Roman Catholicism

The "JimmJoeJ" Saga

by James White

UPDATED SEPTEMBER, 2001.  See bottom of page for details.
UPDATED APRIL, 2002.  See bottom of page for  even more details.

James C. (he has asked that his last name be withheld) is a Roman Catholic seminary student, or so he claims.   I believe I first encountered him in AOL under the screen name JIMMYJOEJ.  I would often find him in chat rooms asking the same questions about sola scriptura.   Eventually, I learned, most people just put him on their ignore list, as it was obvious, after a while, that he had no intention of ever hearing any answer that was provided to him.

Eventually Mr. C. began appearing in our chat room, ProsApologian.  It didn't take him long to get himself banned, as our ops have no interest in folks hanging around who only have one subject to raise, one issue to discuss.   It didn't take long for Mr. C. to begin sneaking in under his ban.  He was also banned from about every channel I know except for #apologetics.  He was especially angry since he was banned from a channel called #charis.  Of course, the #charis rules explicitly say that only conservative evangelicals are welcome to fellowship there, and Mr. C. does not fit in that category.

Mr. C. even called into our radio program.  You can hear his call by clicking here.  As you will see, he still only has one topic to address.

Since that time, James C. has snuck under our bans with different nicks and different hostmasks at least 20 times.  He has boasted that he has friends who will help him to do the same thing.  He has lost all balance, and has become like his predecessors, the Crusaders, who took up sword and shield for "mother Church."

One of his constant claims is that he has been banned because no one can answer his questions.  I'm sure that in his mind, that is true.  However, the facts are very different.  We have talked with Mr. C. over and over again.   Aside from the radio program noted above, we  believe that the AOL IM I received in the April 17th program was likewise sent, if not by Mr. C. personally, at least at his behest.  And, to document this beyond question, below we provide two logs of discussions with Mr. C.  The first is from September of 1998.  Notice that this was after his first banning.  He is going under a different nick, and is rather proud at the end of the conversation to identify himself.   The second log came from June of 1999.  As you will see, Mr. C. may not like our replies, but it is simply dishonest for him to say that we have not, in fact, responded to him.  Finally, between these two logs we provide a short section of a long conversation that took place in the channel with Mr. C. when James White was not present, this being in April of 1999.  You will note that Mr. C., upon being asked if this was the first time he had been in the channel, says "yes," but, later, gleefully confesses who he really is.

Since posting this material, Mr. C. has seemingly been delighted that he has received this attention.  Indeed, in another IRC channel he asserted, "<Philios> JAY its an honor actually; it shows that he considers me as someone who has arguments and points that must be responded to and attacked."  Mr. C. does not seem to understand why we put this material here: it has been his assertion that we have failed to respond to him, and have banned him because we cannot answer his questions.  Not only have we done so, but the following material proves, beyond all question, that Mr. C. has no integrity, no personal honesty.  He has lied, repeatedly, and if he can't see that this is a serious thing, we can only pray that God will open his eyes.

The following conversation took place 9/29/98 in our chat channel:

*** Joseph (ProFide@205-217-97.ipt.aol.com) has joined #prosapologian

* Nina^`^ says1 HiYa to Joseph!

<Ortho> Yo, Jo.

<Joseph> Hello NINA

<Aleta> Hi, Joseph :-)

<Joseph> Hello ORTHO

<Joseph> Hi Aleta

<Joseph> ORTHO I was looking at your book the Roman Catholic Controversy and had a question on sola scriptura

<Ortho> Shoot, Joseph.

* Ortho bangs on his on-line spell checker. "Darn thing never works."

<Joseph> In your book by your definition of sola scriptura, it speaks of how we get bible truth not only from what its words say but by what it "necessarily implies". This seems to be a problem to me since we have no one human authority we can objectively listen to who can authoritatively say what exactly the bible necessarily implies. It seems that with countless different opinions on WHAT the bible is teaching, it seems sola scriptura rests not on i

<Joseph> WHAT is necessarily implied

<Ortho> The Trinity is the classic example of necessary implication.

<Ortho> As to "countless different opinions," well, I'm not so sure about that.

<Ortho> If you were to remove all the "opinions" that fall in the following categories, how many would I really have left?

<Ortho> 1) Those founded upon pure ignorance. 2) Those founded upon the insertion of traditions that are not biblical. 3) Those founded upon defective views of Scripture.

<Joseph> ORTHO but who said it was necessarily implied? It wasn't sola scriptura but church councils and theologians coming to understanding as to WHAT exactly was necessarily implied We know the biblical truth of the trinity is orthodox belief because the church decided what was necessarily implied NOT by the believer following sola scriptura

<Ortho> Totally disagree, Joseph.

<Ortho> I'm sitting here correcting the galleys of my book on the Trinity. I never once have to rely upon a "church council" to define, and defend, the Trinity in this book.

<Ortho> The point is that the doctrine is plainly biblical, even if the *term* is not.

<Adelphos`> whoa, really! how did the Church come to the conclusion of the Trinity?

<Joseph> ORTHO your categories show the same problem It is our opinion as to which "opinions" fall into those categories

<Ortho> No, Joseph, the categories are perfectly logical. Very few of the differences that exist are due to sola scriptura; the VAST majority are due to a failure to apply sola scriptura.

<Ortho> Would you not agree that ignorance is the single greatest contributor to such differences?

<Joseph> ORTHO by necessary implication of what the bible teaches. But we know that it is what the bible necessarily implies because the church has said it, not because it is our own conclusion from bible alone

<Joseph> ORTHO yes ignorance IS! And who decides who is ignorant on what bible necessarily implies and who isn't?

<Ortho> No, that's not true, Joseph. Even the early Fathers did not make that claim.

<Nina^`^> Joseph and who told you that the church was in authority over scripture?

<Ortho> Well, Joseph, it seems you are looking for some way to "get rid of" all disagreement. I don't believe any way exists, as I don't believe God has deemed it necessary to do so.

<Joseph> ORTHO so to be guided in truth by the bible alone then we don't need to know for sure what the bible alone teaches?

<Ortho> In fact, the Bible teaches that the Church would struggle throughout its existence. Hence, if you are looking for some "person" or "group" to banish all doubt and disagreement, you can find plenty who will apply for the job, but I don't believe any one of them will lead you closer to the truth.

<Ortho> Know for sure, or infallibly? I don't know the exhaustive teachings of the Bible. I don't have infallible knowledge of what the Bible teaches on *any* subject. But I do have *sufficient* knowledge of what the Bible teaches on the *central* subjects. The difference between infallibility and sufficiency is vitally important to recognize.

<Joseph> So then you would say there is NO church today that is the pillar of truth - that if the church upholds it it must be true since a pillar of truth cannot uphold a lie

<Ortho> The longing for the "infallible fuzzies," to be honest, shows a level of immaturity on the part of those seeking after them.

<Ortho> I never said such a thing, of course.

<Ortho> Where did I?

