A Mormon Scholar’s Journey to Catholic Faith

Early in the evening of May 28, 2010, I am attending Mass in the majestic Basilica di Sant’Apollinare next to the Pontificia Università della Santa Croce in Rome. From Utah I have come as a scholar to deliver a paper at an international conference on the work of the great Catholic philosopher Dietrich von Hildebrand, and I have come as a tourist to see the Eternal City for the first time. Mass is being celebrated in the basilica for those attending the conference.

I am not Catholic—in fact, I was raised a Mormon, though I have had serious doubts about the Latter-day Saint faith for decades. Yet my journey of the heart—which ultimately ended in the Catholic Church—came long after I had intellectually departed—so I cannot receive Holy Communion. But when Archbishop Raymond Burke places his hand on my head in a blessing, the extraordinary presence of Jesus Christ moves my soul to tears. I now know, in my head and in my heart, that I have come to Rome as a pilgrim. I have finally heard his voice, and I will not turn away.

Of course, I was awestruck by the beauty of Rome. The conference was wonderful, and I made important contacts and great friends. But infinitely more important, I found a priceless gift: the God of truth I had ignored for decades. I found my soul, which had been lost in the fog of my pride and stubbornness. Thus began a journey that took me to the waters of Catholic baptism, the anointing of confirmation, and first Communion at the Easter Vigil of 2012. You do not need to travel thousands of miles to have a real encounter with Christ. But your soul does need to be open in a way mine had not been for years.

Mormon friends ask how I could leave the LDS Church. Catholic friends ask why the pilgrimage to Rome took me so long. My brother, a rabbi, was the first person I told I was converting. When we talked, he said simply, “You were a Catholic thinker when you were a graduate student at Harvard in the 1970s.”

Intellectually, there are two beliefs at the core of the LDS faith that I eventually realized I could not accept. The first is the doctrine of a “great apostasy” afflicting the church. Mormons do not deny that Peter led the church after Jesus’ Ascension. They deny that the Holy Spirit continued to guide it. Mormons believe that after Peter the patristic church lost its way.

And by “losing its way,” Mormons do not mean that the church suffered from human sinfulness or became too wedded to secular power. Christianity supposedly strayed so far that it was no longer Christianity. It did not merely require renewal, as St. Francis preached. It did not merely require a new vocabulary to express timeless truths, as Vatican II proclaimed. Mormons believe that the church—Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant visions alike—completely died and that Christianity required a “restoration” by God himself.

My intellectual journey was inspired in large part by my study of patristics. Reading the Church Fathers in my first year at Harvard in 1970–71, I realized that this story was false. Even my meager study of the Fathers allowed me to see what Newman had seen—that there was a development of Christian thought, a deepening of our understanding of such truths as the Incarnation and the Trinity. There simply was no evidence of a fundamental break from the church Jesus established. As one of Mormonism’s most brilliant minds of the last half century, Edwin Firmage, wrote after he left the LDS Church: “The idea that God was sort of snoozing until 1820 now seems to me absurd.”

Two passages from the Gospel of Matthew are particularly difficult to reconcile with the Mormon doctrine of the great apostasy. Jesus promised Peter that “the gates of the netherworld” would not prevail against the Church (Matthew 16) and he promised the Apostles that he would be with the Church until the end of the age (Matthew 28).

The other fundamental Mormon teaching that I cannot accept is the absence of an existential distinction between God and man. In an 1844 sermon, Joseph Smith made a claim that profoundly shapes the way Mormons see the world: “God himself was once as we are now and is an exalted man.” Parse this out and God himself becomes a finite, physical being. How, I wondered, can we have absolute confidence in a God whose power and knowledge are limited, not just by the rules of logic, as St. Thomas would have said, but by unknown barriers? A limited God cannot be our anchor in the face of extreme horrors or profound personal loss. In the face of terrible, inexplicable loss, Job did not place his trust in an “exalted man.” The God who spoke to Job did not start out on a world like ours. This God, who comforted Job and comforts millions of others every day, to whom we can truly pray “not my will but yours be done,” cannot be the limited being Mormons call “god.”

The Mormon “god,” who came from a world like ours, cannot be the creator of all worlds, as Scripture and reason tell us he is. The physical god of the Mormons cannot have been present at creation, when there was no matter. Furthermore, if all of us can become “gods,” then Mormonism is incompatible with Christian Trinitarianism and Jewish monotheism. It is polytheism.

