JFJ Forums

15 ) Your whole concept of unwritten tradition that is divinely inspired  was already refuted earlier in this thread. I will recite Scripture which deals with that specific issue.

Jesus directly condemned claimed unwritten oral traditions which were claimed to be of divine authority. Jesus taught that Scripture is above tradition in authority. Scripture is infallible while tradition is fallible. Secondly, the local church proclaimed the gospel and the teachings of Scripture and does not invent " truths " which are not found in Scripture for doctrine.

Matt. 15:1-9  Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying,  “Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.” He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?  For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’  But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God”—  then he need not honor his father or mother.’ Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: ‘ These people draw near to Me with their mouth,And honor Me with their lips But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me,Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men."   

16 ) With regard to councils of Rome, Carthage and Hippo they are not evidence of the claims of the RCC on the OT Canon. They did not have the same exact OT Canon approved of by the Council of Trent. Trent never approved  of the same exact deuterocanonical book listing as those regional councils did.  Also these regional councils had no type of dogmatic ecumentical authority of any type and do not reflect the position of the universal church as I stated before. Indeed the RCC did add books which were not part of the OT Canon. As many of the early church fathers rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture.  The historical evidence is againist the RCC on that matter. When all is said and done you believe what you believe because the RCC tells you . That is Sola ecclesia. With regard to one leaving Protestanism to become a Roman Catholic. It goes both ways. All the Reformers were Roman Catholics and presently Roman Catholic becomes Protestants. Here is a good example of one.

http://www.christiantruth.com/Testimony.html

It is often asserted by Roman Catholic apologists that Protestants must rely on their tradition in order to know which books ought to be included in the Biblical Canon. The argument says that since there is no “inspired table of contents” for the Bible, then we are forced into relying upon tradition to dictate which books belong in the Bible, and which books do not. It was the church of Rome, these apologists alledge, which determined the canon at the Councils of Hippo (393 A.D.) and Carthage (397 A.D.), and it is only due to this, that Protestants know which books are inspired, and which are not. Consequently, it is the Roman Church which should be submitted to on issues of faith.

To read more go to the link

http://www.christiantruth.com/canon.html

ws scripture says The holy spirit is what cleans us not water.


The scriptures say very clear by the re-newing of  the holy spirit.


Not by re-newing of water baptism

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.  


Jesus is with us at communion to that I agree but the wine and bread do not come literal His blood and body.


We believe there is a physical, tangible, earthly shepherd that guides us.


we believe By his spirit alone we are guide not to put this kind of trust in men.


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.


This claim comes after The apostles and Jesus were well gone and the apostles die out claiming not like this in scriptureso I doubt it.


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”.


we reject it Because it not base on evidence but mere tradition.


Tradition alone does not prove it self

Documentation of Roman Catholic Dogmas on Saving Faith from Official Roman Catholic Sources

http://www.christiantruth.com/rcsavingfaith.html

Chafer et al,

I’m preparing to end my participation in this thread so I will make a few final replies, and in a separate post, provide a conclusion.

I never said the Councils of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo were ecumenical councils.  What I said is that every single Christian council that proclaimed a canon, included deuterocanonical books.  There is not a single Christian Council that affirms a canon that contains only the O.T. books found in the Protestant bible.  If you disagree with this, please provide evidence.  I’d prefer something from – oh let’s say the first 1000 years but I’ll take anything.

I have never made the claim that the Church was unanimous in the canon of scripture.  In fact, I’ve used this to refute your position.  If, as you claim, it was acknowledged as it was written, can you explain why the Jews of the Diaspora had a different collection than the Palestinian or Ethiopian Jews?  Can you explain why so many of the early church considered them inspired? Can you explain why it was so heavily debated in the early church?  Can you explain why Luther revisited the canon and considered removing Revelation, James, and Hebrews?  Why does the canon of Moody Institute differ from the Canon of Carthage, Rome, Hippo, Florence, Trent, and St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate?  I don’t mean for these to be rhetorical questions!  Please answer them succinctly without referring me to some dispensationalist theologian who I’ve “obviously never read the works of”.  The claims I’ve made is that whenever the Body of Christ held a Council that proclaimed a Canon, they ALWAYS include deuterocanonical books.  Do you deny this fact?

The whole point of bringing up the Council of Jamnia is to provide factual evidence that there was dispute among the Jews as to what was and was not inspired. The Jews of the Diaspora, who many argue were more faithful than the Pharisees in Jerusalem, considered the deuterocanonicals in the Septuagint as inspired scripture. I’ve even cited Protestant scholars who accept this.  This is historical evidence that contradicts your claim that the canon was realized as it was written.  The Council of Jamnia is the only council I know of that lists an O.T. canon that does not contain deuterocanonical books.  Am I being misleading here?  Do you deny this?  Then show me a Christian Council that affirms the Protestant O.T. canon.
(cont …)

(… cont)
Regarding the Nicene Creed… Show me where I made the claim that “catholic” (which means “universal”) in the Creed means the Roman Catholic Church.  My issue is with your definition of “apostolic church” and “one baptism for the remission of sins”.  You can twist these phrases any way you like.  I will say this one final time, of all the pre-reformation writings regarding baptism, they ALL describe baptism in terms held by most Christians, that it is more than “meaningful” and that it is more than “merely getting wet” for infants.  These writings are consistent with scripture and consistent with the clear wording of the Nicene Creed.  If anyone is “reading back” into the early Creeds, it is you.  I have patristic writings to support my position, you have absolutely none, just a Protestant tradition (and only a subset at that) based on an interpretation of scripture for which there is absolutely no pre-reformation evidence that it was ever held.