<Ortho> The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Scripture so says. Where have I said otherwise?

<Joseph> ORTHO but you are left with your opinion on what are central subjects and then again left with your opinion on what the bible teaches on what you call those central subjects

-Nina^`^- gee do we attend a "pillar of truth " church or not;)

<Ortho> Well, Joseph, it seems you have set up an interesting dichotomy: either you have nothing but one's "personal opinion," or you have an infallible magisterium. Might there just possibly be something in between?

<Ortho> It seems that you also believe that the Word is so unclear, so muddled, that all it can give you is an "opinion"?

<Joseph> ORTHO you did say no group would lead me closer to truth You have in your books taken the emphasis off the church in that verse emphasizing that it is the TRUTH that the church is supposed to teach and taking emphasis off that if the church is the pillar of truth it can NOT uphold a lie

<Joseph> ORTHO no because the church can tell us what is biblical truth If someone were speaking Russian it would be unclear and muddled to me until I had an interpreter who could tell me for sure what was truly said

<Ortho> I said that no group that claims infallible authority over Scripture will lead you to the truth; I have taken not a wit of emphasis off of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. I have, however, said that Rome is not that Church, and that the Church, as the Bride of Christ, listens to the voice of Her Lord, and never competes with Him.

<Ortho> Fascinating example, Joseph. The Bible is so unclear it is like listening to someone speaking in Russian? Wow.

<Adelphos`> Augustine (354-430): 18. Consider, moreover, the style in which Sacred Scripture is composed,-how accessible it is to all men,

<Joseph> ORTHO however in Protestantism we have no one "church" upholding one truth but many divided groups disagreeing on what that truth actually is You have said what the church is NOT (Rome) but you have not said what that church IS! Where then today is that church which if they uphold a doctrine we can rest upon it as the truth?

<Ortho> Nor, of course, is Rome "united" in speaking one truth, so that's hardly relevant.

<Ortho> I believe the Church is found where the Word is given its proper place.

<Ortho> And I know of many local bodies where that Church meets rather regularly.

<Ortho> BTW, Joseph, were you in a few nights ago with a fellow named TomServo2?

<Joseph> It IS united of course but that response hardly answers the question And so we are left with your belief and opinion as to where the Word is given its proper place. There are MANY churches claiming to give the Word its proper place and yet they disagree among themselves on exactly what that truth is

<Ortho> To which I can only say, "Yes, so?

<Ortho> The same situation prevailed in the days of the Apostle Paul, remember?

<Joseph> To which I can only say "yes, so?"

<Ortho> You again seem to think that God has promised to crush all heresies. He hasn't.

<Ortho> Nor has He determined to make all Christians look identical to each other. Again, so?

<Ortho> If I had encountered the controversy between Paul and the Judaizers, I would have had to have made a decision about who was correct, right?

<Adelphos`> For even creation reveals Him who formed it, and the very work made suggests Him who made it, and the world manifests Him who ordered it. The Universal Church, moreover, through the whole world, has received this tradition from the apostles. Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book Two

<Joseph> ORTHO no the same situation did NOT prevail We should know what ARE heresies and what AREN'T In Paul's day we can see the Council of Jerusalem authoritatively deciding what is to be done regarding Judaizers NOT saying to all that they should read scripture and follow what is necessarily implied

<Ortho> Your problem is that the Council of Jerusalem is not extra-Scriptural. Acts 15 is part of the Scriptures. What is more, why do you insist upon operating on these false dichotomies, when I've pointed out your error a number of times already?

<Ortho> The Church can have authority without being INFALLIBLE. If you say otherwise, please prove it.

* Ortho has to pick up his kids now.

<Joseph> In Paul's day we have a united visible church authority teaching what is to be believed regarding faith Yes you still have decision on who to listen to but you know what the Judaizers say and you know what the authoritative voice of the ONE CHURCH says You don't have to listen to

<Joseph> a number of churches claiming they are authoritative but not infallible

<Ortho> Yeah, yeah. I've got to run, but one question: why say you have questions about my book, when the truthful thing would be to honestly say, "I'm a Roman Catholic, and I think you are wrong, and here is why"?

*** Ortho is now known as Orthaway

<Orthaway> Back in about half an hour.....

<Joseph> ORTHO I had questions regarding your view

<Nina^`^> see ya bro

<Joseph> I thought your view was wrong but was willing to ask

<Joseph> You can't say now at least that I'm attacking a straw man

<Joseph> Well got to get to benediction See you all later

<Nina^`^> bye joe

* Nina^`^ says1 HiYa to justrozie!

<Joseph> Hope you guys didn't mind the back and forth there

<Nina^`^> nope not at all

<Joseph> God bless

*** Joseph (ProFide@205-217-97.ipt.aol.com) has left #prosapologian

*** Joseph (ProFide@205-223-206.ipt.aol.com) has joined #prosapologian

<Orthreads> Nina: Wowsers.

<Appollos> ANd he consistently commits fallacies of relevance

<Appollos> Well at least he is consistent about something

<Nina^`^> orth ..its wild aint it ..lol

<Orthreads> App: That was one of his best efforts, actually.

<Orthreads> Importing guillotines. Oh my.

* Orthreads notes that he and Nina are in another channel together, and it's, uh, well, interesting. :)

<Nina^`^> orth, gee i missed that story ;)

<Joseph> Too bad I can't stay around any longer I was dying to hear who consistently commits fallacies of relevance ... even though it was one of his best efforts

<Orthreads> Gerry Matatics, specifically.

<Orthreads> Why didn't you ask?

<Joseph> Didn't want to interrupt the conversation

<Joseph> Thought you were engrossed in #bible

<Orthreads> Well, Appollos had noted the errors in Matatics' presentation, having just listened to the debate on sola scriptura from Long Island.

<Orthreads> Did you wish to say something, Joseph?

<Orthreads> It's been all over the map, cunninham.

<Joseph> HAving been also accused of being "irrelevant" whenver I make a point, I'm quite flattered to hear Matatics is accused of the same

<Orthreads> What are you talking about, Joseph?

*** Orthreads is now known as Ortho

<Joseph> I refer to "yes, so?" translation "so?" means "so what, its irrelevant" Am also accused of bringing up "superficial" arguments

<Ortho> Oh, yes, you are correct, Joseph. You were bringing up irrelevancies in light of the fact that various of your presuppositions had already been shown to be in error. But saying that a point raised is irrelevant is not the same as saying a *person* is irrelevant.

<Joseph> shown to be in error in your opinion

<Ortho> Of course, Joseph.

<Joseph> ORTHO and as I added later you can hardly say this time that "Rome" can only attack a straw man image of "sola scriptura" as you have before, since it was your own definition I used this time

<cunninham> ortho-simple thing really to add your site to their's...simple e-mail the ministry that offers the banner-links, and you will be added to their selections of on-line Xian radio

<Ortho> Well, in your opinion, Joseph. :)

<Ortho> But, as I said, since you seem to base all your objections upon the idea that ss must result in the banishment of all disagreements, how is that relevant to my position, wherein I specifically state that it would not have that result?

