JFJ Forums

Quote:
You reject baptismal regeneration yet we know this was handed down by the Apostles because we see writings supporting it in the early Church.  We see ABSOLUTELY NO writings that refute it and no writings that affirm what only a subset of Protestants believe until AFTER the reformation.


WK I think your dead wrong in this case.  For one thing I know this much about Christianty History.



Compare information found in "History of the Christian Church," Vol. II, pp. 256-57, by Philip Schaff]:

"During the period of 100-311 A.D. it became the practice to place converts on a probationary period of teaching for approximately two years before baptism to make certain that their conversion was genuine"

[Also, compare Eerdman's "Handbook to the History of Christianity", (Tim Dowley Organizing Ed. Consulting Editors Briggs, Wright, & Linder. Copyright 1997 Lion Publishing. England. Reprinted 1987 by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. of G.R., Mich.; Library of Congress: BR146.E35 270 77.5616 ISBN 0-8028=3450-7]:

[pp. 9-10]: Baptism originally time of giving witness to faith, entrance to local church identifying with Christ, considerable preparation was necessary first. Often 3 years!

http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/baptism2.htm#VIID

Each fellowship proclaimes the truth as found in Scripture. The only confusion you have is your end of it. I hold to a baptistic view of church government. And reject the view of the RCC and EO on it.




That is false. In Rome there was not 1 single fellowship but many within that location. My defination of local church views a single fellowship as local church and not all fellowships together in a city as a local church. The error is on your end as it did not take my understanding of it.




That is a false . You evidently do not know the principles where are used in the discovery and collection of the canon.




Here you are attempting to set up a strawman argument. I specifically stated none of the 7 ecumentical councils defined the canon. Therefore your question does not interact with my position. As far to OT and NT canon I appeal to the Westminster Confession of Faith , London Confession of Faith and the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Anglican Church.

Chafer

You said: “You misrepresented the facts. The OT Hebrew Scriptures were collected around the time of Ezra. I never stated Council of Jamnia for that at all. Your mention of that is irrelevent as I stated the OT Hebrew Canon was collected  specifically in the 5th Cen. B.C. . You basically erected a strawman and did not deal with what I said.”
I say: This is not a “strawman” at all, it is relevant, and there is no misrepresenting of facts. I agree fully with you that the last of the writings of the Jewish and Protestant O.T. scriptures were written ~500 B.C.  The discussion in this thread is related to the canon of scripture and you are trying to make the claim that, since the last of the Hebrew scriptures were written ~500 B.C., that this was when the O.T. was closed.  The Council of Jamnia is very relevant here because it shows that the Jewish people did not consider the canon closed even as late as 90 A.D.  The Jews of the Diaspora and the early Christians obviously did not consider the canon closed in ~500 B.C. otherwise they would not have considered the later writings collected in the Septuagint as inspired.

You said: [regarding the authority of the Church as surpassing the authority of the Sanhedrin] “You beg the question with that. That has nothing to do with this specific issue. The question is dealing with the canon . And what the OT Canon of Israel was. The only conclusion I see if you do a red herring when you can't deal with the specific point of issue.”
I say: This is no red herring at all and very relevant to our discussion.  You are trying to say that there was a Jewish Canon almost 600 years earlier than facts show.  This is historical revisionism. The fact is that the Chosen of Israel were not in agreement on what constituted the scriptures and a Jewish canon was not established until ~60 years after Jesus Christ inaugurated his Kingdom.  You are placing the authority of the Jewish Council of Jamnia, which rejected what a larger number of the people of Israel considered inspired scripture, over the authority that the King of Kings granted to his Apostles and his Church. This is not a “petty strawman” or a “misrepresentation” of your position.  Again, I understand your position: The Hebrew scriptures of the Jewish and Protestant canon were completed around 500 B.C.  I agree fully with this.  What I reject, and what historical facts refute, is that the Jewish people considered the canon of scripture closed at this time.

(cont …)

(… cont)
Regarding the Church Councils …
I see no distinction between the Council of Jerusalem and other Church Councils, other than the first being recorded in scripture.  All Church Councils are attended by disciples of Jesus Christ and all are guided by the Holy Spirit. I do not believe that truth ceases to be a product of these Councils just because they were not attended by some of the original Apostles or because they are not recorded in scripture.

You give a lengthy quote from Hodge but I think many in this forum will agree that he does not speak for all Protestants.  Are you still claiming that “The first six ecumentical councils gave no doctrinal decisions from which Protestants dissent”?  If so, let’s explore this in more depth because I know there are many in this forum that will vehemently disagree with you.  In fact, I know even you will disagree with some of the outcomes of these Councils.  The truth is that many Protestants don’t really hold these Councils with much regard and neglect the outcomes of these councils in favor of their own interpretation of scripture.

