JFJ Forums

Chafer –

In your first response, you are falsely equating the traditions revealed by God through the power of the Holy Spirit to Jesus’ Bride, as “traditions of men”.  The Pharisees did not have the same promises that the Church has so.  Paul and the Apostles had the gift of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to guide them in truth and were given authority and a special commissioning.  This is why Paul is able to rightfully exhort the Christians to believe the traditions, either by word or letter, that he passes on.

You highlighted the following quotes from Mathew’s Gospel: “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?” and “And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.”  By your emphasis, you are implying two things: 1) That the oral traditions transgress God’s commandments and 2) That the oral traditions come from men and not from God’s revelation.  So what your assertion really comes down to is your opinion which you derive from scripture as seen through your own tradition. “Traditions of men” are exactly that - teachings that originate from a single person rather than the guidance of the Holy Spirit through the Church.  Calvin, Darby, Luther, Weslyslan, Marcion, Nestorius, Arius…

You said: [regarding the relationship of the canon of scripture with the tradition of Sola-Scriptura] “They are distinct issues …  Any reasonable person would see this”.
I say: I don’t know how you can say scripture is the only source of infallible truth, without identifying what is included in scripture.  I claim 1st and 2nd Macabees are inspired and you claim they are not.  So can I use these books when I’m applying Sola-Scriptura as the final authority?  If you say these are completely separate issues, then we will have to end in emphatic disagreement.  
(cont …)

(… cont)
You said: “The problem is you hold that the RCC gave you scripture.”
I say: This is not what I said at all.  Scripture comes from God.  The canon is revealed to us by God through the Church.  Here is a quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”

Your quotes from Acts 17:11 and 2 Pet 3:15-17 do absolutely nothing to support your claim that it is the Hebrew only vis-à-vis the Greek Septuagint that was considered inspired.  First, the church at that time did not yet have the entirety of scripture.  Second, we can assert that, since the majority of O.T. quotes are from the Septuagint, that they were very likely searching the Septuagint.  Thirdly, since there ARE quotations from the Deuterocanonical books, we can assert that these were also considered scripture.

You accuse me of being a “LXX onlyist”:
I say: No, I never said one translation was inspired and the other was not.  The issue I’m raising is that both were used as the Word of God.  If the N.T. authors did not consider the Septuagint as inspired, they would not have quoted from it.

You said: “The doctrine of inspiration of Scriptures relates only to the original autographs and not translations or copies of the originals.”
I say: Now if you believe the ONLY inspired word of God is the very original text written by the original author, in the original language, (as I’ve quoted from you above) then you are in some serious trouble, because no original manuscripts exist today.  All scripture we have today, is a copy of a copy of a copy….  and no two copies are exactly alike.  Is it still inspired?  Of course!  God’s Word is not limited by language and His Word is truth despite minor variations in translations.
(cont …)

(… cont)
Regarding the Deuterocanonical books in the original KJV:  I learned early on the Protestant position regarding this.  It was one of the first things that raised my eyebrows -  “Hey why are there two different canons of scripture?”  “Which one is right?”  This should be a very troubling question for any one who holds to Sola Scriptura. This is what began my journey to the Catholic Church.  I found out early on that Protestants deemed them “useful but not inspired”.  Well my book of inspirational messages from Max Lucado is “useful but not inspired” and I’m not seeing this appended to new releases of the Bible.  The fact is that these books were part of what was generally accepted as canon or else we would not see these exact same books, no more and no less, included in the original KJV.