<Joseph> and apparently in your opinion as well since I was quoting your book

<Ortho> I truly doubt my book says, "Joseph has accurately represented my position since he quoted something from my book." :)

<Ortho> Cunninham: Joseph came in earlier. He said he had some questions about sola scriptura, based upon my book, The Roman Catholic Controversy.

<Joseph> ORTHO did not say at all it should banish all disagreements Just said that it seems sola scriptura is based on opinion since there is no one authoritative human voice to tell us what is true teaching but instead a number of competing voices all claiming to have authority of truth

<Ortho> It turned out, in reality, it wasn't a matter of questions. It was a matter of disagreement. I had to leave to go get my kids, and it seems we are now picking back up.

<Joseph> ORTHO you did use the words "necessarily implied" in your book

<Ortho> That is, of course, Joseoph, untrue.

<Ortho> Tell me, do you have infallible knowledge of the teachings of Rome?

<Ortho> Because, Joseph, the words came directly from the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith.

<Appollos> Well Joseph, objectively speaking there is no one authoritative human voice to tell us what is true teaching, period

<Joseph> So "sola scriptura" does NOT take into account what scripture "necessarily implies" Then why does your book say it does?

* Ortho confesses he can't figure out where Joseph gets these conclusions.

<Ortho> Sorry, Joseph, but I have no idea where you are getting these things. Care to be a little more clear in your objections?

<Joseph> ORTHO DOES sola scriptura take into account as biblical truth what is necessarily implied by bible or does it go ONLY by what the bible literally and explicitly says?

<Ortho> Sola scriptura, Joseph, says that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith. Secondly, the phrase "necessarily implies" is found in reference to a confession of faith. That confession is explaining something. Shall I point out what it is explaining?

<Joseph> ORTHO does sola scriptura take into account as biblical truth what is necessarily implied by bible or does it go ONLY by what the bible literally and explicitly says?

<Ortho> Here is a modern-language rendering of the same passage: "The sum total of God's revelation concerning all things essential to His own glory, and to the salvation and faith and life of men, is either explicitly set down or implicitly contained in the Holy Scripture. Nothing, whether a supposed revelation of the Spirit or man's traditions, is ever to be added to Scripture."

<Ortho> That means, of course, that one cannot say, "Well, unless I find the exact formulation or words in the Bible, I won't believe it." The Bible teaches some things by constant reference and implication. That is no less a biblical teaching than one that is directly stated in clear words.

<Joseph> ORTHO so that's exactly what I've been asking. Is what the bible "necessarily implies" - as your book says - to be considered as adding to scripture? Is bible truth ONLY shown by what the bible literally and explicitly says?

<Ortho> For example, the Scriptures over and over again use Trinitarian language, without using the single word "Trinity."

<Ortho> I have never (and the specific citation above denies) used the phrase "adding to Scripture." Necessary implication is not an addition, it is mere acceptance of what is already there.

<Joseph> ORTHO so then back to the original question. Who decides what is taught in the bible by constant reference and implication? How among the many churches claiming authority to speak bible truth do we know for sure which one is right?

<Ortho> Please note the huge leap of subject that just took place: from what the Scripture reveals, to the implicit demand for an infallible authority to interpret Scripture.

<cunninham> ortho-amen------>the Scriptures over and over again use Trinitarian language, without using the single word "Trinity."

<Ortho> Who decides? That depends upon the scope of the question. For example, as far as what is preached in the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, I, and my fellow elders, decide. That is the task assigned to us by the Word.

<cunninham> yes indeed, hence the example of the Trinity : )

<Ortho> But, on a completely personal level, every single person must decide and take responsibility for what he or she believes.

<Ortho> As to competing voices, again, that's nothing new. God has not chosen to shut the mouths of false teachers. Instead, we are to grow through our struggling with such things.

<Joseph> ORTHO never claimed you said necessary implication was adding to scripture - just saying if one's opinion is wrong on what is necessarily implied it COULD end up be adding to scripture

<cunninham> amen, hence Acts 17:11

<Joseph> ORTHO so then are you and the fellow elders of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church the pillar of truth the bible speaks of? Whatever you uphold as truth cannot be a lie or falsehood?

<Ortho> Yes, Joseph----just as the Roman Catholic is deeply in error for adding to the Gospel the concept of the Bodily Assumption of Mary. Most definitely. And, since I do not claim infallibility, I'm not sure why pointing out the fact that I could be wrong is relevant to me.

<Ortho> The Church, Joseph, is the pillar and foundation of the truth. It does not follow that the the church is infallible, unless you would like to explain, logically, how that is.

<Ortho> I asked you a question a while back: do you have infallible knowledge of the teachings of Roman Catholicism?

<Joseph> Simple - because a pillar that upholds TRUTH cannot uphold a lie! Lies have no mixture with truth, and so if what the church upholds is part of a lie it is no longer a pillar of truth But the bible says the church is the pillar of truth and so what it upholds must be infallibly true

<Ortho> Please answer my question, first.

<Ortho> Secondly, this is a common epistemological error.

<Joseph> ORTHO I DID answer your question first and am now moving on to NEXT question

<Joseph> ORTHO do you really have to - while I am answering your FIRST question - try to make it appear as if I am avoiding your second question while I am still answering your first?

<Ortho> OK, let me ask it again: are you infallible in your knowledge of Roman Catholic teaching? Yes or no?

<Joseph> ORTH first are you satisfied that I answered your first question regarding the pillar of truth?

<Ortho> Please just answer the question.

<Ortho> I will address the epistemological error inherent in your response in a moment.

<Joseph> Just so you can't claim I'm avoiding your questions as you do so many while you interrupt them

<Joseph> Not about infallible knowledge of Catholic teaching

<Joseph> Now about I meant

<Ortho> What?

<Ortho> Joseph, are you infallible in your knowledge of Roman Catholic dogma? Yes or no?

<Joseph> no I don't have infallible knowledge of Catholic teaching but I do have SURE knowledge which is more than what you have regarding biblical teaching Those who disagree with CAtholic teaching at least KNOW what it is (church is against contraception, women priests, etc) while those following sola scriptura are NOT SURE what the bible teaches (does baptism save or not, etc.)

* cunninham is a quiet observer, as he watches (reads rather) the exchanges within channel

<Joseph> You see I knew you couldn't let me write out my response without interrupting

<Ortho> OK, so, you admit the relevance of seeing the difference between having infallible knowledge and having "sure" or "sufficient" knowledge.

<Nina^`^> how can one interrupt typing?

<Ortho> I'm thankful for that recognition.

* Ortho ignores the irrelevant jabs and complaints about typing "interruptions."

<Ortho> Now, since you recognize this, why don't you allow the same for me?

