JFJ Forums - Establishment of Canon of Scripture

ChaferDTS Wrote:

Quote:

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.

Thank you for your information. You never studied none of the various Protestant systematic theologies and are therefore not able to provide a proper presention of their beliefs of which you reject. When someone rejects a theology it is best to make sure you study it before rejecting it otherwise you end up looking like you do not know what your talking about with others as is the case here with you. Just because you may not have been taught correctly is an excuse at all. You were an untaught person in a Protestant church just as there are untaught people in the RCC. It is best for those in any group to study it's beliefs that way one knows why they are a part of it or why they leave it. Most often those who leave Protestant churches to become Roman Catholic do not know Protestant beliefs and display a lack of knowledge of their teachings. I have yet to find one that properly defines the five solas as held by the Reformers. That is my personal experience with such people. My only issue is that you are not fully aware of the five solas of the Reformation nor have you properly represented them in any of your post. That is my problem with you and nothing else. People have a right to join any church that they want to. I have no problem with this at all. My concern is what Scripture teaches and on if such and such a church is teaching it correctly or not. I do believe in freedom of religion by the way. So you can't incorrectly think that people are anti-roman catholic or whatever with you at all. Our issue is really on what Scripture says and nothing more.

Chafer – can you please tell me to what extent you’ve studied either the RCC or the EO? You reject their teachings on baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence in the Eucharist but you have clearly shown in your posts that you do not understand their biblical roots or their Judaic roots. Can you please summarize for me your seminary training and to what extend you’ve studied the RCC or EO? Have you studied any theology outside the context of dispensationalism? If you are having difficulty finding people who understood the 5 Solas of the Reformation and then entered the RCC, I can provide a rather lengthy list for you.

To all,

I've created two separate posts under the "Roman Catholicism" thread to continue discussion on Regenerative Baptism and the Real Presence in the Eucharist. If you are interested in continuing this discussion, please post in those threads.

WS how do feel about in israel The temple used the hebrew cannon as the main source for being infallible and the other books that as commentary a source to study but not on the same level as the hebrew cannon?

did you read the site I posted before.

what about the Talmuds etc... other wittings base off scripture and commentary that do not include them?

The fact is there alot more of jewishing writtings that do not speak them as inspire.

Quote:

You make many claims regarding the Eucharist and Baptsimal regeneration that the Early Church Fathers (ECF) did not hold the view held by the RCC.

My exact claim was you used common RCC anachronism in your statements regarding it.

Quote:

Could you please explain to me, in light of the quotes from the ECF, how their view of regenerative baptism differs from the RCC view?

The burden of proof here is on you and not me. You claimed that they held to post 1054ad RCC teaching. You failed to show from their statements on how it matches up with present day RCC offical teaching. What you have done is what is called anachronism. So don't come to me with a prove me wrong mentality here. Remember your the one making the claims the early church fathers held to the RCC position on those issues here and now you must prove it without resorting to anachronism.

Quote:

Likewise, I cited over a dozen quotes from the ECF on the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Can you tell me what the differences are between those citations and the RCC position?

One example is they did not taught the twofold aspects of the mass was embraced by the RCC. They did not withhold the cup from the laity. More can be said but this is enough for you to work on in finding out. The burden of proof as I stated is on you. You must show that their statements are exactly what present day RCC teaches in it's offical doctrines. And then show why it supports your position rather than that of others such as Lutherans.

Quote:

Or in what ways the RCC has distorted the ECF writings?

That is easy. Some of the early church fathers held to a physical presence in the Lord's Supper and than make the claim for transubstantiation. Thus anachronism. They held to a physical presence in some of the ones you cited but did not embrace transubstantiation. Others such as Lutherans hold to a physical presence and yet reject transubstantiation cite these very same church fathers for their own position.

Quote:

I understand the subtleties between Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation, but both represent views of a real, vis-à-vis a spiritual presence.

Then you can't claim flat out claim those early church fathers for transubstantitation. Since Lutherans while they do hold to a physical presence do not embrace transubstatiation and cite the very same general church fathers as you do for their position. The burden of proof is on you to show how they embraced the RCC position in contrast to that of Lutherans who hold to " consubstantiation " . Otherwise what your doing is really anachronism.

Quote:

Can you explain to me how the quotes I provided explain a spiritual only presence?

You lied on what I stated. I did not say all the church fathers you cited held to a spiritual presence. Why the dishonesty ? Pay attention to my arguments please before making false claims of things I did not say. Most of the quotes you cited are physical presense. The issue I take it is that it does not refer to transubstantiation.

Quote:

Or could you provide references to ECF who held a spiritual only presence as you understand it or as some of your systematic theological references teach it?

