4) Of the 100s of non-Hebrew writings pre-dating Christ, the original King James Bible included the EXACT SAME deuterocanoncial books as affirmed later at Trent. These continued to be included in an appendix well after the Reformation.
Here you resort to intentional misrepresentation of Protestant bible translations. None of them believed that the Apocrpypha was Scripture ! This is very dishonest of you. Having it as an appendix means it is not considered Scripture. By the way, in the LXX is likewise was under an appendix which supports the conclusion it was not considered Scripture by them. You ignored all evidence of the OT Hebrew Canon listing. Your whole statement begs the question on if it the Apcrophyra was considered Scripture or not. The very ones you appealed to did not believe that. Dishonesty shows the falsehood of the claims of the RCC resorts to on this matter.
So Chafer, how is it you can say “most rejected it prior to around 400 ad” when ALL of the Church Councils prior to 400 A.D. that list a canon proclaim one that includes the Deuterocanonical books? It would seem based on the EVIDENCE that the majority actually accepted them.
Your historical revisionism wont fool anyone who is informed on this . Most did reject it as I stated but you ignore them all.None of your local councils affirmed the same exact listing as Trent. Your evidence is totally lacking based on the facts of history. Who are you trying to convince here ?Yourself or those on this thread ?
No, I have not directly read the works of Luther just as you have not directly read the works of many Catholic theologians, nor have you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
That is not true at all. I own and read offical works which are approved by the RCC. Primary sources on that I may add. I guess you have no idea on what theological works are in my personal library and what I read.Here is short personal favorite works which I own and read though I own much more I am listing my favorite ones. 1 ) Presbyterian : Dr. Charles Hodge Systematic Theology three Volumes ; The Works of B.B. Warfield 10 Volumes and Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Systematic Theology eight Volumes. 2 ) Baptist : Basic Theology by Dr. Charles Ryrie; Lectures In Systematic Theology by Dr. Henry Thiessen and Dr. A.H.Strong Systematic Theology. 3 ) Anglican : The Principles Of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty-nine Articles by Dr. W.H. Griffith Thomas. 4 ) Lutheran : Christian Theology by Milton Valentine. 5 ) Methodist: Theological Institutes by Richard Watson. 6 ) Roman Catholic : Catechism of the Catholic Church; New Catholic Encylopedia and Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Otto and The New American Bible.
You claim to have read the early church writings with regard to the Real Presence in the Eucharist, yet your conclusion of a “spiritual presence” is in opposition to the numerous quotes I provided which you seem to have completely glossed over.
Your resorting to anarchronism again. I specifically stated that there was two main views held and debated . They were the materialistic view which was a physical presence and the position of a spiritual presense. You ignored all those who held to a spiritual presenced and you even misrepresented Augustine on this when he held to a spiritual presence based on his exposition of the Gospel of John Chapter 6. None of your quotes shows me transubstantiation as defined by the RCC. As I said before you have not proven that they held to your position in contrast to that of Lutherans who hold to a physical presence and yet reject transubstantiation.
Here are questions I’ve posed that I would like to see you answer directly:
- Why did the original King James Bible contain EXACTLY the same deuterocanonical books as in the Catholic Canon if they were “added” at Trent? If the idea was to include “useful but not inspired” books, don’t you think we would see at least a few other books in the appendix such as the Didache or perhaps the Shepherd of Hermas, or maybe some of the encyclicals by some of the great early church fathers?
Your whole question is false and invalid. None of the translators of the KJV held to the deucrocanonicals as Scripture. You were dishonest in your statements. The KJV is a protestant translation and therefore did not have the same canon listing as the RCC. How much more dishonest can you get in your arguments ? Secondly, it begs the question on the issue with irrelevant things.
- Why is there not one single Christian Council throughout the 2000 year history of the church that affirms the Protestant O.T. Canon?
Sorry but your question is assuming your position. The fact is Hippo and Cartage were regionial councils with no ecumentical authority. Secondly, none of the seven ecumentical councils list your own RCC canon approved of at Trent which means you resorted to the use of double standards when it applies to your own position as well. Thirdly, you incorrectly view the Church as giving us the OT Bible which is a view point all Protestants reject. You reject the many early church fathers who held to the same OT Canon listing as Protestants which is a point of fact and history and that the claims of the RCC are false and without historical proof.
- Why did St. Jerome include the deuterocanon in the Latin Vulgate if his final conclusion was that they were "useful but uninspired"? Why did he not include other "useful but uninspired" books?
Jerome rejected the deuterccanonicals as Scripture period. He included it because they were read by Christians. Just because he placed them in his translation does not mean he accepted your extra books as Scripture. The historical fact is he rejected your extra books as Scripture. The issue you raised is actually a red herring. Then you want me to answer a question for which Jerome alone knows. I am not him and can not answer a question that is properly directed at him to answer. The best anyone can do is speculate on that. I already cited Jerome earlier in the thread as affrming the OT Hebrew Canon in which Protestants affirm as well. Jerome and Protestants agree on the OT Canon listing. Are you claiming Jerome held to the OT Canon listing as the RCC ? If so, than that is basically lying as to his position on the matter.
