could never have been the perfect sacrifice.

They didn't know what it [sic sin] was.

Sure they did; although perhaps not in those terms. But both knew they were being disobedient to God's commandment. And disobedient is rebellion to God.

What does Paul say? Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Paul is correct. (What else did you expect me to say. :O) )

Once Adam showed he could be disobedient to God, disobedient spread like wildfire. That is precisely what happened to the next generation-Cain. God told Cain in the very next chapter, "sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it". So what did Cain do-disobey what God had told him. God also told Cain that he could rule over sin. Cain simply did not want to. When "free will" could have rule, it didn't. By the time it got to verse 24 of the 4th chapter, Lamech was proudly boasting that he could kill peoples just as well.

Sin came in the world through Adam simply because Adam was disobedient to God. Perfection came in the world through Christ because Christ was obedient to God the Father-even unto death. Adam followed his own will and ruined the race. Christ lived a perfect life by doing God's will, not His own. What was it Christ said, "Not my will but thine."

Did Jesus really come to redeem the entire world? Does He wish all men to be saved?

In the end, the entire world is not going to be redeemed. I think we can already exclude at least several of the people in scriptures. And I'm sure we could come up with a few more if we tried hard enough. So, no, Christ did not fail at His mission because His mission was not to redeem the entire world.

But I would suggest you're looking at the questions in the wrong way. The real question is why did Jesus come to save any of us?

[MarkBsnr]

God's will is. The entire universe is part of God's will. ...Man's will varies according to whim, for the most part. One cannot compare them, because they are incomparable, not opposite.

If they are incomparable, then how can you say the are not opposite? Instead of saying "man's will varies according to whim", you could really just say "man sometimes does God's will and sometimes his own". That is what you're really suggesting and is at the heart of "free will". But not only are there numerous verses that states man's heart is continuously corrupt and our ways are evil, there is also numerous examples in scriptures that simply shows this to us. And, as we know with Adam, just one sin is enough to cast us out of the presence of God.

My point is that the created is not comparable to the Creator. In any way, except for the possibility that we can understand the idea of the Creator.

Remember in Genesis 2? Adam and Eve were made without sin, without the capacity to sin.

If Adam and Eve did not have the capacity to sin, they would never have sinned. If Christ did not have the capacity to sin, He could never have been the perfect sacrifice.

Oh boy, we part company here. Adam and Eve were created sinless and it was introduced to them by the serpent. I will object strenuously to your claim that Christ had the capacity to sin, as well. I cannot accept either of these.

Once Adam showed he could be disobedient to God, disobedient spread like wildfire. That is precisely what happened to the next generation-Cain. God told Cain in the very next chapter, "sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it". So what did Cain do-disobey what God had told him. God also told Cain that he could rule over sin. Cain simply did not want to. When "free will" could have rule, it didn't. By the time it got to verse 24 of the 4th chapter, Lamech was proudly boasting that he could kill peoples just as well.

Actually free will did have rule. You may wish to reread the passages.

Did Jesus really come to redeem the entire world? Does He wish all men to be saved?

In the end, the entire world is not going to be redeemed. I think we can already exclude at least several of the people in scriptures. And I'm sure we could come up with a few more if we tried hard enough. So, no, Christ did not fail at His mission because His mission was not to redeem the entire world.

Why? Jesus says that He came for the whole world. The Apostles were Commissioned to the entire world. Is the Reformed God unable? :)

But I would suggest you're looking at the questions in the wrong way. The real question is why did Jesus come to save any of us?

The Catechism says it very well.

"FATHER, . . . this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."1 "God our Savior desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."2 "There is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved"3 than the name of JESUS.

I. The Life of Man—To Know and Love God

1 God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Savior. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life.

2 So that this call should resound throughout the world, Christ sent forth the apostles he had chosen, commissioning them to proclaim the gospel: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."4 Strengthened by this mission, the apostles "went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that attended it."5

3 Those who with God's help have welcomed Christ's call and freely responded to it are urged on by love of Christ to proclaim the Good News everywhere in the world. This treasure, received from the apostles, has been faithfully guarded by their successors. All Christ's faithful are called to hand it on from generation to generation, by professing the faith, by living it in fraternal sharing, and by celebrating it in liturgy and prayer.6

We are called to listen to God's call, heed it, and to help others listen and heed it as well. You either heed Jesus or else you do not.

[stfassisi]

Harley-If Adam and Eve did not have the capacity to sin, they would never have sinned. If Christ did not have the capacity to sin, He could never have been the perfect sacrifice.

Mark-Oh boy, we part company here. Adam and Eve were created sinless and it was introduced to them by the serpent. I will object strenuously to your claim that Christ had the capacity to sin

Harley,be careful, your dragging up old heresies that have been condemned and are NOT Christian.

The Fifth General Council of Constantinople (553) condemned the teaching of Theodor of Mopsuestia, which asserted that Christ only became completely impeccable after the resurrection . It follows from this that He was already impeccable.

Excerpts from the 5th Council Of Constantinople..