I already stated Saint Augustine in his commentary on the Gospel of John chapter 6:48-59 which you can look up online. Evidently The council of Trent totally ignored him and others who appealed to Augustine on that issue. Due to space limitations on the post I am unable to fully quote him in the manner that I need to. But since I stated where to look you can check it out online .

Quote:

You are failing to directly answer my questions, and continuing to accuse me of being dishonest. I will include very specific questions at the end of this post that I would kindly like you to answer.

I have in fact answered your questions. You have not properly answered mine in fact. Anyone who reads the thread will say your claim can't be backed up on saying I did not answer you when I did.

Quote:

You are accusing me of being “dishonest” which is basically an indirect way of saying I’m lying. I’ve already pointed out that Trent reaffirmed, to the level of dogma, the canon of scripture. The article you referenced points this out – you just need to read the whole thing! ['/quote]

Your incorrect. It stated it settled the issue as far as the OT Canon is concerned in 1546 as I stated and cited. I did but you dont read the fine detail of what it stated which matched what I said.

[quote]We can address the “differences” in these canons later but will you at least acknowledge that EVERY Christian Council that proclaims a canon of scripture includes deuterocanonical books and NO Christian Council proclaims the canon as held by Protestants?

I reject your presuposition that the RCC gave us the Bible. And the Christian church is not an eyewittness of to the OT canon and therefore is irrelevent to this anyway. Besides the local councils you claim had no ecumentical authority at all which I stated before. And did not deal with that issue with regard to the eastern church at all. None of the Ecumentical councils do not affirm the RCC canon either. Your use of double standards and misleading arguments are showing up in your replies. You presented no positive evidence againist Protestants there at all. Who are you trying to convince ? Yourself or Protestants ?

Quote:

You state that I’ve “errored historically” on the point of the OT Canon being realized by the Christian Church. You make this statement with a mistaken confidence and the historical facts are quite opposite of what you claim.

You lack historical evidence on your claims regarding the Jewish OT Canon. That much I already proven and shown with regard to the OT Canon. Jesus and the Apostles knew what the Hebrew OT Canon was. And it matches up exactly with the OT Canon listing of Saint Jerome whom you totally ignored and that of Protestants.

Quote:

You claim that the canon of scripture was acknowledged as it was written yet we have disagreement among the Jewish people as to what comprises the O.T. canon.

That is incorrect historically speaking. Daniel who lived during the time of Jermiah the Prophet knew of his writing as Scripture. He was an eyewittness of it since he lived around the time it was written. There was no major" disagreements " as you claim at all.

Dan. 9:2 In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.

Quote:

THIS IS FACT. It is also FACT, that the canon of scripture was not considered closed by the Jewish people and no attempts were made to acknowledge a canon until well after Jesus Christ established the Church, breathed upon it the Holy Spirit, gave authority to the Apostles, destroyed the temple

They already had an OT Canon. The Christian Church did not establish an OT Canon. The Canon was still open and could not be closed due to the fact of the inclusion of the NT. You basically did a red herring. The issue is limited only to the so called extra books of the RCC.

Matt 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the l[b]aw and the prophets.[b]

That twfold division of Law and the Prophets refers to the 24 books of the Hebrew OT Canon. This included the Apocrypha from it's listing . Jews already knew what their OT Canon was during that time based on that passage.

Quote:

Please tell me how there could be so much dispute among the Early Church Leaders if your two primary assertions regarding the canon of scripture are true

Most of the early church fathers did not know Hebrew and lacked study in that specific area. It was ignorant of it's Jewish roots by and large. But those that did such as Saint Jerome and Origen and others did have such qualifications and made the same OT Canon listing as embraced by Protestants.

Quote:

1) that the canon of scripture is clearly defined in scripture 2) the O.T. canon was realized as it was written and closed in 500 B.C.

I will again cite a verse which shows an established OT Hebrew Canon. That list embraces all 24 books in the Hebrew Canon and matches up with the OT Canon of Protestants.

Matt. 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Quote:

I agree that the O.T. scriptures were committed to the Jewish people, as were the oral traditions, comprising the “oracles of God”.

The problem is the text refers to only the OT Scripture. And does not refer to " oral traditions. Your adding to the text what is not there. You have the false assumption that unwritten oral tradition is divinely inspired when it is not.

Quote:

Again, the question remains: of all the scriptures “committed” to Israel, what was the canon? Was it the Torah only (as believed by the Sadducees), or was it the Hebrew only scriptures (as believed by the Pharisees), or was it the Hebrew and deuterocanon (as accepted by the Jews of the Diaspora, present day Ethiopian Jews, Christians in Rome, Carthage, and Hippo). Your quote does absolutely nothing to settle the O.T. canon.

The issue is settled very easy. Jesus listed it for us.