Compounding all this, in my experience, is the fact that Mormons generally do not seek for serious answers. In fact, Mormon authorities actively discourage the marriage of faith and reason that we Catholics celebrate. I now profess openly what I always too silently believed: If a faith cannot be sustained in the face of serious questions, it is not a faith worth having.

If these reasons to reject Mormonism were sound for me over forty years ago, why did I stay? I could say it was culture, friendship, or inertia, and those reasons are accurate in a certain sense. But the full truth is found in Psalm 95: “Today if you hear His voice, harden not your heart.” I now know that at least four times in those forty years I specifically heard God calling me to his Church, but I turned away. My oldest and closest friend since 1970 told me twice directly that, like him, I should be a Catholic. I knew he was right. Yet I did nothing.

In one instance, the turning was literal. I had invited a Catholic theologian to speak at Utah State on religion and science, and I arranged a lunch for him with the Newman Club. After lunch, the parish priest and I talked for a long time. As our conversation wound down, I felt strongly that I should go with him to his office and talk about my faith. Yet I turned away and walked back to my office.

In the past two years, my journey towards the Catholic Church has brought me to a deeper relationship with Jesus Christ than I have ever had. I have not “given up my faith.” Leaving Mormonism for Catholicism is a journey many others are making, and it has allowed me to experience God’s love in a profoundly richer way.

let’s consider for a moment how the universal church became the Catholic Church.

Let's not ever consider that concept. Though forwarded by the error-prone Ignatius, it has no foundation in the God-breathed (and by Ignatius' time, completed) Word.

The Apostles planted local autonomous churches which were one based on their unifying instruction verbally and by writing, not by shared leadership of officers. Paul and Silvanus and Timotheus exhorted the Thessalonikans saying, "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions* which ye have been taught, whther by word**, or our epistle" (* = paradoses, precepts delivered by instruction, oral or in writing); (** = logos, the act of speaking) (2 Thess. 2:15). This indicated a complete and sufficient teaching and acceptance of counsel, without any accountability to any external agency. This was according to Paul's gospel which was explicitly thoroughly known and taught by all three authors of this epistle. Silvanus and Timothy needed not to be heard of in further embroidering, adding to, or allegorizing the gospel they had fully committed to the local church at Thessalonika.

In the Apocalypse, the Beloved John was instructed to write individual notes to the angel/preachers of seven of the churches and send each church a bound copy of all the letters. Examining whe commands of Christ in Rev. 2 and 3, nowhere do we see The Lord yielding any of His authority over the churches to John. Furthermore, note that by figurative-literal language, The Christ pictured the churches, not as a candlabrum or menorah (which would have signified an inseparable union of the churches under one central and rule), but as separated, independent, and presumably of the same stature, entities. The suggestion is clearly independent accountability of each angel/messenge/preacher individually to its Head The Lord Jesus Christ, with The Holy Ghost alone being His Voice expressing Himself to each church through His Written Word to the designated messenger of that church.

The first letter to the messenger of the Ephesian church did not entertain or tolerate the doctrine of "overwhelm the ordinary people" Nicolaitans, which is the doctrine of all clergy/lay episcopacies, and which the Lord Jesus Christ hates.

Here, John is not offering second-hand advice to the preacher. No, he is commanded to write and exactly what to day, thus establishing each of the letters as Holy Writ. Further, though each letter is directed toward a specific ordained angel/messenger person, it has to concern his particular local church as to church discipline about to be pronounced and applied by him; but also is shared with all other churches (including those of this age!) as a clear warning by the Holy Ghost against errors in church polity and against untoward behaviors of its messenger/rulers.

There are four things bearing on "catholicity" as a rule of associations of churches:

(1) Here Jesus' words written by John Theologian being God-breathed Sacred Scripture, the Voice of the Holy Ghost, they are not addressed to a "Church" ruling over an association of local churches, nor to a Bishop of such a "Church" diocese; they are written to individual angel/messenger/preachers, each of a separately identified local church, each an individually distinct "candlestick," but in which each individual of each church is to hear that which the Holy Spirit is saying to the churches,
(2) No interference or overruling of any local church is granted to any other local church or church angel/nessenger/ruler, not even as the closest beloved intimate companion of The Lord Jesus Christ Himself. He, and He alone is the head of a legitimate local assembly. The Lord has not delegated authority over any local chuch to any other agency than Himself and His alter ego, The Holy Ghost.
(3) All the churches then and of all time are warned firmly against yielding to the imposition of a sacral society (carrying over a priesthood lording it over "unordained" members of the organization from the OT polity to a NT church); or the superimposition of an external wide-area unionized association of candlesticks inseparably joined yo an incorporated directorship as simply local vendors of another level of mangement beyond local control.
(4) Specific remedies for preacher/pastoral error are set forth (watch for and note the verses directed toward "thee," second person singular, to whom reward or chastisment is inscripturated), especially fo the messenger who has preferred the mundane oversight function (Rev. 2:2,3) above the Fellowship of His Son (Rev. 2:4, 1 Cor. 1:9), for which removal of the local church from the careless messenger is the penalty.

These points are certainly a good arguments for autonomous local churches free of interference from any external agencies in limiting or dictating their conduct and direct accountability to The Son.

In this closing opus, the Final Revelation of the long progress of special revelation to humans of His Will, there is no hint of the establishment of catholicity of the churches. There is no basis for supervision of members of the local church from anyone, other than the Holy Ghost, outside the church.

Is everyone to be a "pope" and to have his doctrine infallible? Yes, he is responsible alone to The God and Father of The Christ The Lord of us. If conviction of error by the Holy Ghost is neglected, correction by the Spirit through local church discipline may result. But so could death be the result of offending The Holy Ghost.

Are the pastor and elders to cultivate more spiritually mature elders? Yes. Various apostles and their verbal and written counsel in this was saved for us as God-breathed. Are we to follow them apart in a direction away from the doctrine of Sola Scriptura? No! Even Jesus did not depart from the so-far revealed-to-humans written Will of The God as an example for us, as shown in Mt. 4:4, where He applied Scripture: "It stands written ...".

There is no circumstance or human predicament that Scripture alone does not cover.

Here is a rule concerning the authority and sufficiency of Holy Scripture:

o Nothing more (Rev. 22:18, Prov. 30:5,6)
o Nothing less (Rev. 22:19. Deut. 8:3)
o Nothing else (Gal. 1:8, 2 Cor. 11:3-4, Is. 8:20)

Under the Blood: Jer. 48:10

==========

By common agreement, capitalizing statements (as you have) is equivalent to yelling by voice. At this point, I will not answer you in your impolite diatribes unless/until you can modulate your emotion and internet etiquette with maturity.

You haven't checked out and accepted/repudiated the seven baptisms mentioned and dealt with doctrinally in the reference I gave you.

You haven't given me the non-sectarian, 1st-century-understood explained "key" Scripture I requested. I'm waiting.

Reluctantly chiding you for leaping ahead with opinions not supportable by honest exegesis.

“Once for all” means Christ’s bloody suffering death on the Cross happened once.

"Once for all," a strengthened form of hapax means only once at all ever (Thayer's lexicon: epi, /D. in composition /1. continuance, rest, influence over any person or thing). That means, no resacrifice of any part of his body or blood, ever. His one sacrifice is never to repeated, because it was perfect, taking away all sin forever, and the persistently committed yielding of a human's trust in that sacrifice invokes graciously granted coverage for eternity under by that offering for his sinfulness and sins perpetrated, both at once, and for all time. Thus, like Martha, everlasting life (Jn. 11:25-27;). No resacrifice needed. Remembrance is an ordinance.

His “sacrifice” for mankind is represented to the Father every day and every hour around the world in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Literal or figurative?
Transubstantiation is a figment of a very active allegorizing imagination, whose explanations will not survive a literal historical hermeneutic for interpreting the event at Last Supper in its context, and most certainly not with the pattern of worship under the Aaronic priesthood, which is what the Roman liturgy is meant (IIRC) to continue.

It’s God’s plan, in Daniel and Malachi the Mass and the Holy Eucharist are prophesied. In Daniel, the “continual sacrifice”, this is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

In Daniel 9:27 my take on that is consistent with dispensational eschatology: When the bodies and persons of those saved in the age of churchianity are suddenly removed by the Lord and Redeemer claiming His Bride, the Man of Sin will be revealed, and he will permit the Temple to be rebuilt, and the resumption of the dead Jewish religions sacrifices that were ended after Tisha B'Av (70 Ad) until now. This the practice of animal sacrifices (oblations) that you and the patristics have allegorized into resacrificing Jesus daily. Not supported by a New Covenant Supper of Remembrance.