Can. 12. If anyone defends the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia, who said that one was God the Word, and another the Christ, who was troubled by the sufferings of the soul and the longings of the flesh, and who gradually separated Himself from worse things, and was improved by the progress of His works, and rendered blameless by this life, so as to be baptized as mere man in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and on account of the baptism received the grace of the Holy Spirit, and was deemed worthy of adoption as a son, and according to the likeness of the royal image is worshipped in the person of God the Word, and after the resurrection became unchangeable in thoughts and absolutely unerring, and again the same impious Theodore having said that the union of God the Word with the Christ was such as the Apostle (spoke of) with reference to man and woman: "They shall be two in one flesh"[Eph. 5:31]; and in addition to his other innumerable blasphemies, dared to say that after the resurrection, the Lord when He breathed on His disciples and said:"Receive ye the holy ghost"[Is. 20:22], did not give them the Holy Spirit, but breathed only figuratively. But this one, too, said that the confession of Thomas on touching the hands and the side of the Lord, after the resurrection, " My Lord and my God"[Is.. 20:28], was not said by Thomas concerning Christ, but that Thomas, astounded by the marvel of the resurrection, praised God for raising Christ from the dead;

http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma3.php

[stfassisi]

Harley-If Adam and Eve did not have the capacity to sin, they would never have sinned. If Christ did not have the capacity to sin, He could never have been the perfect sacrifice.

Mark-Oh boy, we part company here. Adam and Eve were created sinless and it was introduced to them by the serpent. I will object strenuously to your claim that Christ had the capacity to sin

Harley,be careful, your dragging up old heresies that have been condemned and are NOT Christian.

The Fifth General Council of Constantinople (553) condemned the teaching of Theodor of Mopsuestia, which asserted that Christ only became completely impeccable after the resurrection . It follows from this that He was already impeccable.

Excerpts from the 5th Council Of Constantinople..

Can. 12. If anyone defends the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia, who said that one was God the Word, and another the Christ, who was troubled by the sufferings of the soul and the longings of the flesh, and who gradually separated Himself from worse things, and was improved by the progress of His works, and rendered blameless by this life, so as to be baptized as mere man in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and on account of the baptism received the grace of the Holy Spirit, and was deemed worthy of adoption as a son, and according to the likeness of the royal image is worshipped in the person of God the Word, and after the resurrection became unchangeable in thoughts and absolutely unerring, and again the same impious Theodore having said that the union of God the Word with the Christ was such as the Apostle (spoke of) with reference to man and woman: "They shall be two in one flesh"[Eph. 5:31]; and in addition to his other innumerable blasphemies, dared to say that after the resurrection, the Lord when He breathed on His disciples and said:"Receive ye the holy ghost"[Is. 20:22], did not give them the Holy Spirit, but breathed only figuratively. But this one, too, said that the confession of Thomas on touching the hands and the side of the Lord, after the resurrection, " My Lord and my God"[Is.. 20:28], was not said by Thomas concerning Christ, but that Thomas, astounded by the marvel of the resurrection, praised God for raising Christ from the dead;

http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma3.php

[HarleyD]

Harley,be careful, your dragging up old heresies that have been condemned and are NOT Christian. The Fifth General Council of Constantinople (553) condemned the teaching of Theodor of Mopsuestia

This is a grave misunderstanding of what I am stating and the nature of Christ. Please note what the Council condemned:

Theodore of Mopsuestia, who said that one was God the Word, and another the Christ, who was troubled by the sufferings of the soul and the longings of the flesh

I'm not stating anything at all. I'm saying that our Lord Jesus in His humanity follow the will of God so completely and fully that He never was "troubled" in His soul or had "longings". His will was to do the will of the Father, which is precisely what our Lord did. He was totally submissive to the Father's will led by the Spirit-even unto death-perfect and complete in every way.

So that makes one wonder about "free will". If our Lord Jesus followed the Father's will totally and completely, is anyone here willing to state that the Lord Jesus was a robot? And since this was predestined from the beginning wouldn't that mean that Christ was choosen? And as far as free will goes, would the thought of longing of the flesh enter into His mind and He would "freely" choose to be led by the Spirit? I would stipulate that those who believe in "free will" are really the ones who are committing the heresy of Theodore of Mopsuestia.

[stfassisi]

He never was "troubled" in His soul

Now you're over compensating the other way as if Jesus had no emotions on human activity just because hey know the outcome.

Perhaps you don't remember this Scriptures...

"When Jesus had said these things, he was troubled in spirit; and he testified, and said: Amen, amen I say to you, one of you shall betray me"- John 13:21

And as far as free will goes, would the thought of longing of the flesh enter into His mind and He would "freely" choose to be led by the Spirit? I would stipulate that those who believe in "free will" are really the ones who are committing the heresy of Theodore of Mopsuestia.

Harley, I have always liked you ,but sometimes you don't make any sense.

[MarkBsnr]

Very good debate, gentlemen. I apologize inasmuch as I have been pressed overly much in terms of time and have not had the werewithal to give this the attention and the consideration that it deserves.

[HarleyD]

Harley, I have always liked you ,but sometimes you don't make any sense.

Now you're sounding like my wife. ;O)

I think we both would agree that our Lord's will was not corrupted. Please note what the Lord stated:

Luk 22:42 saying, "Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done."

What does the above passage tell us? Just the following:

1) Our Lord Jesus' will was perfect (unlike ours).

2) The Father's will and our Lord Jesus' will (in His humanity) were different.

3) Christ did not follow his perfect will but instead relied upon doing the Father's will.

Paul states this in Philippians 2:

Phl 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

So, no, Theodore of Mopsuestia was wrong. Our Lord had a will and that will was perfect and flawless. But everyone who believe in free will are equally as wrong and the text of Luke shows it to be the case. The Lord who had a perfect will, never exercised His will. He was ever obedient to the will of the Father unlike Adam who was not obedient to the will of the Father.

To think we can "will" ourselves to do the Father's will is not much different than to think the heresy of Theodore of Mopsuestia that Christ's will was no different than our wills. It's just a reversed view. Both are wrong and heretical.