JFJ Forums

That is still a false accusation as they all affirm Jesus is fully God and fully human 2 natures in one person and born of the virgin Mary. This belief is not based on what one calls Mary. It is based on the facts of Scripture of whom Jesus Christ is and His virgin birth. What you presented is not evidence of anything except your use of a strawman argument on that. Mary is the God bearer based on a proper definition of that term. No Protestant Creed denies this. Your guilt by assocation to modalism does not cut it. All your doing is showing your lack of study of what Protestants believe. No Protestant Creed denies what I stated above. Therefore your accusation is false. You also seem to forget that prior to the Council of Nicea almost all bishops held to and embraced Arianism . This included the Liberious the Bishop of Rome who not only affirmed Arianism but also signed  an Arian Creed and agreed with an Arian church council . Before pointing fingers remember this many more can be pointed right back at you. I can name other Bishops of Rome who fell in to heresy regarding the person of Christ and condemned by an Ecumentical Council of a claimed infallible Pope.  

Closing matter

1 ) All your doing is telling us we can't know what Scripture is apart from what the RCC tells us.

2 ) Your telling us we can't know what tradition is apart from what the RCC tells us.

3 ) Your telling us that the RCC is not subject to Scripture because the RCC gets to define Scripture, define tradition and defines the teachings of Scripture.

That is " Sola Ecclesia " . The Church in RCC teaching is not subject to Scripture and thereby in practice placings itself equal with or above the authority of Scripture. I will show you exactly all your arguments look like. All here please read the link I will place. It will give a great picture of what is a reality with the RCC on this issue.

http://vintage.aomin.org/SS.html

I will leave a link of two doctrinal statements of which I believe is totally correct doctrinal teachings.

Dallas Theological Seminary :

http://www.dts.edu/about/doctrinalstatement/

The Master's Seminary:

http://www.tms.edu/sof.asp

-emphasis mine-

Finally, your conclusion, and EXCLUSION.

Your opinion is the RCC ALONE has discerned canon...the very center/purpose of this entire thread, as I corrected stated. I don't know why you don't just say it straight out when writing sentences like the one above. By not doing so you are being disengenuous; misleading. One could read your sentence above and think that you mean all of us, but you don't.

Which is why I claim you are being divisive, and your purpose here is to be divisive. And dividing the Body is not edifying or holy in the least.

I agree with Chafer on the True Catholic Church. You don't, you exclude us. Claiming to be persecuted while persecuting...LAUGHABLE.

Again I ask (quoting Paul) "Is Christ divided?"

Is everything that is necessary for salvation contained in the Protestant canon?

Is everything necessary for our Christian walk in the Protestant canon?

Is there some other salvation in yours that is not in mine?

Some doctrinal truth that you have that I don't?

What exactly is YOUR PROBLEM with our canon? (Other than it differs from yours.)

Because even just sticking with the books that we agree on as canon, you and I don't agree with what they say. (ie: Peter/rock, and many others)

But those things aren't WHAT SAVE US. Christ's blood does. And faith/trusting in THAT is what makes us His Church. PERIOD.

And I can assuredly say that Peter would agree.

This is what Scripture itself teaches.

2 Tim. 3:14-15 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;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.

[qute]and that scripture is our only source of infallible truth. [/quote]

2 Tim. 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Praise the Lord Jesus Christ for Scripture.




That is a seperate issue from Sola Scripture. 99% of Roman Catholics do not know the difference in this in discussions. I already refuted that claim with respect to the OT earlier in this thread. What you are saying in reality is that no one apart from the Latin Church / RCC do not know the canon. Your arguments againist Sola Scriptura is really you trying to affirm Sola Ecclesia. That is the real issue.

Chafer,

You’ve conveniently dodged my questions so I’ll ask them again.  Do you acknowledge that there is no Christian Council, ecumenical or otherwise, that affirms the Protestant canon of scripture? Do you acknowledge that all Councils that list a canon of scripture include many of the deuterocanonical books?

You go on to say: “It is not true that that my Scripture is based on tradition. There are priciples which are used to discover Scripture.”.  Am I to assume then that you came up with it on your own?  You took the apostolic writings, the hundreds of writings read in the assemblies of the early Christians, the writings used by Palestinian Jews exclusively, the writings used by Jews of the Diaspora, then applied certain principles to discern what was and was not scripture, and then came up with the exact same canon?  This is absolute nonsense.  Just like the rest of us, you accept your canon of scripture based on tradition.  Someone has told us what is scripture and we accept it on faith.

And why do you insist that Jerome held to the Hebrew only canon?  We know he included the deuterocanonical books in his Latin translation.  We have proof that he defended the Greek portions of Daniel because he “followed the judgment of the churches”.  To say the Catholic Church ignores St. Jerome is ridiculous.  After all, it was the Catholic Church that commissioned his work!