Why do you keep making an issue out of the one or two times I asked you to provide historical evidence of your view on baptism?  You and I both know there is no pre-reformation evidence that your view of baptism was ever held. But instead of acknowledging this, you make the ridiculous claim that “we cannot know what the early church believed because we do not have all of their writings”.  We also have absolutely no evidence that this view was opposed.  I realize we can’t claim “unanimous consent” that EVERY one believed this but the evidence is overwhelming. Now you are saying that great church leaders such as Justin Marytr, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Clement of Rome, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Augustine, Barnabas, Ignatius, Cyprian, Ambrose,   “departed from what was taught in scripture” and that their teachings differ from what was meant in the Nicene Creed!  And you accuse me of “reading back” into history!
(cont …)

(… cont)
Regarding creeds and “statements of faith” …  I didn’t say anything negative about “statements of faith”.  I merely pointed out that many Protestants do not appear to put much stock in the creeds of the early church.  Visit any website of an Evangelical Protestant church and try to find any reference to the Apostles, Nicene, or any other Creed.  You simply won’t find any.  Instead, you will find a “statement of faith”.  I brought this up because you claim that all Protestants “affirm” these councils, but then later rescinded and claimed that it was only the creeds to which all Protestants hold.  So then why do they feel the need to establish their own creeds? (As I was writing this a thought dawned on me:  In nearly every Evangelical Protestant statement of faith, they will make claims to “Sola-Scriptura”, yet in none of the Creeds of the Ecumenical Councils you claim Protestants “affirm”, they profess that scripture is the only infallible means of God’s revelation.  Instead they say things like “we believe in one, holy, catholic (universal), and apostolic church” (perhaps considered a “Pillar and Foundation of Truth”????).  The early creeds do not say “we believe we are saved by faith alone” but they do say “we believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”.  …hmmm… now I see why they need to create there own creeds)

Regarding Apostolic Succession … Yes some Anglicans and some Lutherans reject Apostolic Succession.  Guess which ones?  The ones that broke away from their church and no longer have succession!  Of course they’re going to reject it!  Apostolic Succession is most certainly taught in scripture.  I have an entire post on it in another thread.  You can do a search for the word “Semicha”.  In my post, I appeal to numerous new and old testament scriptures as well as the Jewish roots of our faith and early church writings.  The notion of an apostolic head of a church in a particular region is also clearly taught in scripture, as is the concept of an “Al-bayit” or “master of the palace”.

Regarding baptism and Acts 15 …  I think it’s interesting that you claim to be an expert on “exegetical systematic theology”.  The whole purpose of the Council of Jerusalem was how to deal with the Law and how it does or does not apply to gentiles.  It has absolutely nothing to do with baptism.  You are reading this in to scripture.  Jesus great commission was to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”.  Feel free to call Jesus’ great commissioning “ceremonialism” or “ritualism”.  I will accept the position of the church fathers, the creeds, and my own non “exegetical” treatment of scripture.
(cont …)

( … cont)
Regarding your accusation that I was never a Protestant …  I know this is petty but here you are changing your story again.  I can find many posts where you use the words “if you were ever really a Protestant…”.  Have I ever studied the “systematic theology sets” you listed?  No!  Is this a necessary condition for you to “take seriously” that a person is Protestant?  I’ll bet less than 5% of the faithful have ever bothered looking into this.  My understanding of the teachings of various Protestant denominations comes from what I was taught by the pastors and in their bible studies.  I’m sorry if it bothers you so much that I ultimately disagreed with some of their teachings.

Regarding the Real Presence in the Eucharist….  Please tell me what the Evangelical Protestant position is on the Real Presence.  I was told in more than one fellowship that Jesus is “spiritually present”.  To me, this means nothing more than his presence any time two or more are gathered.  This is NOT a physical presence.  Complements of Loraine Boetner, many Protestants believe “transubstantiation” was “invented” in the 13th century.  This was merely when the term was first used.  Eastern Orthodox believe in the real physical presence as do Lutherans.  Compare the “spiritual presence” with quotes from the early church:

Ignatius:
- “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead." ("Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.)
- “"Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ." -"Letter to the Ephesians", paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D
- “"I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed." -"Letter to the Romans", paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.
(cont …)

[ more quotes on the early church’s understanding of the True Presence in the Eucharist …]

Justin Martyr:
- "This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus." "First Apology", Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.
- "God has therefore announced in advance that all the sacrifices offered in His name, which Jesus Christ offered, that is, in the Eucharist of the Bread and of the Chalice, which are offered by us Christians in every part of the world, are pleasing to Him." "Dialogue with Trypho", Ch. 117, circa 130-160 A.D.
- “Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachias, one of the twelve, as follows: 'I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices from your hands; for from the rising of the sun until its setting, my name has been glorified among the gentiles; and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a clean offering: for great is my name among the gentiles, says the Lord; but you profane it.' It is of the sacrifices offered to Him in every place by us, the gentiles, that is, of the Bread of the Eucharist and likewise of the cup of the Eucharist, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it." -"Dialogue with Trypho", [41: 8-10]
(cont …)