JFJ Forums

Chafer, let me ask you one final time:  Given that the Councils of Carthage, Hippo, and Rome were not ecumenical, and given that these councils had no authority over the universal church, and given that you believe these councils did not agree exactly on the canon, do you agree that all church councils, local or ecumenical, that list a canon of scripture, contain at least some of the deuterocanonical books, and that there is no council that lists a canon that does not include at least some of the deuterocanonical books?



I have never misrepresented Protestant bible translations.  My argument has never been that Protestants at one time considered them inspired.  My point is that Protestants make the claim that Catholics “added” books to the bible at Trent.  Yet the original KJV, which predates Trent, contained the EXACT same books in an appendix.  Of all the hundreds of “useful but uninspired” writings, why the EXACT same if they weren’t already considered as scripture as held by the councils of the 4th century????  No dishonesty, just a difficult, relevant, question.  (and by the way, the LXX was a collection of writings, not a book with appendices)



I asked “why did St. Jerome include the deuterocanon in his translation” and you replied the issue is a “red herring”.  Again, another difficult but very relevant question.  I fully acknowledge that he initially rejected them as inspired.  Yet we know later, after he included the deuterocanon in his Latin Vulgate, at the request of several prominent church leaders including St. Augustine, he is quoted as defending the inclusion of parts of Daniel.  The existence of this quote and the inclusion of the deuterocanon are strong evidence that he later changed his mind.
(cont ...)

Regarding the LXX as the primary source of O.T. quotes in the N.T. …  The question isn’t why was the N.T. written in Greek, the question is why did they use the LXX as the source instead of translating directly from the Hebrew?  About 1/3 of the quotes are direct translations from the Hebrew and the remaining 2/3 from the LXX.  Why would they use an “uninspired source” when they had the Hebrew only scriptures at their finger tips?

A side not regarding baptism that maybe we can delve into more deeply in the new thread ….  You said that you agree with the Westminster Confession that baptism is a sign and seal (even though the Confession says much more) but that you disagree with baptism of infants.  You then use the convenient excuse “it is not an essential Christian doctrine” (though the authors seemed to think it was).  Let’s see ….  “Go forth and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them …..”.  Not an essential Christian doctrine?????

Chafer, I don’t believe you are being honest with regards to your RCC education.  “without going into specific details …”, “only my closest friends know …”.  Is it really something you have to keep secret?  What about the seminary training you completed.  This is a feat you should be proud of and be willing to share details.

Well, it appears we are going in circles here.  Unless you are willing to discuss something new, I’m ending my participation in this thread.

First for solo-scripture  is scripture is suffient  above all things.


tradition is subject to scripture.


I have a site at home i forget the site name but think it in my favorite at home solo-scripture being supported even in the 300s-400ad

I will be making a positive case for my position and won't refute all of the false claims in which  Wkircher had made regarding my acceptence of the OT Canon listing of the Jews in Palestine and that of Protestants. This is the positive case for the Protestant OT Canon listing.

My evidence consist of three stated facts which meets the burden of proof for my position. 1 ) The Jews used the threefold division of Old Testament Scripture which consisted of The Law, The Prophets and The Writings. 2  ) I listed each of the names of the books that are found in the threefold division of the Old Testament which the Jews in Palestine used.  3) The authors in the threefold division were either prophets by office or had the prophetic gift or had both. And their writings were placed according to the manner that is found in the threefold division of the Old Testament Jewish Canon.

I have already proven those three things already in my previous replies on this thread. The evidence that I presented was both internal evidence and external evidence. This is the key issue of debate between Roman Catholics and Protestants regarding the Old Testament Canon.  This is believe proves  my position beyond a reasonable doubt.

You erred on the Greek word logion. No standard NT Greek dictionary that I am aware of gives that meaning at all. The oracles of God is OT Scripture as showed in Romans 3:2. This refers to the threefold division of the OT Canon. And it's writers who either were prophets by office, had the prophetic gift or had both. This in itself excludes claimed " oral traditions " passed down from Moses until the time of Jesus and the Apostles.

The meaning of the word  Oracle.