And summoning up the Malachi prophesy to fit the concept of continually resacrificing Christ wouldn;t seem to me to impress pagans. Such an application is a far reach, a clutching of straws in translation that abandons all NT context.

See below, how the KJV changes the verse, from the original. The Douay-Rheims is a word for word translation of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate.

Yep, an uninspired translation of an uninspired translation, not a literal grammatical interpretation of the original language. Though also uninspired, the AV does a little better--it follows the literal equivalency, standing nearer the original Hebrew on the agreement of several witnesses trained in the Hebrew and related languages. The AV English translation is accepted widely by Jewish scholars above modern versions. DRB not so authoritative, or well-received by Hebrew experts, IIRC.

No human brings Christ down from heaven on his demand (Rom. 10:6,7). When He is to come, no one knows but the Father.

Respecting The Sovereign, and His Word (Ps. 138:2)--

“Once for all,” a strengthened form of hapax means only once at all ever (Thayer’s lexicon: epi, /D. in composition /1. continuance, rest, influence over any person or thing). That means, no RESACRIFICE of any part of his body or blood, ever. His one sacrifice is never to repeated, because it was perfect, taking away all sin forever, and the persistently committed yielding of a human’s trust in that sacrifice invokes graciously granted coverage for eternity under by that offering for his sinfulness and sins perpetrated, both at once, and for all time. Thus, like Martha, everlasting life (Jn. 11:25-27;). No RESACRIFICE needed. Remembrance is an ordinance.”

~ ~ ~

The world keeps sinning, Christ’s one time sacrifice on Calvary is “made present” in the Mass and offered to the Father which pleases Him very much. I shared paragraph 1364 of the Catechism in my last post, here are two others to help you. Paragraph 1366 especially, you can understand, I believe, I hope. And never forget, many, many non-Catholic ministers, intellectuals, atheists even, read the quotes of the first Christians and changed, they converted.

Our Lord isn’t “resacrificed” as you keep saying imardmd1.

blessings,

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1363 In the sense of Sacred Scripture the memorial is not merely the recollection of past events but the proclamation of the mighty works wrought by God for men. In the liturgical celebration of these events, they become in a certain way present and real. This is how Israel understands its liberation from Egypt: every time Passover is celebrated, the Exodus events are MADE PRESENT to the memory of believers so that they may conform their lives to them.

1364 In the New Testament, the memorial takes on a new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ’s Passover, and it is MADE PRESENT: the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains every present. (Cf. Heb 7:25-27) As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which ‘Christ our Pasch has been sacrifice’ is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out. (Lumen Gentium 3; cf. 1 Cor 5:7)

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (MAKES PRESENT) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper “on the night when he was betrayed,” [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the BLOODY sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be RE-PRESENTED, its memory PERPETUATED until the end of the world, and its SALUTARY POWER be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.

“Literal or figurative?
Transubstantiation is a figment of a very active allegorizing imagination, whose explanations WILL NOT SURVIVE a literal historical hermeneutic for interpreting the event at Last Supper in its context, and most certainly not with the pattern of worship under the Aaronic priesthood, which is what the Roman liturgy is meant (IIRC) to continue.”

~ ~ ~

What do you mean “will not survive”....? More Christians believe in the Real Presence than not so open you heart to believing imardm1. And sorry, the “CONTINUAL sacrifice” prophesied in the Old Testament has to be offered by a priest. There are no priests found in Protestantism or Judaism today, only in Catholicism.

We agree, yes, God can do anything. There are mysteries of the faith you accept not understanding...which is faith. You accept the Incarnation, that God would have two natures on faith. Oh such a mystery, Our Lord is fully God, fully man.

Accept “Transubstantiation.” Jesus tells you in John 6,
think in the spiritual which means supernaturally and not
in a human way of seeing. When Our Lord says “spirit” in the Gospel, it never means a symbol. It means supernatural.
It’s God’s plan to come to us in the Eucharist. Jesus had
just revealed to His disciples that they must eat His body
and drink His blood, seeee... but with a supernatural understanding.

John 6:64
It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.