- Was St. Augustine wrong to consider the deuterocanon as inspired?
Yes he was wrong on it. He disagreed with Jerome during that period of time on that specific issue.
- Do the Ethiopian Jews have an incorrect canon?
Cite me an offical OT Canon listing from them stated their list before I can answer it.
- Why is there a different canon among the Jewish people and why was the canon of scripture disagreed upon by the great leaders of the early church if scripture so clearly sets forth it’s own canon?
That is not true. You failed to prove your claim regarding the OT Canon amoung the Jews in Palestine. As I stated before the Jews in Palestine had the same OT Canon listing as Protestants. Many of the early church fathers had the same OT Canon listed as I stated before. The problem is you and the RCC ignores them. The Gospel of Matthew is clear enough on what Canon listing of the OT that the Jews in Palestine followed.
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.
- Why did the Holy Spirit inspire the N.T. authors to use the Septuagint as the primary source for O.T. quotations? Shouldn’t ALL of the O.T. references have come from the Hebrew scriptures if this was the only inspired scripture?
Greek was the language during the time the NT were written to those whom the gospel was to be preached to. Hardly any gentiles during that period of time knew OT Hebrew. The Holy Spirit used the language of the day. To english speaking people I cite an english translation and not the original language otherwise the person wont know what is being said at all if they did not know the original languages Scripture was written in. Since the OT was translated to Greek God used it since the people to whom the gospel was being preached to knew Greek and therefore understand what is written. You fail to see a translation is not inspired but is rather translating what is inspired to a language the people can read. If you do not read spanish would you buy and read a book in spanish when you do not understand or or taught it ? I dont think so.
You listed the Westminster Confession as an authoritative source for the canon of scripture. This confession also approves infant baptism, which you call “merely getting wet”. If you don't trust the Westminster confession regarding infant baptism, how can you trust it’s definition of the canon of scripture?
You created a false problem which does not really exist. I never stated or believe I can't trust that Confession of faith. You misrepresented me and erected a strawman argument. The Westminster Confession never claims to be infallinle and neither do I. It is usually realiable for correct teachings on doctrine. By the way, your properly stating my position on baptism. Both The Westminster Confession and I do agree with each other on baptism being a seal and sign. The disagreement relates only to the properly subjects of Baptism. the issue of infant baptism is not an essential Christian doctrine. That is a key point here the Westminister Confession of Faith and I agree on all essential Christian doctrines. What we disagree on is non essential doctrinal issues. I agree with them on the OT Canon based on it's evidence they provided which you are not even aware of at all. They proved their case on one and not the other as far as I am concerned. I follow the pattern that the Apostle Paul sets forth. Remember only the RCC claims the doctrine of infallibily for itself and not Protestants. Which makes your question very misleading on top of all the other false things you have in it.
1 Thes. 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
Chafer – can you please tell me to what extent you’ve studied either the RCC or the EO?
I was taught RCC teaching and own various offical authorized book on RCC teaching.EO my study comes from web sites that they have and I have a friend who is Eastern Othrodox whom I have personal discussions with. I am in the process of buying some of their best theological works which deals with their specific doctrines.
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.
That is totally false. I am familiar with RCC doctrine on those issues and appears you are not when it comes to specifics on it and I own authorized books by them on it's teachings. I do not see the RCC as having biblical roots on it's teaching on those issues. My belief is that the church of Rome ceased being a true church long ago and is apostate from the teachings of Jesus , the Apostles and Scripture itself. That is from my own personal study.
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.
I attended Bible Institute for 2 years and received a certificate of completion of it at a Protestant school. With the RCC without going to specific details I was taught RCC teaching. Only my closest friends know of the details. And yes I have studied other theologies besides dispensationalism.My level of study of Protestantism and Roman Catholic faith is enough to point out the errors you have made . Here is a listing of key writings of which I use extenstively which are generally representative of Christinity. I have been a Christian for over 16 years and have studied ever since then.
The list below is only my favorites as said before. I own close to 300 volumes worth of theological works. As you can see my reading is very diverse and major Protestant sects.
1 ) Presbyterian : Dr. Charles Hodge Systematic Theology three Volumes ; The Works of B.B. Warfield 10 Volumes and Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Systematic Theology eight Volumes.
2 ) Baptist : Basic Theology by Dr. Charles Ryrie; Lectures In Systematic Theology by Dr. Henry Thiessen and Dr. A.H.Strong Systematic Theology.
3 ) Anglican : The Principles Of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty-nine Articles by Dr. W.H. Griffith Thomas.
4 ) Lutheran : Christian Theology by Milton Valentine.
5 ) Methodist: Theological Institutes by Richard Watson.
