JFJ Forums

Ripley’s,

I’ve stated many times that it was God who determined the canon, not the Catholic Church.  Please stop saying I hold that the RCC determined the canon of scripture.  My position is that he revealed it to us through the power of the Holy Spirit working in Church Councils much like the one held in Jerusalem as recorded in Acts 15.  Since these councils are not documented in sacred scripture, my position is that the canon of scripture was revealed to us through sacred tradition.  This is what you divisively call “Gentile Talmudism”.

Why do you insist that I’m being divisive?  I think the only reason is because you disagree with what I have to say.  I began participation in this forum in response to “sugarman’s” “Challenge”. My primary reason was to dispel misconceptions of Catholicism and to defend the Catholic faith.  I consider this to be a means of uniting rather than dividing, especially for those who do not consider Catholics to be Christians.

I’ve made it clear in other posts my position on what the church is.  I believe there is a mystical, spiritual body, and that there is a visible, tangible, sacramental body, complete with an earthly shepherd (yes I mean a Pope a.k.a. “Al-bayit”), ordained successors to the apostles (yes I mean bishops), authoritative councils, distinct churches in geographical areas (yes I mean diocese), and other physical realities.

I believe that all who profess faith in Jesus Christ and respond to his grace in tangible ways (what you might call “works”), are brothers and sisters in Christ and are part of the mystical body of Christ.  I do not judge anyone to be excluded from the mystical body of Christ – lest I myself be judged.  I believe that the visible, tangible, and sacramental church is the Catholic Church, whether it be of the Latin Rite, or any of the other rites (Byzantine, Armenian, Alexandrian, Syriac, …).

I do not believe that at present, the mystical body is anywhere near unified.  Perhaps you and Chafer disagree.  My hope is that our Lord’s prayer in John 17 will someday be fulfilled -  that we may be one, as the Father and Son are one, so the world will know that Jesus Christ was sent by God.

Because of statements like these:


And from statements by the RCC proper.

Where EXACTLY do you place Protestants, whether they be formal Protestants, or non-denominational protestants? Or Evangelicals? Or Pentacostals?

Oh, wait, I seeeeeeeeeeee...."mystical" as opposed to "visable, tangible, sacramental"...more "RCC speak"...disengenuous, misleading, word parsing. I prefer clarity, bluntness even, to double-talk.




When man, even a council, asserts that they have some knowledge "other" than what is contained in scriptures, that becomes de facto doctrine, then it is Talmudism. Sorry if you don't like that assertion, but wk, it happens to be true.

Oral Torah/Sacred Tradition is based on nothing more than self-proclaimed authority. Each built on a misinterpretation/misapplication of ONE VERSE (respectively).

That is not the same as saying, "You're a 'lesser Christian'.", like you are saying to us....I am making a statement against a false doctrine.

There are no "lesser Christians"...we are either His People or Not His People....there are no "Mostly/Kinda/Almost His People".

WS since the writtings of the NT were consider scripture as being written because people knew what being said by them was true it does not matter what counsel accepting them or ad knowledge them.



scripture is not base on counsels or what counsels asknowledge etc..... The scriptures The Cannon of the NT and OT was accpeted as being scripture as it was forming because the people KNEW what they were saying and there letters to different places were true at those times.

I would like to add that the 27 books of the NT and the OT were already consider scripture ina part of the Cannon before any counsel.


Jesus use the OT to prove His side of  being messiah and the NT was written no later then 25-40 years after Jesus death by the same people who witness Him.


The people who were living in that time understood there letters and knew them to be true to the letter.


They were accpet as being scripture by the mere fact many many people testify  on the behalf of there letters being true and proven.



The thing is WS if you live in the time of Christ and walk with him etc.... witness what he did etc... and others were writting about him  who also witness him etc... were not you agree that those letters are scripture just by the fact you had witness to the truth of those letters being true?

Ripley’s –

I’m not sure why you are so offended by my definition of the church.  I agree with you that all who believe in Jesus Christ are brothers and sisters in faith, and thus, members of the same Body of Believers.  This is your definition of “Church” and I acknowledge that and in this respect, we are united.

My definition of Church goes beyond this. It extends into the sacramental nature of the Church which can best be described as physical, tangible, sacramental realities.  In other words, we really believe that God uses physical, tangible means to confer his grace (but of course he’s not limited in this way).  We believe that the physical water of baptism cleanses us from sin.  We believe that Jesus Christ is truly, physically, tangibly present in the Eucharist, that he is physically, tangibly, present in our worship service just as God was physically, tangibly present in the burning bush, the pillar of smoke, and the Ark of the Covenant.  We believe there is a physical, tangible, earthly shepherd that guides us.  We believe there is a physical, tangible structure of authority in the Bishops who we believe succeed the Apostles through physical, tangible, ordination by laying on of hands.