You do not object that certain things in Old Testament are “types” prefigured for the greater things in the New Covenant. It’s right before you, there is a New Covenant priesthood to offer sacrifice, the New Covenant priesthood is so much greater~! Forget the Old Covenant “animal” sacrifices, Our Lord’s one time sacrifice on Calvary is made present in an unbloody manner, offered to the Father, in the Holy Mass.

The Lamb of God, Jesus, is the Passover Lamb in the New Covenant and you agree, so go further, we must consume Him. Those who believe do, receiving the most Holy Eucharist.

unlike many here, i am not expert on the computer, i am not good and cutting and pasting ( as you are ) and don’t know hold to underline or bolden certain words i want to emphasize.

I don't do much cutting and pasting. How I learned to format a message here was to learn a few simple tricks of using a little H(yper) T(ext) M(arkup) L(anguage), which is a way of making your text do what you want by using some simple HTML code rules. FR hinted that I learn to do this, so I did. This is not difficult. You can teach yourself enough in a few minutes to do what you want. Juat go to this HTML tutorial site:

http://www.davesite.com/webstation/html/

and go down to "HTML Code MiniChapter X1: Introduction to HTML Coding [ How It Works! ]," click on it, and begin. It's all self-explanatory and you won't have a problem. Do this right away, and you'll be gratified.

therefore, i use CAPS, because i know how!

I used to be able to burp on demand, but that's not the way to get attention in a board meeting. A word in uppercase used sparsely for effect would not be objectionable, but long phrases and sentences have the same joyous acceptance as noisy flatulence in church. Netiquette is the thing here.

Regarding your questions, this is the best I know about them, offhand.

1. who “authorized” the authorized version.

An English committee of 54 scholars adept in Bible languages was commissioned to review the versions already available, and from them to construct a version in the English vernacular acceptable to the Crown to be authorized for general use by the Church of England, the King being its titular head. This was done in the time of James Stuart, King of England (I) and of Scotland (VI). It was publicly released in 1611 AD.>p? 2. under or by what authority did this authorization come from.

Look up and read the introduction to the volume as published by Oxford University. The work was done by order of King James I given during the Hampton Court Conference in January 1604. The English Crown is still the owner and proprietor of the copyright privileges.

3. what basis was chosen for the books in the OT.

The basis for the text was the Masoretic text of Ben Chayyim, and the Deuterocanonical books were included in the original version until about, say, the turn of the 29th century, IIRC. More recently, these uninspired but historical books have not been included. I think the book titles and divisions were those carried over from the Great/Bishop's/Geneva Bibles format, but have no functionally different content than that of the Vulgate or DRB, AFIK.

4. what basis was used or chosen for the books in the NT

The Greek text basis for the New Testament of the AV/KJV was the textform assembled by the Romanist "Desiderius" Erasmus, which has been given the name "Textus Receptus," or, "Received Text." It is a selection reflecting the Byzantine Majority Textform, and has that canonicity.

5. how does Acts 2:38 read in this authorized version.

The AV Acts 2:38 reads exactly as follows (my quotation marks supplied):

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

6. was this version authorized by your local congregation.

The (English) Authorized Version, commonly also called the King James Version is the only English version permitted for congregational use in quotation, instruction, preaching, or worship in the local church of which I am a constituent. This rule is very common to the independent fundamental immersionist Bible churches found throughout the US.

However, the AV (being like the DRB uninspired) can be a little ambiguous in the English rendering of the meaning of the Greek that would be clearer to the 1st century reader, Greek or Hellenic Jew, for whom the common language, Koine, was natural and needing no translation. Therefore, correct use of the AV in public instruction will often require an exegesis of the Greek to catch some of the sense not quite precisely carried over in the translation.

A very helpful companion to the AV is Wittman's "A Precise Translation" (herinafter "APT") which complements the AV in order to identify the fuller meanings of action projected by the verbs from the voice, tense, and mood indicated in the Greek text. There is also a need to use the precise meanings consistently which indicate the nuances of Greek words which have prompted the selection of a particular English expression.

Sometines the English translations have elected different synonyms for the same Greek word, or used the same English word for two or more Greek words which, though improving the flow, may undermine the precise quality of which the Greek is capable, if the meaning is surrendered by careful exegesis.