<Ortho> In other words, when I point out my own fallibility, you then say that all I can offer is my "opinion" of what the Bible says.

<Ortho> If that's true, then it must follow that all you can give me is your "opinion" of what Rome teaches, correct?

<Joseph> I do not need infallibility only certainty but I have certainty and you do not When you are wrong on bible you have only your fallible opinion to go back to (which failed you before) while if I am wrong on church teaching an outside human audible voice can correct me again and again if needed

<Ortho> Of course, the Word corrects me all the time, Joseph. But, back to the point. You say you have "certainty." I have certainty, too. Why can you have it, and I cannot?

<Ortho> Now, that outside human voice----how do you know it is correct?

<Ortho> I mean, that outside human voice has changed its message over the years. What it taught in 1300 is not what it teaches in 1998.

<Joseph> No that does not follow since I can lead you right to the source of what Rome teaches - the pope - and you can listen and be corrected by a living voice, not solely by your understanding of a book that cannot come up with new writings to address issues you might be in error on

<Ortho> So, when is it "infallible"?

<Joseph> ORTHO do you hear a living audible outside voice correcting you on The Word? If not it all too well could be a subjective interior voice telling you what you want to hear

* cunninham recoginzes the point of the "fallible" voice of the one outside

<Ortho> Yes, you have a single leader. Quite useful (and, I note, it makes the Bible irrelevant). However, I've tested your leader.

<Ortho> No, I don't hear such a voice. The Bible provides it by its consistency, and by my desire to conform perfectly to its teachings.

<Ortho> The Bible does not change over time, unlike the teachings of the Pope.

* captwade wonders whether the Pope hears an audible outside voice.

<Joseph> Not in the way you mean change What it teaches in 1998 does not contradict what it taught in 1300 (of course now comes the "what about meat on Fridays, etc. arguments)

<Ortho> Well, I think otherwise, Joseph. I think that what "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" meant in 1300 is not what John Paul meant 9/9/98 when he said that all people who honestly follow the dictates of their religion will end up with eternal life.

<Joseph> ORTHO but no chain is stronger than its weakest link And the weak link in personal interpretation 9 which is what you do when you say the bible personally corrects you) is the human subjective person whose fallible understanding cannot fully grasp the infallible word

*cunninham* why cant I (others of the reformed disposition) have you and the other pastors as that living audible outside voice correcting me (us) in the Word, as what the Pope is to the RCC, as in regards to the point that Jospeh is trying to make

<Ortho> And I don't think that what the 4th Lateran Council meant when it spoke of giving indulgences to anyone who took up the sword to "exterminate" the heretics in 1215 is the same as what Lumen Gentium meant in 1965.

<Joseph> ORTHO yet what people say the bible teaches DOES change over time

*cunninham* in other-words...what separates the RCC authority than that of the "Reformers" if the point that Jospeh is making is to a "visible" voice so called

<Ortho> Of course, Joseph---but I don't follow people, I follow the Word. I'm corrected by it. Try reading through the 119th Psalm sometime and asking yourself the question, "Do I have the same high view of Scripture that the Psalmist did?"

<Ortho> And as to that weak link, Joseph, you have the same one I do.

*cunninham* understand

<Joseph> ORTHO so you are actually claiming those are instances of when the church intended to teach infallible doctrine? You are as guilty of misrepresenting Catholic teaching as those you constantly claim misrepresent sola scriptura

<Ortho> See, you have made that fallible choice to follow that infallible authority you call Rome. That choice is your weak link. You can't be certain of it, hence, any and all other "certainties" are no more certain than that first choice.

<Joseph> ORTHO no since I have an outside objective voice of the church that you do NOT have

<Ortho> The 4th Lateran Council was fallible in its teaching on indulgences, Joseph?

<Ortho> Or is Lumen Gentium fallible?

<Ortho> And if the Roman Church has held up both as truth, doesn't that make the Church fallible, according to your own assertions made before?

<Ortho> I have an objective voice of the church, btw. Just not an *infallible* voice. Big difference.

<Ortho> You tell me, Joseph: does the Church exercise the power of the keys fallibly? Yes or no?

<Joseph> ORTHO I don't exactly recall the doctrine of indulgences necessarily stating one was always infallibly given for those "taking up the sword" as you imply Their is an infallible doctrine of indulgences but WHAT they are given for can change You seem to want to get away from that truth

<Ortho> Are indulgences given only through the exercise of the power of the keys?

<Joseph> ORTHO so then WHICH voice of the church do you listen to? Which one is the pillar of truth which cannot uphold a lie?

<Ortho> And if so, does it not follow, then, that giving plenary indulgences to those who exterminate heretics involves the authority, and teaching, of the church, and hence touches upon infallibility? And what is more, Lumen Gentium decries the use of force in religion. Which "truth" is "true"?

<Joseph> ORTHO yes it does But what you seek to define as an exercise of the power of those keys does not mean it actually was Just because you define something as such does not mean it IS as such

<Ortho> Now, let's address this "cannot uphold a lie" fallacy. You seem to think that if you hold up the truth, you must be infallible. Do you hold up truth? Are you infallible? If you are wrong about point X in doctrine Y, does that mean that ALL you uphold is a lie? If you say "No," you defeat your entire argument.

<Ortho> I have no idea what your last response means. I'm sorry.

<Joseph> ORTHO to your above post on plenary indulgences, no it does NOT follow

<Ortho> Joseph: Are you giving me an infallible definition in saying it does not follow, or a fallible opinion? If a fallible opinion, what if it DOES follow?

<Joseph> ORTHO I certainly do NOT uphold truth What I uphold can be mixed with error and so I do NOT uphold truth But the church the pillar of truth DOES uphold truth

<Ortho> An amazing statement, Joseph! You do not uphold truth! *I* sure do!

<Joseph> ORTHO really? In the sense that what you uphold is necessarily true?

<Ortho> All Christians are called to be truthful people, and to uphold the truth! It does not follow that each of us individually is infallible. Hence the error of your argument.

<Ortho> This is the error made by a fellow named Vinney Lewis. He claims to be infallible. He claims that unless you are infallible, nothing you say is "true."

<Ortho> He seems to think that if you admit there might be any level of error in what you are saying, then you can't claim anything you say is "true."

<Ortho> If I say "the sky is blue," someone might point out that there is a plane in the sky, and it is grey. Or a cloud, and it is white.

<Ortho> Obviously, then, one is playing upon words to say that unless what you say is infallibly true, it is not *sufficiently* true.

<Joseph> ORTHO what you give as a necessary definition is NOT necessarily the necessary definition Now I can uphold "truth" in one sense without calling myself a pillar of truth There are two different ways in which it can be said I uphold truth and the way the church upholds truth

<Ortho> Yet, Joseph, you have already admitted that you do not hold yourself to the same standard. You admit you have only "sufficient" knowledge of what Rome teaches, not infallible knowledge. Yet, when I say I have sufficient, not infallible, knowledge of what the Bible teaches, you say that is not enough. Why the double standard?