Chafer, you have me a bit confused about the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.  You claim it is the “Local Church”.  Then you claim that the Councils affirming the pre-reformation Canon, were “not ecumenical and therefore not binding on the universal church”.   Now if each of these is it’s own individual Pillar and Foundation of Truth, then aren’t these canons official?  Or are they only binding for the churches in these areas?  Does Truth differ depending on which “local Church” you belong to?  By the way, can you point me to the ecumenical council, binding on the universal church, that affirms the Protestant Canon?
(cont …)

(… cont)
You also make the false assertion that scripture had to be originally written in Hebrew in order to be inspired because that was the language of “the people of Israel in the O.T.”.  You know as well as I do that the Jewish people did not speak Hebrew exclusively.  They were spread throughout the region in the Diaspora (“Spreading of the Seed”), by God’s design.  Greek was just as legitimate a language for God’s people as Aramaic and others.  The elect of Israel was not limited to only the Hebrew speaking.  Nowhere in scripture is there a requirement that scripture must be originally written in Hebrew.  This was a requirement imposed on the O.T. canon by the Sanhedrin to reject the O.T. scripture used by the early Christian community (the same the N.T. authors used to quote from).

I’m aware of the heresies in the early church.  This was another thing that brought me to the Catholic Church.  I see in the epistles of scripture and in the writings of the early church, a striving for the unity Jesus’ prayed for in John 17.  The early Church held councils and the Holy Spirit guided them in truth, just as Jesus promised.  Individual beliefs varied along the way but truth ultimately prevailed, just as Jesus promised.

You reference Liberious as having signed the Arian creed and therefore showing that “the Bishop of Rome is fallible”.  This does not refute the RCC teaching of infallibility and I’m pretty sure you know this.  There are certain conditions when a teaching is infallible and being coerced into signing a man-made belief is not one of them.

Chafer, could you please, starting with the Council of Jerusalem, list those councils which are ecumenical and which you believe were guided in truth by the Holy Spirit, and which are “binding on the universal church”?  Maybe in a separate thread we can discuss the results of these councils.

I never claimed that they only speak Hebrew.




You are not dealing with my exact argument and point. I am saying that the OT was originally written in Hebrew. This is true what I said. Hebrew was their language . That is how God spoke through the prophets to them in the OT. This is the language they wrote when each authority wrote each book in the OT. Israel in the OT were the people of God whom He commited the OT to.




That does not refute me at all. Or deals with the actual argument being presented. The question is what was the OT autographs written in ? The answer is very simple. It was in Hebrew. It is the original autographs which are inspired by God. Translations are not inspired. This is what I strongly disagree with. The LXX was a mere translation and not the original autographs.

Which Catholic Church ? The RCC ( Western Church ) or Eastern Orthodox ? You seem to imply that RCC equals Catholic when it does  not. Or you think that the early church were Roman Catholics. To that I disagree. The Church started in the East and not the West. Please remember that.




All Christians are united spiritually with each other. What is rejected is the concept which limits this to the RCC /those who subject themselves to the Bishop of Rome as the vicar of Christ on the earth. It is the spiritual unity is what is taught in John 17 and  not ecclesiological unity which limits it to those in communion with the RCC.

It shows how fallible the Bishop of Rome can be. There is no infallibly pronounced criteria by the RCC. As there are general disagreements within Roman Catholic scholars on what has been infallibly defined as doctrine by the Bishop of Rome in history. I will point out that Liberious the Bishop of Rome prior to Nicea did 1 ) Took action in his position. 2 ) was in this case taking specific issue on an essential doctrine of the christian faith. 3 ) He specifically exiled some Trinitarian Bishops who went againist him . This was done by use of his position.  4 ) He took part of an Arian Council which tried to claim Ecumentical authority. And signed it's Creed. In it he denied that Jesus is not one in subsubstance with God the Father. I will point out this specific issue is a doctine of the faith which he denied that Jesus is God incarnate. He sided with Arianism which denies Christ full deity. You can use all the circular arguments to try to avoid these facts. But you can't get around the fact that he denied the Christian faith in his position in a specific doctrinal issue in point. I am showing Papal infalliblity does not really exist in reality or in practice by the RCC. To try to get around this only adds more confusion to people in the RCC on this issue.

[quote]Chafer, could you please, starting with the Council of Jerusalem, list those councils which are ecumenical and which you believe were guided in truth by the Holy Spirit, and which are “binding on the universal church”?  Maybe in a separate thread we can discuss the results of these councils.