Oracle- logion, a diminutive of logos, "a word, narrative, statement," denotes "a Divine response or utterance, an oracle;" it is used of (a) the contents of the Mosaic Law, Acts 7:38; (b) all the written utterances of God through OT writers, Rom. 3:2; © the substance of Christian doctrine, Heb. 5:12; (d) the utterance of God through Christian teachers, 1 Pet. 4:11.

Notes: Divine "oracles" were given by means of the breastplate of the high priest, in connection with the service of the tabernacle, and the Sept. uses the associated word logeion in Exod. 28:15, to described the breastplate.  ( VINE'S COMPLETE EXPOSITORY DICTIONARY OF OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT WORDS, pg. 449 )

The internal evidence shows that of the law, the prophets and the writings in that. The exteral evidence of it shows the 24 books and the fact they were writtern by those who either were prophets by office, had the prophetic gift or had both. It is these three facts of evidence which proves my case beyond reasonable doubt. The Apocrypha is excluded from this as it was not part of it at all in that division of the OT Canon of the Jews.




My claim was they were studied in Old Testament Hebrew and hence were Hebrew Scholars in training with regard to the language. They investigated this matter from the Jews in Palestine itself. You did not deal with my specific point there at all.

Those outside of Palestine did not know Old Testament Hebrew during the days of Jesus Christ and the early church. The LXX was a translation of it which they were able to read and understand. God never withholds the Scriptures from His people. God made sure saved gentiles were able to read the Old Testament through the translation of it that being the LXX. In present day books, Christian theologians in the United States for example write books on doctrinal issues and cite Scripture. They cite the english translation of it so we can check it out and read it due the fact many do not read or understand the original languages of Scripture.




I may point out that is totally irrelevent to the discussion. And that your not an expert on Protestant Orthodoxy. Therefore you are not qualified for the claims you make there. Presbyterians do not hold nor teach that baptism is neccessary for salvation therefore that in itself refutes your claims. Hence infant baptism is not an essential doctrine with them though they hold to it.

I listed several important works which I own and read. I received personal education in it's doctrines more specifically holy communion and confirmation classes over 20 years ago.  I am on it's records at a parish  for this.  




Nope. I decided never to use that as an advantage againist the Church of Rome. I am againist this " I am a former whatever " argument that many Roman Catholics and Protestants do with one another. I deal with others as they are presently and not formerly. Now if they make their claims to try to use againist another I may ask them deeper questions on doctrinal issues to see if they understood their former position or not. I am fair on that one. I do it towards former Roman Catholics and former Protestants. I believe my case stands or falls based on Scripture and not if I was a former Roman Catholic or not. For the record, I consider myself still catholic but not Roman Catholic. Nor am I a Protestant. As I consider what happend during the Reformation as a separation from within Catholics and not from outside. I do not follow this my church is the true church argument that usually gets brought up by . Anyway, I won't be discussing this nor is this a part of my argumentation againist the Church of Rome / the Roman See.

I specifically stated I went to Bible Institute at a Protestant school and not seminary. I attended Bible Institute for two years and completed and received a certificate for it. My education covered general study of the OT and NT. Other studies included use of and reading of :  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.

The positive case againist the Apocrypha will now be presented from me.

1 ) The Apocrypha are not included within the threefold division of the Jewish Canon which consisted of the Law, Prophets and the Writings. 2 ) The Apocrypha was not written by either a prophet in office or one who had the prophetic gift or had both. 3 ) The Apocrypha are never specifically quoted or cited as Scripture in the New Testament 4 ) The Apocrypha were never confused by men like Origen and Jerome who knew Hebrew. They rejected it as part of the OT Canon. 5 ) The Apocrypha are not found in the earliest extant catalogue, Melito of Sardis in 171ad. 6 ) In Justin Martyr's dialogue againist Trypho the Jew, no mention is made of any difference between them regarding the OT Canon.  7 ) In Origen's catalogue the Canonical Old Testament is found, not the Apocrypha. 8 ) Tertullian gives the books of the Old Testament as twenty-four, which agrees with the threefold division of the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. 9 ) In the 4th Century full testimonies are found to this distinction in both East and West, e.g. Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Jerome , Hilary of Pocitiers. 10 ) From the 6th to the sixteenth century Augustine's confusion regarding the Apocrypha is rejected by " a continuous sucession of the more learned Fathers, " who follow Jerome and distinguish clearly between the Canonical and the Apocrypha books.