This is why I like to use the APT in helping me to understand a passage more closely to the way, say, that Timothy understood Paul to be writing to him. In the rendering of Acts 2:38 a great deal of controversy has developed because of ambiguity related to the use of the Greek words repent = μετανοηω, a verb; and εις, a preposition connecting "baptism" and "remission of sins"; and the word αφιημι = "forgive, remit, abandon," and its noun form αφιεσι = "remission, forgiveness, abandonment."

The treatment of εις in Thayer's lexicon commands 70 1/2 column inches, so one surmises that a precise translation of this word in Acts 2:38 will take more than a little study, for there is a very fine shade of meaning there, that will be missed and a whole doctrine built that is really not consistent with the overall revelation and method of God's dealings with mankind. Be warned.

That is why, in this debate, I preferred to quote the APT translation: Of course, equating regeneration as being a consequence of and concurrent with the administration of water to effect spiritual birth flies in the face of John 1:12,13:

"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (AV).

"But as many as receive* Him, to them He gave authority to become children^ of God, namely to the ones continually committing~ trust unto his name, the ones who were begotten, not of** bloods, neither of** fleshly determined will, nor of** a ^^man's determined will, but~~ |begotten| by means of God." (APT as well as I can manage the notations which are: * to take, gnomic aorist; ^ emphatic relationship; ~ present tense; ** ek = preposition naming the source; ^^ husband, anarthrous; ~~ conjunction of contrast: |..| understood; noted as anarthrous are authority, children, God)

You see the APT does not conflict with or exaggerate the AV sense, but rather refines it. Furthermore, the APT is not based on the Alexandrian Westcott/Hort Critical Text. It is based on the Pierpont/Robinson Majority Byzantine Textform. with careful notes also giving the Textus Receptus wherever a division occurs, so the two translations use the sane Greek text basis.

In addition, the APT volume has a nice glossary of grammatical terms. One application is that for the particular foundational use of the preposition εις in Acts 2:38:

foundational use: the use of εις in which the action contemplated or cited is based on a previous action and therefore εις is translated 'on the basis of' or 'based upon.'
οτι μετανοησαν εις το κηρυγμα ιονα (Mt. 12:41)
"because they repented on the basis of Jonah's proclamation as an herald"

"Repent* at once! and be baptized each one of you by using the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of forgiveness of sins!" (Acts 2:38 APT)(* aorist, active, imperative)

This then shows agreement with John 1:12,13 as the Holy Ghost's inscripturated command is translated into English (AV) and more precisely refined (APT), an exegetical tool.

See? or, ... not?

i am quite enjoying the exchanges, as i say, it may be the first time many learn of the historical, orthodox faith.

This is of the historical, orthodox New Testament Faith of the FIRST local independent, Biblically authorized, autonomous, priesthood-of-all-believers, two-ordinances, individualized soul-accountability, saved membership, two church offices, and separated unto good works assembly prototype, ministering missionaries both locally as well as to the uttermost part of the earth. N'est ce pas?

And that is the kind of candlestick of The Lord to which I owe allegiance, practicing immersion on the basis of (εις) abandoned (remitted, forgiven, cf. αφιημι) sins and unto (εις = with a view toward) discipleship of the repentant, saved, converted and regenerated, believer, who is determined to abandon the old worldly, sin-numbed life.

one of the problems i find in trying to arrive at truth, especially in theological matters, is you must have the same authority.

for example, if i am discussing who God is with a Muslim, he will refer to the Koran as his authority. since i reject the Koran, and believe it to be devil inspired, the discussion doesn’t get very far.

just like having a great computer software program, but if you put “garbage in”, you will get “garbage out”

so for me, the authority is the same as it was in 33ad, 133ad, 233ad, and every year since then and will be the same until Jesus returns at the end of the world - the authority for doctrine and practice in the Church is the The Apostles. the Apostles received this authority from Jesus Christ Himself and received the power to proclaim the Word of God when they recieved the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

this Apostolic teaching the Word of God, our basis for doctrine and practice, never was, and never will be restricted to the written Scripture they left us ( the doctrine of “sola scriptura” ) as unfortunately you indicated you believe. you quote the Apostle Paul teaching what the Church has believed for 2,000 years:
2 Thessalonians 2:15 “ so then, brethern, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter”
there you have St Paul telling us in Scripture what the standard for the Church is to be for doctrine and practice. this is the same standard that the Church received from the Apostles from the Apostolic or Sacred Tradition.