The Council of Jerusalem. This is in Acts 15 in which the Apostles took part it.

The Seven Ecumentical Councils of the Church.

1 ) The Council of Nicea. 2 ) The Council of Constantinople. 3 ) The Council of Ephesus. 4 ) The Council of Chalcedon. 5 ) The Council of Constationope II. 6 ) The Council of Constantinople II and 7 ) Council of Nicea II.

Protestants affirm the first six ecumentical councils. They give no doctrinal decisions from which Protestants  dissent. See Dr. Charles Hodge Systematic Theoloy, I , pg. 125 . It must be stated that while Protestants affirm the general decisions of the first six ecumentical councils they do not believe that they are infallible. Protestants place them at a lower level in authority than Scripture. Protestants only can agree with an Ecumentical council so long as it does not teach contrary to that which is in Scripture. What is being said that they must be tested in the light of Scripture and subject to it. As Protestants affirm only Scripture is infallible.

(repost 1 of 3)
Chafer –

In your first response, you are falsely equating the traditions revealed by God through the power of the Holy Spirit to Jesus’ Bride, as “traditions of men”.  The Pharisees did not have the same promises that the Church has so.  Paul and the Apostles had the gift of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to guide them in truth and were given authority and a special commissioning.  This is why Paul is able to rightfully exhort the Christians to believe the traditions, either by word or letter, that he passes on.

You highlighted the following quotes from Mathew’s Gospel: “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?” and “And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.”  By your emphasis, you are implying two things: 1) That the oral traditions transgress God’s commandments and 2) That the oral traditions come from men and not from God’s revelation.  So what your assertion really comes down to is your opinion which you derive from scripture as seen through your own tradition. “Traditions of men” are exactly that - teachings that originate from a single person rather than the guidance of the Holy Spirit through the Church.  Calvin, Darby, Luther, Weslyslan, Marcion, Nestorius, Arius…

You said: [regarding the relationship of the canon of scripture with the tradition of Sola-Scriptura] “They are distinct issues …  Any reasonable person would see this”.
I say: I don’t know how you can say scripture is the only source of infallible truth, without identifying what is included in scripture.  I claim 1st and 2nd Macabees are inspired and you claim they are not.  So can I use these books when I’m applying Sola-Scriptura as the final authority?  If you say these are completely separate issues, then we will have to end in emphatic disagreement.  
(cont …)

(… cont repost 2 of 3)
You said: “The problem is you hold that the RCC gave you scripture.”
I say: This is not what I said at all.  Scripture comes from God.  The canon is revealed to us by God through the Church.  Here is a quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”

Your quotes from Acts 17:11 and 2 Pet 3:15-17 do absolutely nothing to support your claim that it is the Hebrew only vis-à-vis the Greek Septuagint that was considered inspired.  First, the church at that time did not yet have the entirety of scripture.  Second, we can assert that, since the majority of O.T. quotes are from the Septuagint, that they were very likely searching the Septuagint.  Thirdly, since there ARE quotations from the Deuterocanonical books, we can assert that these were also considered scripture.

You accuse me of being a “LXX onlyist”:
I say: No, I never said one translation was inspired and the other was not.  The issue I’m raising is that both were used as the Word of God.  If the N.T. authors did not consider the Septuagint as inspired, they would not have quoted from it.

You said: “The doctrine of inspiration of Scriptures relates only to the original autographs and not translations or copies of the originals.”
I say: Now if you believe the ONLY inspired word of God is the very original text written by the original author, in the original language, (as I’ve quoted from you above) then you are in some serious trouble, because no original manuscripts exist today.  All scripture we have today, is a copy of a copy of a copy….  and no two copies are exactly alike.  Is it still inspired?  Of course!  God’s Word is not limited by language and His Word is truth despite minor variations in translations.  This also brings up the issue of literacy throughout salvation history.  A majority of the faithful have always relied on others for hearing God’s Word.  If those reading in assembly stumble on a word or two, paraphrase, accidentally miss a verse …  are they no longer speaking the Word of God?
(cont …)