<Ortho> Of course, Joseph (in regards to being a pillar of truth). And I'm simply pointing out that you say that the ONLY way to understand 1 Timothy 3:15 is to understand it to make the church infallible. I point out it doesn't have to do that. So, can you give me an INFALLIBLE definition by the Pope saying that YOUR understanding of that passage is the correct one?

<Joseph> ORTHO no double standard because I have what you do NOT have - and thus there is no double standard because our situations are NOT the same. I can listen to ONE authoritative audible voice which can correct me when I am in error while when you are wrong on bible the only "authority" you have to correct you is conflicting voices each claiming to have authority and truth

<Ortho> Quite true, duck. There would be no reason for such exhortations if in fact there was an infallible authority to tell us what to believe outside of Scripture.

<Ortho> No, Joseph, you CLAIM to have something I do not. I have not for a second admitted you do. You *believe* you do, but I believe there is plenty of evidence against the Papacy and an "infallible magisterium." So, it seems your last statement is basically, "Hey, I can use a double standard, because I believe my system and reject yours." That's terribly inconsistent.

<Ortho> Secondly, I do not have "conflicting voices." The Word is one. The Word is unchanging.

<Ortho> The Word speaks the same thing today it spoke when it was written.

<Ortho> It constantly brings to me conviction, and correction.

<Ortho> It is the *non-application* of sola scriptura that gets me into trouble---when I allow traditions, human desires, etc., to get in the way of the Word's conforming me to the image of Christ.

<Joseph> OK then so WHICH authoritative voice claiming to teach the truth of the bible do you listen to? The one that claims baptismal regeneration or the one that claims water baptism is unnecessary?

<Ortho> Again, Joseph, I listen to the WORD, not a set of conflicting voices.

<Ortho> I take the assertion to the Scriptures.

* Ortho says his fingers are smoking. :)

<Joseph> There are many outside authoritative voices you could claim as the pillar of truth while for me there is only one

<cunninham> joseph-james said that he is amoung others apart of the reformed church in Phonix...say that for the sake of the arguement that I looked to james as the ONE authoritative audible voice which can correct me when I am in error, while on the same hand say to you, when you are wrong on bible the only "authority" you have to correct you is conflicting voices (case in point the degress of RCC on the matter of Indulgences) each claiming to have aut

<cunninham> (case in point the degress of RCC on the matter of Indulgences) each claiming to have authority and truth..do you see the point of the arguement that I am making? setting up a man as an infallible guide?

<Ortho> No, untrue, Joseph. I have denied that there are many. I have said the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and that the Scriptures define for me, and for the Church, what the truth is.

* captwade is always amused when people employ words to argue that words are inadequate to convey intended meaning. :-)

<Joseph> And I have asked WHICH church is that pillar and foundation of truth?

<Ortho> capt: <g>

<Ortho> And I have replied: the Church marked by adherence to His Word.

<cunninham> capt lol : )

<Joseph> ORTHO so that leaves us with our opinion as to which church that is. And so following sola scriptura many follow this pillar of truth and others a completely different one based on their opinion

<captwade> Joseph obviously believes that his intended meaning is capable of being communicated by means of words; a feat that apparently no other author is capable of.

<Ortho> Based upon their *responsibility* before God to follow His Word, Joseph. It's not a mere "opinion," it is a conclusion, based upon the firm foundation of the Scriptures.

<Joseph> CAPT the bible itself says there are many things written in Paul difficult to understand

<Ortho> Including, captwade, God Himself in His word.

<Ortho> Yes, Joseph, it does. But what does it say in the same sentence?

<captwade> Joseph: Difficult and impossible are two different things.

<Ortho> "Which the untaught and the unstable distort to their own destruction."

<Ortho> What does that mean?

<Ortho> If there are untaught, that means there are.....taught.

<Joseph> ORTHO a firm foundation which since it is based on our opinion of what the bible necessarily implies becomes shifting sand

<cunninham> has RCC ever taught mistruths, or rather, has RCC been fallible in their interpretation of Scripture

<^duck^`> Joseph: difficult to understand not "impossible"

<Ortho> And if there are unstable, that means there are......stable.

<captwade> Joseph: Peter wasn't denying the ability of readers to arrive at what Paul intended, was he?

<^duck^`> difficult to one, but may not be to another

<Ortho> Hence, in this very passage, we are told that God has determined to allow untaught and unstable people to exist, and in fact, to destroy themselves in false teaching!

<Joseph> ORTHO and which authoritative voice tells us who are the taught and who are the untaught? For example to all in this room you are the taught and I am the untaught

<Ortho> Again, Joseph, take that last line you just wrote, and please, go read Psalm 119. Slowly. Meditatively. And ask yourself a question: do you believe what the Psalmist believed?

<Ortho> If not, why not?

<Joseph> The untaught could be teaching as part of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist church pillar of truth

<Ortho> Well, Joseph, I really think you are starting to ask the same questions we answered a long time ago.

<Joseph> I doubt we'd agree if they were "answered"

<Ortho> Personally, I need to go spend some time with the munchkins, and I may even splurge and take the whole family out to dinner tonight. I think if you will read the log of this conversation, you'll see you've come back to square one all over again, and your questions *have* been answered.

<Joseph> Anyway I've wasted too much time with this and really must get to my next M.A. paper

<captwade> Joseph: Why do you believe that we are capable of interpreting your words in such a way as to know what you're saying?

<Ortho> Your next paper, Joseph?

<captwade> Or at least what you mean to say.

<Joseph> IF you want to discuss it further you can email me at JIMMYJOEJ@aol.com

<Ortho> Oh my.

<Ortho> I should have figured it out.

* captwade sulks since his question will go unanswered.

<Ortho> Nina, you were right all along!

<Nina^`^> lol

<cunninham> joseph-being a layman myself, might i ask you why it is that you see the RCC as the infallible voice on Holy Writ?

<Ortho> Jimmy, just a note for you: changing hostmasks to sneak under a ban is considered bad form. :)

<Nina^`^> ALWAYS listen to me James

<Joseph> CAPT here's the answer to your question

<Nina^`^> Same MO

<Ortho> I should, Nina. You know all things.

<Ortho> :)

<Joseph> CAPT because if you are wrong on what I say to you I can hear and correct you while the bible cannot hear with its ears and speak with an objective audible voice but only a subjective interior voice easily mistaken

<captwade> Joseph: But I don't have to still interpret the words of your correction?

<Nina^`^> Joseph when u are banned u see no reason not to return right?

<captwade> Oops...let me try again...

<Joseph> CAPT yes and I can correct again and again if necessary while the bible cannot

<captwade> Don't I still have to interpret your spoken or written words intended to correct my misinterpretation?

<Joseph> CAPT it shows in the way people disagree on bible and the way they disagree on church teaching

<captwade> Joseph: What's the difference between my interpreting spoken or written words?