Matt. 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

The law and Prohets refers to all 24 books in the OT Hebrew Canon. This excluded the Deutercannical books.I It included only those written which were written by one who was a Prophet of God by office or had the prophetic gift. It is on that basis the Apocrphyra is rejected.

Quote:

Here too is where dispensational theology muddies the water. You treat the Church as separate from Israel, rather than seeing the Kingdom Jesus established as being a continuation, an ingrafting of Gentiles into God’s chosen people. So you do not see God working through the Kingdom his Son established as being a continuation of his chosen people being entrusted with the oracles of God. You divide it into a Gentile Church dispensation and a Nation of Israel dispensation.

1 Cor. 10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:

Acts 1:6-7 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

Matt. 25:31-34 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

Rev. 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

Quote:

You said: “What you said totally contradictes the OT Hebrew Canon division that Jesus Christ followed. Why did Jesus follow the OT Palestian Canon listing rather than the LXX in the verse below ?”. You then go on to quote Luke 24:44.

I say: Please tell me how you can claim a specific canon or even a Hebrew only canon from “the Law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms”. What about the other wisdom literature or historical books? Then you go on with the following claim for which you have absolutely no evidence: “The fact is though Jesus and the Apostles and early church used the LXX they still followed the OT Hebrew canon listing.” There wasn’t a recognized canon at that time!!!! Divisions of scripture (Torah, Prophets, and Psalms) does nothing to set a canon.

It shows Jesus followed the threefold division of the Hebrew Canon in that verse and did not have your Aprocrypha in it. That is exactly the threefold division which Jews in Palestine made with regard to the OT. That clearly show the OT Canon that was already setted forth and accepted in Israel. I guess you totally ignore the fact Jesus referred to the Hebrew Canon listing in that verse. That threefold listing has 24 books which lines up with the Protestant OT Canon listing. You failed to prove that they had no canon when in reality it is seen that Jesus and the Apostles knew of the Hebrew Canon and it's listing. You also ignored the statements of this fact by Josephus with regard to this. He stated " It is true, our history has been written since Artaxerxes, very perculiarly, but has not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there has not been an exact sucession of prophets since that time ." ( Contra Apion 1:8 ) He rejected the Aprocrypha on the basis it was not written by one who was a Prophet by office of had the prophetic gift.

Quote:

Also, if Jesus rejected the Oral Torah and the Deuterocanon, can you please show me what was his O.T. foundation for celebrating the Feast of Chanukah?

First off, Jesus rejected unwritten tradition as binding on the people of God. I refuted you earlier on it in the thread. Secondly, he rejected it as Scripture. He knew of it but did not regard it as part of the Canon. Thirdly, you assume he celebrating the Feast of Chanukah based on the extra books without proof or evidence of that fact ! Your question is invalid as it is based on false presupositions. You evidently are unaware of the history of Chanukah.

Quote:

I already provided numerous citations from early church fathers using these as scripture. I also provided Protestant references who acknowledge this.

You literally ignored all the early church fathers who rejected it as Scripture. By the way, I already am aware of your misrepresenting the so called Protestant references in that regard. You fail to state that they wrote of many early church fathers who held to the Protestant OT Canon listing. You using of deceptive arguments wont fool any of those who are informed.

Quote:

You can deny this all you want. You can even provide references to others who did not consider the deuterocanon as inspired. All this does is provide evidence to the FACT that the O.T. canon is 1) not clearly presented in scripture, 2) was not agreed upon by either the Christian or Jewish community and therefore was not “established as it was written”.

Wrong on all accounts. It is clearly setted forth in Scripture you and the RCC have chosen to ignore it. It has in the twofold division below all 24 books found in the Hebrew OT Canon which matches up with the Protestant OT Canon. That is a point of fact.

Matt. 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Quote:

I say: Now this is “dishonesty” on your part.

The dishonesty is on the part of the RCC here and not me. Smile

Quote:

Here are the facts:
1) Jews of the Diaspora had the deuterocanon in their collection of scripture and Ethiopian Jews still do today.

Fact is it is not viewed as Scripture. Nice try at being dishonest.

Quote:

2) All Christian councils that proclaim a canon of scripture, include the deuterocanon. The Church in Rome, Hippo, and Carthage all proclaimed a canon that included deuterocanon books prior to 400 A.D.

That is false evidence presented. None of them had authority over the entire church and limited to that region. As you must agree it has no authority at all in the Eastern Church. And the fact is they did not have the same exact OT Canon listing as approved of by Trent. So your argument there is based on a false premise and false information with regard to the facts.

Quote:

3) NO Christian council has EVER proclaimed a Hebrew only O.T. canon.

None of the seven ecumentcial councils ever affirmed the RCC OT Canon listing. I guess you dont follow your own double standards. This fact bears out and affirms with regard to the Western Church that it was not settled on the OT Canon until 1546 at Trent.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23