JFJ Forums

Chafer –
Could you please be specific about my false statements and which facts of history I have changed?  All I can see from your post is that you disagree with the conclusions I draw from the evidence I provide.  I think it’s more appropriate for you to say that we are in disagreement than it is to say I’m making false statements and changing history.

I accept that you do not place your authority in the Council of Jamnia or any other Council.  So you have no Council, Jewish or Christian, which affirms your canon.  Right?  So how do you know your collection of scriptures is exactly no more and no less than what God intended?  Tradition!!!!  Now why is your tradition, not recorded in ANY council, more authoritative than those of the councils of Rome, Carthage, Hippo, and Trent?

Scripture does not set forth the canon.  The N.T. refers to the Torah (5 books), the Neviim (the prophets), and the Psalms.  The books in dispute do not fall under these categories. We’ve already gone over this. Your quote from Josephus (“Antiquities of the Jews” c. 94 A.D.) is post Jamnia so he is merely echoing the findings of this same council that rejected all of the writings of the Apostles and the writings used by the “Greeks” (Jews of the Diaspora).
(cont …)

(… cont)
I have indeed pointed out that there was disagreement as to what the canon of scripture should be. This is an important historical fact because it shows that God revealed the canon of scripture through some means other than scripture itself.  Some accepted the deuterocanonical books and some did not – this is fact and I don’t deny it.  The N.T. books were under heavy dispute also, most notably the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas, and there were many, many more read in assembly and considered inspired scripture – this too is fact.  So the historical facts are that the early church was uncertain as to what was and was not inspired scripture – God had not yet revealed this. This is the whole reason why I brought up the canon of scripture – to show the great error in assuming that Scripture is the only infallible source of God’s revelation.  There MUST be another source God used to reveal to us what was and was not inspired and that is Sacred Tradition.

Regarding your quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia…  You again are cherry picking quotes.  For those interested, the rest of the article can be found here.  You will see that Trent was affirming, and raising to the level of dogma, the canon of scripture.  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

You quote St. Jerome as rejecting the deuterocanonical books.  This was true initially.  St. Jerome traveled to Jerusalem to learn Hebrew from the Pharisees.  I can’t imagine the Pharisees in Jerusalem would convince St. Jerome that the scriptures used by the Christians were inspired, especially those written by disciples of the renegade Rabbi Yeshua (now this is my opinion).  But there is more to the story than the cherry-picked quote you’ve provided.  St. Augustine strongly urged Jerome to include the deuterocanon in his Latin translation, as did other church leaders, because it was in widespread use by the church.  St. Jerome, recognizing truth is beyond his own personal opinions, relented and agreed with the leaders of the church and included the deuterocanon in his translation.  In defense of the Greek parts of the book of Daniel, he writes “What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches?” (“Against Rufinius”)
(cont …)

(… cont)
Regarding Protestants “affirming” the Ecumenical Councils…  It seems you are changing your story here.  First you say “all Protestants affirm the 7 ecumenical councils” and that “there is nothing in these councils from which Protestants dissent”.  Now you seem to be saying it is only the creeds which you affirm, and only after redefining their meaning. The historical writings of the church are quite clear on what is meant by baptism and apostolic succession in these creeds so you do not need to revise this based on your tradition.

Regarding your refusal to provide any pre-reformation evidence that the evangelical position of “meaningful” baptism (“just getting wet” for infants)…  I brought up baptism in this thread only because you claim that all protestants “affirm” all of the ecumenical councils yet some have a clearly different understanding of baptism.  I know that you never said you would provide historical evidence.  Does that mean I can’t ask you to provide some sort of historical proof that your position was ever held?  The FACT that there is no pre-reformation evidence that this view was ever held and the FACT that there is no evidence the position of the fathers was ever opposed, is a very strong indication that your interpretation of scripture is not what was handed down by the Apostles.  And it is not only the Catholic Church that holds this position.  The Eastern Orthodox and many Protestants also agree with it.  This is where Sacred Tradition is properly used to understand Sacred Scripture.