Some examples:
The first Council of Nicea:
- Fixed the date of the celebration of the Resurrection.  Now most Protestants agree with this decision.  However, some Protestants in this forum think we shouldn’t celebrate Easter at all because it is not a feast recorded in scripture.  Others think it should be celebrated based on a fixed day of the month of the Jewish calendar rather than on Sunday.
- Recognized the primacy of the sees of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch.  This totally blows away your definition of “local church” and Evangelical ecclesial models.
- Established guidelines for ordination of Bishops (leaders of multiple “fellowships”).  Not too many Protestants denominations, especially Evangelicals, acknowledge such a role in the “local church”.

The Council of Constantinople:
- Enhanced the Nicene Creed to include: “We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church”, “We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins”
- Decreed that: “The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome”.

The Council of Ephesus
- Refuted Nestorianism recognizing that Jesus was simultaneously and eternally fully human and fully divine.  In doing so, the council recognized Mary not as “Christotokos” but as “Theotokos” (Greek for “God-bearer”).  Now Luther did agree with this but I know many Protestants who cringe at the thought of Mary being anything more than a surrogate mother of only the flesh of Jesus.
(cont …)

(… cont)
So are you still willing to stand by your claim that you and all Protestants “affirm” the first Seven Ecumenical Councils?  The truth is you are picking and choosing which councils, and which portions of those councils you wish to “affirm”.  In a like manner, you reject the Councils of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo, not because they were not ecumenical, but because they disagree with your canon, which is not found in ANY ecumenical council.

You said: Baptismal regeneration is not an exegetically based doctrine. It is a tradition which contradicts a proper interpretation of Scripture. Remember we went over this and you cited less than 11 church fathers on this prior to 300 ad.
I say: It is only a subset of Protestants who do not believe in regenerative baptism.  Furthermore you claim it is “meaningful” but if it is applied to infants (which even the Westminster Confession of Faith approves which you claim to hold to), they are merely “getting wet”.  These are direct quotes from you.  Now I’ve cited numerous new and old testament scriptures supporting regenerative baptism.  I’ve explained them in the Jewish context of circumcision and mikveh.  I’ve provided many references to pre-Constantine church fathers that held this position. Yet I’ve asked numerous times for you to provide any pre-reformation writings supporting your tradition regarding baptism.  You have provided none.  I’ve asked you to provide any evidence that the early church writings regarding regenerative baptism were refuted by anyone in the church prior to the reformation.  You have provided none.  So basically, what you are saying is that for 1500 years, the Body of Christ misunderstood baptism until a subset of the Reformers came along.  Or you would have us believe that your interpretation of it was held by some pre-Reformation Christians but they didn’t bother to correct any of the church fathers that wrote on this subject. Incredulous!!! The same point can be made regarding the lack of historical evidence for the Protestant canon.  There is no ecumenical Christian council that affirms the Protestant canon of scripture yet there are numerous Councils that affirm the canon used by the Jews of the Diaspora, the Jews of Ethiopia, the Catholic Church, and the Eastern Orthodox Church.
(cont …)

(… cont)
You said: [regarding the fact that scripture nowhere lists what is inspired scripture] “That again is misrepresentation. I never stated that it was. In effect your trying to create yet another strawman to knock down. That is a claim I never made at all and yet try to have it like that I did . I had claimed that it does refer specifically at times to specific books as Scripture. Next time deal with what I said and not attack a strawman.”
I say:  This is not a “strawman”. You made the statement that the Deuterocanon cannot be inspired scripture because they are never referred to as such in scripture.  My point is that scripture never sets out to establish a canon.  How can you refute the Deuterocanon because scripture does not explicitly list these books out, when scripture nowhere lists the canon itself?  You are essentially arguing that the Deuterocanon is not scripture because it is not in the “table of contents” when scripture has no “table of contents” to begin with.


You said: [regarding the FACT that the early church fathers quoted from the Deuterocanon]  “That is a false claim you made.”
I say:  Why do you continue to say I make false claims when I always provide evidence?  Here is a small sampling of the fathers who quoted from the Deuterocanon:
1 Clement, Barnabas, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian, and more.  Protestant scholars J.N.D. Kelly agrees: “In the first two centuries . . . the Church seems to have accepted all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture.”  As does W.H.C. Frend regarding St. Paul in “The Rise of Christianity” : “[he] presupposed a thorough acquaintance among his hearers with the Septuagint” and “breathed the Septuagint”. And Lee McDonald in “The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon”: “The NT also has many allusions to some [deuterocanonical] literature found in the LXX, and the oldest Christian collections of OT scriptures contain much of that literature” And Douglas De Lacey (Tyndale Publishing): “More significant is the fact that Paul often alludes to or uses ideas parallel to and apparently drawn from certain apocryphal books, notably the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus (Also known as Sirach)".