You said: “That threefold division is the Hebrew Canon division”
Let’s see …  This three fold division is the Torah, the writings of the Prophets, and the Psalms.  Can you tell me what category the historical books and the rest of the wisdom literature fall under?  You can thump out as many verses as you want but none of them show what the canon of scripture is.  None of them give any indication that the Jews, the Apostles, or even Jesus, considered the canon of scripture set.  There is no indication in scripture, or even in O.T. Jewish history, that the Jews ever even considered the need for a set canon.  Josephus provides the first evidence that a canon was ever even considered and this was some 60 years after Jesus Christ gave his authority to his Bride.  So I don’t ignore what Josephus has to say about scripture, I just reject his version of the canon because at this point, the Sanhedrin no longer had any authority whatsoever.  And why would I accept as authoritative, the Council that also rejected the writings of the Apostles?
(cont …)

(… cont)
So let me ask you this question …  If scripture so clearly identifies its own canon, why does history show that the canon of scripture was heavily disputed?  Did the leaders of the Church not have the same set of tools you have to discern what is and what is not inspired?  If the canon was so clearly recognized as each book was written, then why are there varying canons among the faithful today?

Regarding your supposed “affirmation” of the Nicene Creed … I fully acknowledge what catholic means.  This is not what I’m claiming you are redefining.  What you are redefining is what the Council believed regarding the “apostolic church” and “baptism for the remission of sins”.

If you deny the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and Lutheran, position on what Apostolic Succession means, then you are rejecting and redefining the meaning of the Nicene Creed.  Scripture and the historical writings of the church are quite clear on what Apostolic Succession is.  It is the commissioning of church leaders by laying on of hands, in a succession that goes all the way back to Jesus Christ and his Apostles.  One might even argue that it goes all the way back to the Seat of Moses.  I’ve written about this in another thread.  The Jewish name for it is “Semicha”.  As a self-proclaimed scholar participating  in a forum which attempts to emphasize our Jewish roots,  I would think that you would be aware of this.  Instead, you redefine Apostolic Succession based on an Evangelical Protestant tradition, born of necessity due to the lack of true apostolic succession in all of these newly formed fellowships.  The truth of the matter is that most Evangelical Protestant fellowships hold creeds in disfavor because it is not scripture (this is from my own experience).  Instead, they form their own creeds and call them “statements of faith”.

Don’t know what more to say about baptism.  There is not one single shred of evidence that the Evangelical Protestant tradition on baptism was ever believed prior to the reformation.  Of all the writings on this key element of our faith, they all support the Catholic, EO, and most Protestants understanding that baptism is regenerative.  There is not a single pre-reformation writing that refutes this.  Chafer – what conclusion are we to draw from your view – that 1500 years of Christian faith had it wrong?
(cont …)

(… cont)
Regarding baptism and “ex opera operato” … Do you really understand what is meant by this term?  It means, in part, that the grace received in the sacraments is independent of the piety of the person administering the sacrament.  This is because it is the work of God, not of man.  Do you hold that the “meaningfull”ness of baptism is dependent on the person administering the baptism?  Do you hold that the “meaningfull”ness of the Lord’s Supper is dependent on the person breaking the bread or pouring the grape juice?  I’m sure you don’t and I’m sure neither do brothers and sisters who believe in baptismal regeneration.

You often make the assertion that since I don’t agree with you, that I was never really a Protestant.  Why do you continue to assert this?  I can list the numerous fellowships I participated in, the churches, the bible studies, and the retreats.  Why does it disturb you that God called me into the Catholic Church?  My circumstances are by no means unique.  In fact, not long ago, the president of the Evangelical Theological Society, Francis Beckwith, resigned from his post and entered into the Catholic Church.  Would you make the same claims that he was never really Protestant?

Your link to James White explains a great deal.  Is a fictional story your idea of “exegetical treatment” and sound historical evidence?  And you claim that tradition does not influence your interpretation of scripture!  And of what value is a posting of these “Statements of Faith”?  They are fallible. They are not from Ecumenical Councils.  In fact, they oppose the Nicene Creed with regards to baptism and they oppose what the Early Church taught about the Real Presence in the Eucharist (okay let me rephrase that: of the writings of the pre-reformation church, all writings addressing the Eucharist explain that Jesus Christ is truly, physically, present in the sacrament and no one ever wrote an opposing view).
(cont …)

(concluded …)
Regarding your closing remarks …
It is you who are drawing these conclusions about the Catholic Church.  This thread was spawned because someone claimed that Christian Tradition, especially if it is Catholic, is “Gentile Talmudism”.  I brought up the issue of the canon of scripture to show that Sacred Tradition is part of our faith and is complimentary to Sacred Scripture.  This is not unique to Catholicism.  It comes from our Jewish roots.  God could have easily inspired any of the authors of scripture to list the canon of scripture, but he didn’t.  He chose to reveal this to us through our brothers and sisters who have gone before us.  This was God’s doing – not the Catholic Church’s.  All of the Christian Councils that address the canon of scripture list deuterocanonical books in it.  The councils of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo are the earliest.  Were the Churches in Carthage and Hippo part of the RCC?  Had “Romanism” really spread that far so quickly?  What about the Eastern Church?  Why do they consider the deuterocanonical books inspired scripture?  If all Christian Councils that addressed the canon of scripture included deuterocanonical books, why are Catholics accused of “adding to scripture” and Protestants not accused of “taking away” from scripture?  Our canon of scripture comes to us from God’s revelation to the Bride of Jesus Christ, through the power of the Holy Spirit.  You can call it “sola-ecclesia”, “Gentile Talmudism”, or whatever you want.