and we see this standard played out through out the Scriptures and in the practice of the Catholic Church for 2,000 years. in Acts 8, Philip converts the eunuch first by using Isaiah, but then using the revelation of Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah received orally.
when the Apostle Thomas baptized infants and then passed away, were his successors to end this practice because they never received a letter from Paul instructing them to baptize infants? no, the authority was the Apostles and what they taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

now, we must admit, that men came along in the 16th century and rejected this Biblical standard for authority, by ironically enough claiming only the written word of God was to be used for doctrine and practice. they rejected the teaching of apostolic succession that the Church received from the Apostles, both orally and in 2 Timothy 2:1-2.

but the true Church rejected this 16th teaching and held firm to the 1st century teaching.

sola scriptura can be dismissed not only using the Scriptures themselves, but also in asking this question:

since no book that anyone has ever believed to be Scripture contains a table of contents for the Bible, on what basis do we determine which books are canonical and which are not?
for example, we have the gospel of peter, the shepard of hermas, the didache and the epistle of clement to the corinthians. are these books scripture? why or why not?
at various times, people have rejected Hebrews, James and Revelation from the canon, how can we be sure they are Scripture?
you can’t use Scripture to establish Scripture, it’s illogical. the only answer is the authority of the Church using Sacred Tradition.

the doctrine of Apostolic Succession, that the Church received from the Apostles as shown by 2 Timothy and the from Clement of Rome, taught by St Peter and his successor as Bishop of Rome in his epistle to the Corinthians. ( incidentally, this epistle was considered Scripture and read in the churches there for about 100 years )

for you to say “let’s not ever consider” the formation of the Catholic Church is to reject a major tenant of the Apostolic Faith.
notice, the only people who reject Apostolic Succession must reject it, since they don’t possess it.
notice, the only people who reject Sacred Tradition, must reject it, since they don’t possess it.
notice a pattern??

the “churches” were never autonomous, they always were subject to the Apostles and this truth remains today.

so for anyone to say the great martyr St Ignatius, who was put to death in Rome for his testimony and faith in Jesus Christ, who was personally taught the faith by the Apostle John, is “error-prone”, says more about the person making the statement than it does about Ignatius.
Ignatius certainly would have understood what John taught him about baptism, the Eucharist and the person of Jesus Christ. ( just as you seem to have absorbed the teaching of witman very well )
Ignatius famously left 7 Epistles on his way to martyrdom, and one of them tells us the Gnostics abstain from the Eucharist because they do not believe it to be the Body of Jesus Christ. it appears there are many today who hold to this Gnostic position. could the human author of John 6 mislead Ignatius?? i highly doubt it, especially since the Real Presence was believed everywhere and at all times in the Church. error prone indeed, the Gnostics certainly thought so!
now, you accuse the Church of following the “Nicolaitans” mentioned in Revelation and you think they practiced overwelming the laity by the clergy rule or something. of course, Revelation says no such thing, it doesn’t tell us what the Nicolaitans believed, so this clergy rule nonsense, is just that, nonsense. Irenaeus tells us the Nicolaitans were Gnostics, so they probably rejected the Real Presence. uh oh, starting to hit close to home.

what is often not said in these discussions is more important than what is said. so if one rejects the Catholic Faith, and it’s claim of Apostolic authority using word of mouth and written words of the Apostles for doctrine and practice, what does one replace it with???
some say “ local, autonomous churches” OK, lets explore that theory. Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Churc, He said He would be with us always, even to the end of the age, the Scriptures say the elect will not be fooled, and finally Paul tells us in 2 Timothy 3:8-9,
as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith; but they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of these two men”

“they will not get very far”

ok, let’s look at what happened to these “local autonomous churches” if this truly was the Biblical model for the Church and not the Romanist Nicolaitan clergy rule model, what happened??? where were they in the 1st four centuries after the Apostle John dies. no one can find them.
did they have names? no one can find them and there is a huge reason, it is the 800 lb gorilla in the room, the reason no one can find them is they did not exist. it is a figment of men like witman and others imagination.
you mentioned favorably the Montanists, without apparently realizing that they believed in continual revelations from the Holy Spirit, they did not believe the canon was closed as you stated you believe it is. big contradiction there and one that should eliminate the Montantists as the church ( besides as Paul said their folly was evident and they didn’t get far )
next the Donatists were mentioned favorably as the church. well, the Donatists not only believed in baptismal regeneration, but believed unless the priest was holy, the baptism was useless. i doubt you believe this!! their error was exposed very well by the Bishop of Hippo and again their error was evident for all to see and they did not get very far.

so this “local autonomous” church philosphy has led directly to the confusion and error we see in today’s lost world and has led to 38,000 different denominations in this country alone! what a far cry from Jesus prayer to the Father in John 17 and Paul’s admonition to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 1.

if we want to arrive at truth, we must have the same standard as the Church had in 33ad.