6 ) Roman Catholic : Catechism of the Catholic Church; New Catholic Encylopedia and Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Otto and The New American Bible.
I am much more aware of claimed former Protestants than what you think. You wont add any to the list that I am not aware of. But as I see it they never seemed to have understood the five solas at all when you see them trying to refute it. That comes right from their own books.
The real Hebrew Canon of Jews In Palestine
DIVISION of the Old Testament Books. : The thirty-nine books of the OT were anciently divided by the Hebrews into three distinct classes: ( 1 ) The law ( Torah ) , which consisted of the five books of Moses- Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. These are the oldest of the biblical books, Mosaic in origin but incorporating much earlier material. ( 2 ) The Prophets ( Nevi'im ) , Which embraced the four earlier Prophets, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings and the four later prophets, Isaiah, Jermiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve- Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah. These were believed to have been written by those who had the prophetic office as well as the prophetic gift. ( 3 ) The Writings ( Kenthuvim ) , which consisted of ( a ) poetical books- Psalms, Proverbs, Job; ( b ) the Rolls- Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther; and ( c ) prophetical-historical books- Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles. The Heb. books number twenty-four and are identical in content with the thirty-nine of the English order, the difference being made up by the division of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles into two books respectively instead of one, and by counting the twelves minor prophets individually instead of as one. ( THE NEW UNGER'S BIBLE DICTIONARY, 169-170 )
One important fact that is overlooked is in the LXX 1 Estras which was decreed by Hippo and Cartage to be canonical was later rejected by the Council of Trent. So basically WK was in error in saying that Trent reaffirmed the same OT Canon listing when that was not the case at all.
Comments regarding baptism and the Eucharist are now in separate threads.
You say - The Christian church is not an eyewitness of the OT canon. Again you are “dispensationalizing” the Church and Israel. The fact is the Early Christians were Jewish so they indeed were just as much eyewitness as anyone else in salvation history. Again you are putting the authority of the Sanhedrin above the authority of the Bride of Christ.
You are not consistent at all in your acceptance of Church history and ecclesiology. I cite 1 Tm 3:15 that says the church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Then you redefine this to mean only the local church. Then you reject what the local church in Rome, Hippo, and Carthage list as scripture because these were not ecumenical councils. Which is it? Is it an ecumenical council that is the pillar and foundation of truth or is it the local church?
You can quote Matt 7:12 as many times as you want but it still does not list a canon. All it talks about is the Law and the Prophets. Please tell me how you get a listing of scripture from this verse. You can’t. Tell me how you can make the claim that this refers to the 24 books of the Hebrew OT. You can’t. Sorry but you are trying to use Sola-Scriptura to prove it’s own contents. Try as you may, it cannot be done.
Neither Jerome nor Origen was Jewish so how can you make the claim that they had a better understanding of Jewish roots than other Christians? Just because they agreed (only initially in the case of Jerome) with the Sanhedrin doesn’t mean they were “more Jewish”.
“oracles of God” – the Greek word for this is “logion” which means “divine utterances” so you cannot say that this is referring only to the Written Torah. Remember, Jews believe also in an Oral Torah, Protestants believe in Sola-Scriptura.
You said: “I guess you totally ignore the fact Jesus referred to the Hebrew Canon listing.”
Please show me this listing! The three fold division does not give us a canon, only groupings!
(cont ...)
Chafer, let me ask you something …. If the Jewish people believed in Sola-Scriptura, if Jesus believed in Sola-Scriptura, if the Apostles believed in Sola-Scriptura, don’t you think there would have been some sort of detailed listing of scripture contained within it? Instead we have no record of a documented canon until after Christ established his church. In fact, we have no record that Jews would even consider the canon closed. So all of the quotes you provide show only that the Jews had the Torah, writings of the O.T. prophets, and the psalms. What about the other books?
Your quote of Josephus does nothing to settle the dispute. All it shows is that Josephus rejected the Prophet Yeshua and his disciples. He rejected the writings in use by the Jews of the Diaspora because they were also in use by the early church.
Regarding my comment on Chanukah … You get stumped and so your response is “that is an invalid question” and then say “You evidently are unaware of the history of Chanukah”.
I am very aware of Chanukah and it’s history. I know that it is nowhere recorded in the Hebrew O.T. It is recorded in the Book of Macabbees which you claim, without evidence, that Jesus rejected. So either Jesus celebrated Chanukah based on oral tradition, or he celebrated it based on reading it from Macabbees. By the way, how is a question “invalid”?
I have not “literally ignored all the early church fathers” who rejected the deuteros. In fact, I used them as evidence that there was not an established canon at the time. How am I being deceptive?
I said: 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.”
To which you said: “That is false evidence presented.”.
Now I made no statement that these councils all agreed. I’m willing to table discussion on the “differences” between these canons to some later time. My specific point is that ALL of these listed a canon that contains deuterocanonical books. No false premise, no false information, no dishonesty, just FACTS.
(cont...)