Regarding your insinuation that I regard Evangelicals as Nestorians or Modalists …  This is not the intent of my mentioning the Council of Ephesus.  The point was that one of the proclamations of the Council was the definition given to Mary - “Theotokos” which means “God-bearer” as opposed to “Christotokos” – “Christ-bearer”.  My point is that most Evangelicals would never give this name to Mary, and thus, would not “affirm” the proclamations of this council.  Would you or any others reading this describe Mary as the “God-bearer?  If not, then you do not “affirm” the Council of Ephesus.
(cont …)

Ripley’s -  Our faith cannot deny historical facts.  It really would be nice to claim that God delivered our bibles as they are in the present form but the facts are that he did not.  They were written over time and discerned through the power of the Holy Spirit working through some entity other than scripture itself.  I think this is a beautiful example of how God interacts directly with us, not necessarily individually but collectively as a chosen people.

If you were to travel to the various churches in the 1st, 2nd, or even 3rd century and ask what was considered sacred scripture, you would get differing answers from the faithful.  You will even get differing answers today depending on whether you ask a Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant, or an Orthodox Jew or an Ethiopian Jew.  It is a denial of historical facts to make the claim that scripture clearly lists what is and what is not inspired.  If it did, the canon would never have been an issue at all and all of the faithful would be in agreement.  This is why I don’t believe it should be surprising at all that I disagree with Jans post.

So the question again becomes, how do we know that scripture contains exactly no more and no less than what God intended? How do we know that some inspired texts were not lost along the way?  We rely on what was handed down by our brothers and sisters who went before us.  We trust in Jesus’ promise to be with us until the end of time and that he has been faithful to his bride and guided her in truth.  This is what I call Sacred Tradition and this is the reason I originally brought up the canon of scripture in the thread titled “Gentile Talmudism”.

And so to answer your question “Did you get your canon from [the Jews in Ethiopia]”?, The answer is no.  The canon of scripture comes to us from God.  The appropriate question is how is the canon revealed to us and this is where we disagree.  Many Protestants insist that everything necessary for saving faith is in scripture alone and that scripture is our only source of infallible truth. My claim is that scripture alone does not reveal to us what the canon of scripture is.  If it did, we would all stand in agreement.  My position is based on both scripture and on the reality of history.  The canon of scripture was revealed to us by God, through the power of the Holy Spirit, working in the Church that Jesus Christ established. This is what I call Sacred Tradition and you call “Gentile Talmudism”.

Church Councils are fallible whereas Scripture is infallible. The Church does not have equal authority with Scripture. We can only agree with a church council on it's teaching only when it lines up with Scripture. I have no problem with church authority in itself. The problem lies is that no church is infallible or has an infallible teacher which includes the Church of Rome. It is not true that that my Scripture is based on tradition. There are priciples which are used to discover Scripture. If you ever were a Protestant you would know of it. Also the OT Canon approved by Trent is not the same as Rome, Carthage or Hippo. Their OT Canon did not match exactly as  that approved  by Trent. Historical fact you ignored. You likewise have no Ecumentical Council which affirmed your canon. What I do have  is key Scholars whom the RCC ignores regarding the OT Canon such as Jerome.

That threefold division is the Hebrew Canon division. And therefore supports what I stated all along. Since they were not part of the Hebrew Canon they are to be rejected as your extra books are not Scripture. Evidently Jesus and the Apostles appealed to Scripture during the ministry of Jesus and afterwards with regard to the OT. They knew what the OT apart from any council. That is a fact.

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

John 5:45-47 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Rom. 1:2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)

2 Tim. 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

2 Pet. 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

His statements were based on his findings and not merely following Jamnia. The issue relates only with regard to the OT Hebrew Canon. Scripture was not closed until the last book was written . What I am saying is throughout history the Canon grew from the OT and completed with the NT which we have today.  All you can do is ignore what Josephus said.

1 ) I showed that the Church of Rome presently known as the Latin Church or RCC did not have an offical OT Canon until the Council of Trent. That is when it settled the issue within itself on that matter. My own quote showed this.

2 ) Protestants believe Scripture is the only infallible source is because they believe Scripture is God's word. God can't lie and since Scripture is God's word it can't lie. Tradition is not God's word and therefore are not infallible. Tradition can only be affirmed when it lines up to what is in Scripture. I do not reject traditional all together. I just do not place tradition equal in authority with Scripture. Likewise the Church is not infallible either and is subject to the infallible authority of Scripture.