These are physical, tangible characteristics of the church that most Protestants outright reject.  So it is not that the Catholic Church excludes people, it is that Protestants choose to not be a part of it.  The Catholic Church usually refers to those who choose not to be a part of our fellowhip as “separated brethren”, not “lesser Christians”.

Hi Wk. In your reply I found many of your statements as being untrue, misrepretation , misleading and historical revisionism  and double standard on many things. You have argued in circles on this thread. And have refuted all of your main arguments. So contrary to what you claimed I never dodged your questions at all. All one needs to do is read through the entire thread and will see it is you who did what you accused me of doing. I will point out the following errors, lies and misrepresentations you did in your previous reply to me.

1 ) You stated none of the ecumentical councils list the Protestant OT Canon listing meanwhile none affirmed the RCC OT Canon listing. That is a pure case of double standards. It is worse for your position because Trent claimed it was the unanimous consent of the church throughout history when it was clearly not the case.

2 ) With regard to Jerome your now being dishonest. While he did read the deuterccanonical books he never regarded them as Scripture. That is a key fact in which my own quote of Jerome proved. Contrary to your claim Jerome in fact did rejected the add ons to the book of Daniel. He stated " The stories of Susanna and of Bel and the Dragon are not contained in the Hebrew...For this reason when I was transalating Daniel many years ago, I noted these visions with a critical symbol, showing that they were not included in the Hebrew... After all Origen, Eusebius and Appolinaerius, and other outstanding churchmen and teachers of Greece acknowledge that, as I have said, these visions are not found amoungst the Hebrews, and therefore they are not obliged to answer to Porpyhyry for these portons which exhibit no authority as Holy Scripture. " ( Jerome, Preface to Jeromes Commentary on Daniel, trans. by Gleason Archer , pg. 17 )

3 ) With regard to all issues regarding the Old Testament Canon I will list works which deal with it more indepth since evidently you never studied this issue at all. See 1 ) The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and it's background in Early Judaism by Dr. Roger Beckwith. 2 ) Survey of the Bible by Dr. William Hendriksen.  Your dishonest ploys are well answered in these works.

Pardon me, but "separated brethren" means what? (More RCC word parsing, innuendo, allusion...but no insult! Certainly not! Obvious sarcasm.)

It means: Divided Christ! UN-ECHAD! Disjointed! Peter "separated" from Gentiles in Galatia v 11-21 CJB...."No, no. You're my brothers, of course...but I'll just go over, um, here, and eat with those I am in 'full communion' with. With those whom I have ALL things in common. You know, the 'Kosher brothers'." What did Paul say about that? Well, wk, I say the same to you.

But as it is, there are indeed many parts, yet just one body. So the eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you"; or the head to the feet, "I don't need you." 1 Cor 12:20,21 CJB

Who is ANYONE to tell a brother/sister/different congregation WITHIN CHRIST that they "don't need" the other (part of the body)? Even IF you think we are "lesser parts": v 22 On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be less important turn out to be all the more necessary (As I have stated before, TOGETHER WE COMPRISE HIS PERFECTION; not ONE denom is perfect in itself.)

Oh, but see, this is where scripture is INSUFFICIENT, and RCC Sacred Tradition comes in (NECESSARY, in fact, to supplement God's insufficient word)...God told YOU (RCC proper) something DIFFERENT; CONTRARY to  His (signed, sealed, delivered) Word. You, with Authority, can separate, chop up His body, break His legs...trying to "cover" the deed with misleading words.

I thank God that HE ALONE has accepted me in FULL COMMUNION WITH HIM through His cleansing/redemptive power of HIS Living Water baptism.

4 ) You continue to use Council of Jamnia in which case your being dishonest again. I do not appeal to that at all. Neither of us appeals to them. So there is no logical basis  of making mention of it at all yet you do in order to mislead people on the actual argumentations involved. I already stated very clearly no church council has authroity to open and close a canon. This is evident in the very fact that since the days of Moses the Canon of Scripture was increasing until the NT was completed. Our issue only relates to the Apocrypha.