You said again: “What I stated was correct and held by Protestants. I stated only the originals of the OT and NT are inspired by God.”
I say: Let me be sure I understand your position:  ONLY the original scriptures are inspired by God (your opinion).  We have no originals today (fact).  Therefore, we have no inspired scripture today.  Are you sure all Protestants agree with this?
( cont …)

(… cont)
You said: “The LXX was viewed as a translation only and nothing more. By extending inspiration to the LXX you are holding to LXX onlyism.”
I say: You and some Protestants view it as a translation and nothing more.  Jesus and the Apostles viewed it as something from which they could quote as inspired scripture.  The early church fathers quoted from it as inspired scripture.  Jews of Ethiopia consider it inspired scripture.  And I’m not holding to “LXX onlyism”.  I’m holding to the FACT that over 2/3 of the N.T. quotes from the O.T. are from the Septuagint.  I’m holding to the FACT that the N.T. quotes from the deuterocanon.  I’m holding to the FACT that the early church fathers quoted from the deuterocanon.

You said: “Here you misrepresented me. I never claimed the OT Canon was decided by the Sanhedrin in 70ad.”
I say: I never said that this is what you said.  I’m merely providing it as historical FACT.  There was no recognized canon of scripture prior to 70 A.D. nor was there even any consideration by the Jewish people that it should even be closed.  The Pharisees of Jerusalem fixed the Jewish and Protestant canon.  The Jews of the Diaspora did not agree with it.  The Sadducees considered only the Torah as inspired.  My point is that there was no consistency, and no attempt to even consider there should be a canon, until after Jesus the Christ established his Kingdom and transferred his authority from the Jewish Rabbis to the Apostles and their successors. The opinions of the Sanhedrin after the temple was destroyed are not in anyway binding on the Church.

You said: “I stated the OT Scripture was collected in the 5th cent. bc and not 90ad.”
I say: The last of the scriptures included in the Jewish and Protestant canon was collected in ~5 B.C.  You need to be specific here.  The Jews of the Diaspora continued to “collect” scripture and it was included in the Septuagint is used by Ethiopian Jews, and Catholic and Orthodox Christians.
(cont …)

(… cont)
You said: [regarding your definition of “local church” and my assertion that the local councils of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo were “local” churches]: “That is false. In Rome there was not 1 single fellowship but many within that location. My defination of local church views a single fellowship as local church and not all fellowships together in a city as a local church. The error is on your end as it did not take my understanding of it.”
I say: Now you are really twisting things.  Jesus prayed for unity within the Church.  Paul wrote letters to “the Church” in particular cities.  You are now saying that a “local church” is a “single fellowship” and not a collection of fellowships within a certain geographical area (like a diocese).  How much more do you want to divide the Bride of Christ?  You reject what the Church in Rome considered scripture, you reject what the Church in Carthage accepted as scripture, and you reject what the Church in Hippo regarded as scripture. By your reasoning, I can create a “house church”, and define my own canon of scripture with just as much authority as these councils.

I ask again, where is the ecumenical council that defined the Protestant canon of scripture?  There was none.  But instead you say “As far to OT and NT canon I appeal to the Westminster Confession of Faith , London Confession of Faith and the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Anglican Church”.  So you “appeal to” these confessions of faith as your source for the canon but you reject some of the other articles from these such as infant baptism.  Furthermore, these articles were not addressed to a “local church” but to a much larger collection of “fellowships”.  The same reasoning you use for rejecting the Council of Rome you should also use for rejecting these confessions.  The fact is that you are doing what so many do – picking and choosing what you want to accept from church history to conform with your own traditions.

Just an interjection.

What Gentiles call the Old Testament, is basically 3 books in Judaism.
The 3 books are called the Torah, the Neviim, and the Ketuvim. The Torah was recognized as Canon scripture long before Jesus. The Neviim was also recognized as Canon scripture before Jesus. At the time of Jesus, the Ketuvim was not yet determined. One writing in the Ketuvim was Psalms, which had been generally accepted.

Throughout the New Testament, you will see various references to Moses or the law, Prophets, and Psalms. Moses or the Law refers to the already accepted Torah. Prophets refers to the already accepted Neviim.

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.


So the council of Yavneh accepted or 'canonized' the third book in Judaism, the Ketuvim, the other scripture was already 'canonized'.

Thanks for the input Jans.  I acknowledge that the Torah was "closed".  The Sadducees considered this the only inspired scripture and further writings as “useful but not inspired” (much the same way protestants treat the deuterocanonical books).  I think the Neviim is a different story.  At the time, there was no reason to believe God’s revelation through the Prophets would cease and so the Jews would not have even considered that there should at that time, or even in the future, be a “closed” canon.  So when referring to the writings of the prophets, I don’t believe they were ever referring to what they considered a completed set of writings but just a collection of what had thus far been received.  In retrospect, we know it was complete.  The “writings” are what is in dispute and the Septuagint contains more than what was recognized at the Council of Javneh, and I suspect at this time, the cessation of prophetic writings was also acknowledged.  Some contend that the Jewish Rabbis would have been perfectly content without a “canon” if it wasn’t for that pesky sect of Jews that started considering the writings of the disciples of Rabbi Yeshua as inspired.