<Joseph> When people disagree on the bible they all think THEIR understanding is true one while those who disagree with church teaching don't think the church should teach what it does For example many think women should be priests but KNOW church teaches against it while those who disagree on what bible says on baptism each thinks their opinion is what bible teaches

<captwade> In either case words requiring my interpretation are used. You can try to correct me verbally all you want but you must do so through the the medium of words.

<Joseph> OF course but I can improve and add new words to my interpretation/explanation which the bible cannot do

<captwade> Joseph: YOu don't mean to suggest that because there are differing interpretation of something that no one can know which if any are correct or superior, do you?

<Joseph> IT is the WAY in which there are differing interpretations: there is confusion over what bible teaches while there is disagreement with what church teaches

<captwade> Take the Holocaust for example. There are some who look at the same "evidence" that you and I do and conclude that it never happened. Since there is a difference of opinion, are you saying that we should conclude that no one can know whose interpretation of the data is correct?

<Joseph> As I said to ORTH gotta go and get back to MA paper

<Joseph> And as I also said to ORTH you can always email JIMMYJOEJ@aol.com

<^duck^`> I love the scriptures and apply them to my life

<Joseph> Might not get back to you right away with MA studies but eventually would

<Joseph> Goodbye

<captwade> When God spoke from the clouds "This is my beloved Son..." there were some who said it thundered, weren't there?

*** Joseph (ProFide@205-223-206.ipt.aol.com) has left #prosapologian

Then, a number of months later, Mr. C. again came into the channel.  This time, he was blatantly dishonest about who he was:

*** Deck (MDecker@1Cust237.tnt2.albany.ny.da.uu.net) has joined #prosapologian

<Deck> Sky may I ask a question on sola scriptura?

<skyman`> Deck, if I can ask you one first.

<Deck> Sky sure

<skyman`> k, are you RC?

<Deck> Sky yes I am Does that matter?

<skyman`> no, thx for the straight answer.

<skyman`> Your first time here?

<Deck> Sky sola scriptura teaches that no doctrine NOT taught in the bible is binding on Christians

<Deck> Sky yes

<Deck> Sky but since WHAT is to be considered canon or to be considered as NOT part of the canon is NOT taught in the bible, how then can a belief that the books of the bible ARE part of canon be considered as binding on Christians?

However, after a LONG discussion of the SAME issues yet again, Mr. C. reveals himself.  He had lost his connection, and came back in using the nick "Matt":

<Matt> When James White stops in tell him JIMMYJOEJ says hello He's already banned me numerous times including last night when LAZY wanted to ban me merely for the crime of being Catholic as you banned me over the weekend I've been banned so often for daring to ask questions that challenge assumptions that I've gone through quite a few names now so just tell ORTHO I said hi

<skyman`> you lied Jimmy

<skyman`> You told a baldfaced lie tonight

On June 1, 1999, Mr. C. came in under the nick "Philios."  James White was posting via a bot called Logos, which is why you will see Philios referring to "Logos" once in a while.

[20:48] Philios (Mark@ABD1137F.ipt.aol.com) joined #prosapologian.

<Ortho> Hello, Philios.

[20:53] <Philios> Hello Logos

<Ortho> Tell me, do you ever speak of anything other than your single objection to sola scriptura? Like, maybe, sola fide, or the atonement, or anything like that?

Said to #ProsApologian: Tell me, do you ever speak of anything other than your single objection to sola scriptura? Like, maybe, sola fide, or the atonement, or anything like that?

<Ortho> Hello?

[20:54] <Philios> Yes I do, but sola scriptura seems such a foundational issue, and so obviously self contradictory that it is an excellent example to use.

<Ortho> I see.

<Ortho> I wonder: have you ever answered the question of how you, personally, James C*****, have infallible knowledge of all the infallible teachings of the Roman Catholic Church?

[20:55] <Philios> Beside, no one seems to be able to directly or logically answer the question, and so until they do it seems it is best to stay on that issue until I get a real answer

<Ortho> Of course, that assumes you'd accept a "real answer," which is highly questionable. :-)

[20:57] <Philios> LOGOS yes I have, since I do not need such knowledge, but only need sufficient knowledge, since MY recognition of the infallible church does not CREATE the church's infallibility, while it is recognition of WHAT is to be considered as scripture that CREATES THE BIBLE!

<Ortho> I see. So, the Bible is created by human perceptions?

[20:58] <Philios> LOGOS as historically demonstrated, yes. The bible did NOT drop from heaven as it is today, but was argued over as to WHAT actually belonged to the category of inspired scripture. It was THAT recognition that created the leather bound book so many have in their homes today that we know as the bible

[20:59] <Philios> Those human perceptions were of course infallibly guided by God

<Ortho> So, it is actually your assertion that the Scriptures are created by human perception? You don't believe God is the author, and creator, of Scripture?

<Ortho> Infallibly guided by God? I see. So, why aren't your perceptions of Rome's infallible teachings likewise infallibly guided by God?

[21:00] <Philios> Believing that human recognition creates the book we know as the bible does NOT contradict the inspiration of that recognition by God

<Ortho> I see. So, when it comes to Scripture, it's very nature is determined by divinely guided human perceptions, but this is not the case with the infallible teachings of the Roman Catholic Church?

[21:01] <Philios> Because I am not infallibly guided; however, the church is, the same church that chose what should be considered part of the INFALLIBLE bible!

<Ortho> And when did this Church make this infallible decision, exactly, as you fallibly understand it?

[21:02] <Philios> LOGOS the church was created directly by God, unlike the bible which was created through the instrument of human recognition guided by God

[21:02] <Philios> LOGOS what infallible decision are you talking about?

<Ortho> And when did this Church, which you say is directly created by God (while Scripture is not) make this infallible decision, which you can only fallibly know?

<Ortho> Well, you say the Church has infallibly decided on the canon of Scripture. Can you tell us when this decision was rendered so that all everywhere could, finally, have the Scriptures?

[21:03] <Philios> Again, WHAT infallible decision are you talking about? The decision of what is to be considered part of the bible?

<Ortho> Do you understand the question I asked, Philios?

[21:05] <Philios> <Philios> I would say it occurred in the late 300s, when the councils of Hippo, Carthage and the canonical list of Pope Damsus decided what was to be recognized as scripture. However, if I am wrong, I have the living voice of the church to correct me audibly

<Ortho> I see. So, Hippo, Carthage, etc., were infallible sources of revelation?

[21:06] <Philios> LOGOS if they spoke with the authority and voice of the magisterial church in confirming what was to be believed by all the faithful, yes

<Ortho> But you could be wrong about this, correct?

<Ortho> I mean, most Roman Catholic theologians recognize that the first *dogmatic* definition of the complete canon was at the Council of Trent in 1546. Should I accept your opinion on that, or theirs?

[21:08] <Philios> LOGOS yes I could be wrong. Fortunately, it is NOT my knowledge that creates the infallibility of the church. What makes you think you have an infallible bible if you only have a fallible recognition of what belongs to it?