5 ) With regard to the Nicene Creed again  your reading back present day RCC dogma back to it when that is untrue. Both with regard to the meaning of Catholic and your claimed baptismal regeneration view of the RCC which you claimed was held there when it was not. I stated what the true Catholic church is as defined in Scripture which you evidently deny. The true catholic church consist of all those who have been born again since Pentecost ( Matt. 16:18; 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. With regard to " Baptism for the remission of sins " the word for in the NT Greek is eise and means on account or or because of . In This case one is baptized because of the remission of sins. That is the teaching of Scripture.

6 ) You did more double standards. Case in point you complain of Protestant statement of faiths meanwhile the RCC has it's own in the creeds. I guess you think it's alright for the RCC and not those who are not.

7 ) You stated the RCC, EO, Anglican and Lutheran position on Apostolic Sucession. You erroed  because some Anglicans reject it likewise most Lutherans reject it as well as embraced by the RCC. And EO rejects the Bishop of Rome as head of the universal church on earth. Your not as united as you think you are on that. Contrary to your claims Jesus did not start the RCC. What we see is a departure from the Biblical definition of the Church both universal and local and in which RCC and EO embraced a false ecclesiological form of church government from what is taught in Scripture. Both RCC and EO departed from church government as seen from Acts 15.

8 ) As for the " Seat of Moses " well what more can be said than the fact Jesus condemned them and their false teaching in Matthew 23 when He pronounced His woes upon the Pharisees.

9 ) Contary to what you said , all fellowships which teach the doctrines of Scripture on that basis alone has true Apostolic Sucession. The fact is the RCC and EO form of church government is not taught in Scripture. And that salvation itself is not limited to a specific denomination or sect. The RCC itself is a sect. It says of itself " I am of Peter " yet Paul rebuked such as mind set of arrorgance on the part of the RCC. I believe 1 Cor. 1:10-14 in itself refutes your whole false concept of who or what the true church is.

10 ) You brought up the issue of my view on Baptism. I specifically stated it is taught in Scripture  yet you made a false argument by demanding that I show it taught in the early church father writings when I never stated that is was. That is a dishonest argument that you used. Also you can't cite more than 11 as holding to any form of Baptismal regeneration prior to 300ad. You do not follow your own standards on unanimous consent on this. You claimed your view was the one embraced by the entire church yet we have no record of this. You have less than 11 prior to 300ad. My claim is these 11 departed from what was taught in Scripture on it. And none did an exegetical defense of their position. My view is correct because it is taught in Scripture. History neither proves nor disproves a doctrine. So your use of the historical argument is not only dishonest but is also misleading.

11 ) Your whole concept of " ex opera operato " is rejected by what is taught in Acts 15 as I stated before on another thread. That Council rejected " ceremonialism "' / " ritualism "  as embraced by the RCC and EO. It condemned the view that ordinances are necessary for salvation. All you did was because replaced  " unless you are circumcised according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved " to you must be baptized in water and follow the Sacraments as defined and taught by the RCC you cannot be saved .  You have the same essential heresy as rejected by Acts 15 except you replaced circumcism with baptism and the sacramental system of the RCC.

12 ) My exact words were you either were not a Protestant or your never knew whatProtestants teach. Since you claimed you were a Protestant .Tell me which standard Presbyterian Systematic Theology sets you studied ?  Which standard Baptist Systematic Theology sets you studied ?  Which standard Angelican Systematic Theology sets you studied ? Which Standard Methodist Systematic Theology set you studied ? What standard Lutheran Systematic Theology set you studied ? You say you were a member of these if I remember correctly. Well if you can't answer what I asked there then how can I take you serious on your claims of once being Protestant ? I am able to answer the questions I just asked you. You answer will make or brake you there and please be honest in your answer.

13 ) If you want to learn what an exegetical treatment of Scripture than read The Mac Arthur New Testament Commentary Series. If you want to know what historical treatment of church history than read History of the Christian Church  by Dr. Philp Schaff.

14 ) Your claim that the Dallas Theological Seminar and The Master's Seminary is contrary to the Nicene Creed is false. Your basic premise for that is false because you equivocate " transubstantiation " with the Eucharist. That is where historical dishonest is at work with you. There were several different views on the meaning of the Eucharist some held to what is called a Materialistic view verses a spiritualistic view. Both of these views are a real presence of Jesus Christ. The issue is over how it is defined .From those two general views we have the seeds from which all the present day views of the Lord's Supper came from. What can be said without question as that transubstiation as presently defined by the RCC was taught or held. Your conclusion is based on nothing more than reading back present day RCC dogma back to the early church and ignore all contary evidence where they differ from it. This is based on my own reading of the early church fathers on this matter. You have nothing more than historical revisionism as Rome has claimed for itself.