3 ) There are a large number of Protestants books which deal with the priciples used in discoverying the Canon. A subject like this would be better done on your own reading that source material rather than on a message board where full justice to this subject can't be done. Try Roman Catholics and Evangelicals : Agreements and Differences by Dr. Norman Geisler and Dr. Ralphe MacKendie. It's a recommended book by Protestant and Catholic apologist.

3 ) My quoting of Jerome clearly shows that the RCC did not have the claimed unanimous consent on the OT Canon as Trent claimed. And shows how they ignored his scholarship on this matter of which he was very well qualified in. Augustine however was not an expert on this issue. Jerome never affirmed the RCC OT Canon once his study was completed on the matter. He had the present Protestant OT Canon listing. That much is a fact of history.

1 ) I never changed the meaning of the word Catholic. The RCC did to refer only to itself while it refered to the universal church. Here is what is Biblically the True Catholic Church. It is The Church in the West and East departed from the Biblical teaching on ecclesiology. My tradition is confirmed in Scripture whereas that of the RCC is not.

The true catholic church consist of all those who have been born again since Pentecost ( Acts 2 ) and baptized by the Holy Spirit into Christ body ( 1 Cor, 12:13; Acts 1:5; 11:15 ) and completed at the premillennial pretribulational rapture ( 1 Thes, 4:13-18, Rev. 3:10, 1 Thes. 1:10; 5:9 ; Rev 6:16-17 ) regardless of their denomination or sect ( 1 Cor. 1:11-17 ) . In the local sense the word " church " is used of the group of professed believers in any one locality. Thus we read of the church of Jerusalem ( Acts 8:1; 11:22 ) , in Ephesus ( Acts 20:17 ) , in Cenchrea ( Rom. 16:1 ) , and in Corinth ( 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1 ) . We read of the church of Laodiceans ( Col. 4:16 ) and of the Thessalonians ( 2 Thes. 1:1; 2 Thes. 1:1 ) . Sometimes the term is in the plural form, as in the churches of Galatia ( Gal. 1:2 ) , of Judea ( 1 Thes. 2:14 ) , and of Asia ( Rev. 1:4 ) . The local Churches together are to be a faithful replica of the true church, the universal church. I sure know what the true universal church is. Amen .

2 ) I deny Apostolic Sucession as held by the RCC. True sucession only involves  fellowships which uphold the teachings of Scripture. All regardless of their denomination or sect.  It involves affirming essential Christian doctrine found in Scripture which must be affirmed and taught in each fellowship. I consider the RCC, EO and Protestant denominations as all  equally sects and is contrary to what is in 1 Cor. 1:10-14.

On regeneration issue

1 ) I claimed my views regeneration is taught exegetically in Scripture. My evidence for my position is the infallible Scripture. Scripture overides the writngs of the early church fathers in authority. As Scripture is  infallible while the early church fathers were not.

2 ) You cited less than 11 early church fathers prior 300ad as teaching baptism regeration and then you incorrectly view them as holding to the same exact position of what was affirmed at the Council of Trent.

3 ) You can cite no church father in the 1st cent for any type of Baptismal regeneration. It came afterwards. Right after the Apostles died off. You have no evidence of this being taught or traced back to the Apostles themselves.

4 ) Your demanding of me citing for something I never claimed is in itself a fallacy. Your historical argument does not prove or disprove my position. That's the thing. A teaching is Biblical if it is found in Scripture and not when it is discerned by people from Scripture. Do you reject the Trinity since it was not held by Jews prior to the  time of Jesus and the Apostles ? You see your inconsistant in your use of the historical argument. Your arguments of silence is a logical fallacy and is not valid evidence againist anything.

5 ) You can't appeal to Protestants for baptismal regeneration. They do not hold to it as held and affirmed by the Council of Trent. All Protestants don't hold to " ex opere operato " . Your appeal to them without qualification is dishonest. Likewise the early church fathers prior to 300ad did not hold to " ex opere operato " . All your claims are rejected on these grounds.

6 ) Tradition does not override what is taught in Scripture. Jesus warned againist this. Scripture alone is infallible and not traditions of man. You and the RCC are doing exactly what the Scribes and Pharisees did with regard to unwritten tradition which was claimed to be divinely passed down from the time of Moses.

Matt. 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?