<Ortho> So, how could I determine who is right (i.e., you or others with whom I have spoken)? Do I have to appeal directly to the Pope himself?

[21:10] <Philios> LOGOS that would depend on what you would call "dogmatic" It is something like the Defense of Marriage Act passed by Congress, that mandated marriage was ONLY between a man and a woman, banning recognition of homosexual marriage. Now, before this act was passed, was homosexual marriage allowed? No, it was not! However, since no one before had thought to question this, the law did not have to be passed. It is often only when something is QUESTIONED

[21:10] <Philios> been considered as affirmed before

<Ortho> I'm sorry, I don't understand the connection you just drew. Are you saying there were no canonical questions from Hippo to Trent?

<Ortho> If that is the case, could you please comment on the fact that there are *many* such questions, including Gregory the Great's rejection of the deuterocanonicals, all the way up to Cardinal Cajetan's rejection of the same at the time of the Reformation?

[21:12] <Philios> Around the time of the Council of Trent, WHAT was canonical was called into question by Protestants. So at that time it became necessary to make a definitive declaration of WHAT was canonical. NO, as you well know, if you can respond without twisting my words (which I doubt you can), it was the first truly serious objection to what the church accepted as scripture. How do YOU know what is infallibly part of the infallible bible?

[21:13] <Philios> What makes you think you have an infallible bible if you only have a fallible recognition of what belongs to it?

<Ortho> Well, you seem to be assuming facts that are not in evidence. Do you reject the testimony of historians that from the very beginning a long line of churchmen have rejected the OT Apocrypha?

[21:14] <Philios> What makes you think you have an infallible bible if you only have a fallible recognition of what belongs to it?

<Ortho> Are you unwilling to answer questions about your own assertions, sir?

[21:15] <Philios> I have asked this question repeatedly, and just as repeatedly you avoid it! I HAVE been answering your questions, but you seem unable or unwilling to extend the same courtesy

<Ortho> For example, Athanasius, Melito of Sardis, Jerome, Gregory the Great, etc.?

<Ortho> You seem to be getting agitated. I'm sorry that pointing out inconsistencies in your position upsets you.

[21:15] <Philios> So did they make an infallible declaration of the church that the apocrypha was NOT part of the bible?

<Ortho> No one claimed, back then, the prerogatives Rome claims today, sir. That is another example of modern Roman anachronism.

[21:16] <Philios> It would be nice to actually get a response to one of MY questions, since you seem insistent on MY answering, but remarkable diffident about answering mine!

[21:16] <Philios> What makes you think you have an infallible bible if you only have a fallible recognition of what belongs to it?

<Ortho> The fact remains that you do not have a uniform belief, which is necessary for the answer you gave as to why it was not until Trent that we have an infallible, dogmatic definition of the canon given.

<Ortho> That much is now clearly in evidence.

[21:17] <Philios> What makes you think you have an infallible bible if you only have a fallible recognition of what belongs to it?

<Ortho> Now, to your point: I think I have an infallible Bible because it's author is perfect and cannot produce anything but what is infallible.

<Ortho> Is there a problem with that, in your opinion?

[21:18] <Philios> We have a uniform belief, because unlike the MANY divided voices of the protestant denominations, the church speaks officially with ONE voice

<Ortho> I see. So, does it not logically follow, given your premises, that until at least the end of the fourth century, no one had an infallible Bible?

[21:18] <Philios> And WHO was the author of the bible?

<Ortho> Jesus Christ taught that the author of the Scriptures is God Himself. I believe Him.

<Ortho> But, of course, you seem to be asking, "How can God prove He speaks as God," which is an obviously inappropriate question.

[21:19] <Philios> OK so WHAT scriptures were inspired by God?

[21:19] <Philios> Where does the infallible bible declare WHAT is to be considered part of it?

<Ortho> Please answer my question: did anyone prior to Hippo and Carthage have an infallible Bible? Yes or no?

[21:21] <Philios> Not an infallible recognition, no. Fortunately, they did NOT follow sola scriptura, but had an authoritative teaching church! Now, if they followed sola scriptura, there would be a problem with that. You put YOUR beliefs onto the early church as necessary, assuming since they did not have an infallibly recognized bible they were lost. However, they DID have an authoritative church

<Ortho> So, your answer is "no, they did not." Correct?

[21:21] <Philios> Jerome never rejected the deuterocanon out of hand. He did however posit that they may be set apart, in an "appendix" if you will. Nevertheless, he acquiesced to Pope Damasus to include them in the LXX order.

<Ortho> So, your answer is "no, they did not," correct?

<Ortho> So it is your position that the early Church had no infallible Scripture, but they had an infallible, authoritative Church instead, correct?

[21:23] <Philios> An infallible recognition, no - not until the church infallibly recognized WHAT was part of the bible. Do YOU have an infallible recognition of what belongs to the bible, or do you have a fallible bible?

<Ortho> Would it follow, then, that we find the early Fathers, prior to Hippo, explicitly teaching that they had no infallible Scriptures, but did have an infallible Church authority to follow, correct?

[21:24] <Philios> LOGOS no it would not necessarily follow at all

[21:24] <Philios> What is assumed is hardly necessary to be taught

<Ortho> Please explain why it does not follow.

[21:24] <Philios> What is assumed is hardly necessary to be taught

<Ortho> I see. So, it is your position that the early Church assumed the idea that she had no infallible Scriptures? Yes or no?

[21:25] <Philios> As I said before, it is only points that are argued over that need be taught

[21:25] <Philios> No that is NOT my position, as you well know

<Ortho> So, it is your point that no early Father ever taught that the Church had infallible Scriptures?

[21:25] <Philios> What the church DID assume was the teaching authority of the church

[21:25] <Philios> No that is not my point either

<Ortho> I see. So you assume this, and hence reject the call to be able to prove this from the patristic sources?

[21:26] <Philios> Prior to Hippo and Carthage, the "canon" was largely determined by individual church leadership and patriarchates, and could change on the whim of new leaders. Hence, you had such works as "The Shepherd" by Hermas and various gospels and epistles in a regional collection. Likewise, books like Jude and Philemon were often ignored as uninspired.

<Ortho> I'm sorry, your position seems rather difficult to follow. I believe you indicated that, until Hippo and Carthage, no one had an infallible Bible. Is this not what you said?

[21:26] <Philios> Prof. White, you seem to ask many questions, but unwilling to answer any yourself

[21:27] <Philios> The eccumencial councils that standarized a canon for all the Christian faithful was required because the allowance of non-inspired works was allowing a subtle form of gnosticism to prevail in certain areas.

<Ortho> The Socratic method is often useful, Mr. C***.

[21:27] <Philios> Yet you seem unable to stand up to that Socratic method as you demand others do! So how do you have an infallible bible WITHOUT an infallible recognition of WHAT that bible includes?

<Ortho> You are addressing lots of questions that I am not asking. Let's focus again, please. You insist that without an external, infallibly defined canon, that one cannot have an infallible Bible. It follows, of necessity, that no one had such an infallible Bible until 1546, actually. But, you go against the majority of Roman Catholics and say that the provincial council of Hippo is "good enough."

<Ortho> So, even taking your unusual (and highly fallible) view, it follows, inevitably, that until Hippo, the early Christians had no infallible Bible. Seemingly, then, the early Christians were in the same situation I am in, correct?

<Ortho> Obviously, therefore, your position is again proven self-refuting, since it is obvious, beyond controversy, that the early Church did indeed have the inspired and infallible Bible, claimed to have such, and taught on that basis. No one can seriously challenge that.

<Ortho> Now, as to your question, you well know that as a Protestant, I do not claim infallibility for myself. Hence, I do not claim infallible knowledge of any fact of revelation. I claim the Scriptures are sufficient to give me a knowledge that leads to eternal life.

[21:32] <Philios> So HOW do you have infallible scriptures if you do not have an infallible recognition of what they are?

[21:33] <Philios> So in short, NO, there wasn't "an inspired bible" at the time. It existed, in particulate form, until the church established was was to be binding upon the faithful.

[21:33] <Philios> And contrary to popular belief, Scofield wasn't there to straighten them all out. ;-)

<Ortho> Well, thank you for joining us tonight, Mr. C*****. This log will show that 1) your questions have been answered; 2) you have not answered the questions asked of you; 3) your position is untenable and self-contradictory, and 4) you ended your time here by becoming abusive and doing nothing but making wild claims. Thanks, but as you know, you have been banned from this channel at least 20 times, and will be again. :-) Good night.

[21:33] <Philios> So HOW do you have infallible scriptures if you do not have an infallible recognition of what they are?

[21:33] Philios!Mark@ABD1137F.ipt.aol.com kicked from #prosapologian by Logos!believer@mercury.wildstar.net: Good night.

UPDATED MATERIAL, September 7, 2001

The following speaks for itself.  We only note at the end "StevenD" reposts, from his own buffer, the same words that NA27 had posted.  

[19:17] <JimmyJoeJ> CHARIS you are begging the question, demanding I follow your view/give in to your argument by demanding I give scripture on that, why is a verse needed? You are demanding I follow YOUR view of the bible as the sole infallible rule of faith

[19:17] * NA27 notes JJJ seems stumped.

[19:17] <Charis> JJJ:  Offer anything you would like to answer the question.

[19:18] <JimmyJoeJ> JJJ notes that NA27 can only make sarcastic comments but not engage in real one on one debate

[19:18] <NA27> JJJ:  Why would the NT require an infallible interpreter if the OT didn't require an infallible Israel?

[19:18] <JimmyJoeJ> CHARIS I already did: <JimmyJoeJ> CHARIS false presumption, who said it didn't require one?

[19:18] <JimmyJoeJ> <JimmyJoeJ> CHARIS and answering a question WITH a question is not a real answer, but the classic way of getting out of answering

[19:18] <Charis> JJJ:  That's not an answer.

[19:18] <NA27> That is not a false presumption....are you saying Israel was infallible?  Yes or no?

[19:18] <Charis> But isn't that exactly what you did?

[19:19] <Charis> JJJ:  I asked you a question and you answered it with a question.

[19:19] <Charis> JJJ:  Where is your proof that Israel was infallible?

[19:19] <NA27> JimmyJoeJ:  Was the leadership of Israel infallible?  Yes or No?

[19:20] <JimmyJoeJ> NA Israel was infallibly guided to choose what was scripture, yes. NOW you will come up with your usual response of "so when did Israel suddenly become fallible?" Answer: with the coming of Christ/the establishment of the Christian church

[19:20] <JimmyJoeJ> NA I am trying to type a response as you use the time I am typing to make it appear as if I am not answering

[19:20] <Charis> Talk about a presupposition.

[19:20] <NA27> AH, it was!  Well, please, sir, explain the consistency of your position in light of the fact, acknowledged by all, that the Jews did NOT accept as Scripture the Apocryphal books that the Council of Trent canonized in 1546?

[19:21] <NA27> I wasn't rushin' ya.  :-)

[19:21] <JimmyJoeJ> WONKY yes I do, and many who look at "Dr." White's website think the same thing, though he always says anyone who disagrees with him about it aren't honest

[19:21] <Charis> JJJ:  You first need to establish that Israel was in fact infallible.  Until you do that you are arguing from silence.

[19:22] <wonky73> SO JJJ You are saying that pages and pages and megabytes of bandwidth responses to you never occurred!!!???

[19:22] <Orr^^> Makes one wonder if there are infallible utterances from teh Pope, and there were only a handful ex-cathedra, does that mean that the rest of the dogma is fallible?

[19:23] <Charis> JJJ:  Where is your proof that Israel was infallible?

[19:23] <Charis> JJJ: Why would the NT require an infallible interpreter if the OT didn't require an infallible Israel?

[19:23] * NA27 hopes he is just waiting for a JJJ reply on the canon issue....

[19:23] <JimmyJoeJ> NA those books were rejected as scripture at the council of Jamniah, long after the death of Christ and the start of the church, so 1. they weren't rejected until later, and 2. if they had a council at which the question of their acceptance or rejection came up, it is pretty obvious they were at least partially accepted, otherwise why even deal with the question of whether the apocrypha was scripture or not?

[19:24] <wonky73> sigh looks like JJJ doesn't know his history accurately.

[19:24] <NA27> You are incorrect, JJJ.  The facts are very fully against you on this one.  If I may elaborate:

[19:24] <JimmyJoeJ> WONKY honest responses, no. They have completely avoided the question and the points I make

[19:24] * wonky73 notes he has been reading a good book called. "The Old Testament Cannon of the New Testament Church."

[19:24] <Charis> JJJ: Why would the NT require an infallible interpreter if the OT didn't require an infallible Israel?

[19:24] <NA27> 1)  There was no "Council of Jamnia."  You really need to get up to speed on that topic.  There were discussions concerning Esther in the second century, but not as you put it there.

[19:24] <wonky73> AH so you mean nobody as refuted you question. 

[19:24] <JimmyJoeJ> CHARIS the OT did require an infallibly guided Israel

[19:25] <Charis> JJJ:  Who guided them?

[19:25] <wonky73> AH so you mean nobody has refuted your question. <- that is what I meant 

[19:25] <NA27> 2)  the Apocryphal books were NEVER laid up in the Temple as ALL of the canonical books were at least a full CENTURY before the coming of Christ;

[19:25] <JimmyJoeJ> CHARIS God, through the teachers Jesus told Jews to follow, those who "sat in the seat of Moses"

[19:25] <NA27> 3)  The Apocryphal books recognize the existence of the three-fold canon of the OT, showing they are not a *part* of said canon;

[19:25] <Charis> JJJ:  And wher