( wow, i went a whole post without Caps, even though i wanted to for emphasis about a hundred times! )

one of the problems i find in trying to arrive at truth, especially in theological matters, is you must have the same authority. for example, if i am discussing who God is with a Muslim, he will refer to the Koran as his authority. since i reject the Koran, and believe it to be devil inspired, the discussion doesn’t get very far.

Such a "solution" to the problem you cite (everyone having the "same" authority) is and would always be troublesome if that authority is based upon mere, fallible human beings. Discussing with a Muslim the doctrine that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, God incarnate, who came to earth to redeem mankind from sin can never be settled on the basis of a hierarchy in a church. It can ONLY be resolved when the Muslim's heart has been softened by the Holy Spirit of God to receive the Gospel of grace. Sticking out ones chest and declaring you have 2000 years of history to back you up will be met with rejection unless and until his heart is open. Besides, having a self-declared "infallible" authority in the Roman Catholic Church has NOT resulted in its "unity" - no matter how much it claims to be.

Such a claim concerning "history" is, as, everyone knows or SHOULD know, of no more proof than that of any other religion which is further back in antiquity. A Hindi can claim an older religion as can the Jewish man or woman for that matter. No, faith, if it comes, comes by hearing and hearing by the "word of God". Even the Roman Catholic Church claims to hold to the Divinely-inspired nature and authority of the Bible, the Holy Scriptures. Without it we would be at the mercy of any of a number of self-proclaimed spiritual leaders and teachers. Fortunately, we, as did the early Christian believers, have the teachings of our Savior Jesus Christ as He preached while here on earth as well as what He continued to reveal to His Apostles and disciples after His ascension enscripturated by God's design. NO OTHER writings have that Divine authority - the Apostles knew it and so did their followers. What the Holy scriptures say and the teachings of the rule of Christian faith are identical. The early church fathers taught that the apostles received the fullness of the revelation from Christ and passed on that revelation in its entirety in their preaching and epistles.

this Apostolic teaching the Word of God, our basis for doctrine and practice, never was, and never will be restricted to the written Scripture they left us ( the doctrine of “sola scriptura” ) as unfortunately you indicated you believe. you quote the Apostle Paul teaching what the Church has believed for 2,000 years: 2 Thessalonians 2:15 “ so then, brethern, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” there you have St Paul telling us in Scripture what the standard for the Church is to be for doctrine and practice. this is the same standard that the Church received from the Apostles from the Apostolic or Sacred Tradition.

Of course, this is what you have come to believe because it is what you have been told but it is NOT verifiable. In fact, the opposite can be shown that the "traditions" Paul spoke of WERE those same teachings that were written down. Tell me, why would Paul or Peter or John leave out essential truths from their epistles? Did the pagan Romans kill off all the Apostles and prophets before God had a chance to say everything He wanted to say? HARDLY! The problem the Roman Catholic Church has is proving that what they claim is the truth "always and everywhere believed" and derived from the "unanimous consent of the fathers", was actually the case. Any doctrine that claims apostolic authority must be grounded in Scripture. This was commonly stated by those early church fathers.

Men DID come along at the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century and they DID reject the teachings of the Apostles to the early church - but it was NOT the Reformers. In fact, the Reformers sought to get rid of the false dogmas and perverted doctrines that had been allowed to seep into the Catholic Church and which negated the truths of the Gospel. Your retort has often been that you can't believe God would "allow" the church to become apostate and that IS true, however, the "church" - those that are Christ's own sheep - were never led astray. It was some of the leaders of the state church that had grown too comfy with worldly treasures and power and who forgot their place and purpose to lead God's flocks. But this was hardly the first time such separation came about. In fact, it started before the first century was over. The Apostle John even spoke about it:

They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us. (1 John 2:19)

There is a reason for apostasy: "so that it would be shown that they all are not of us." The gospel drives out the hypocrite, the false professor. In fact, if hypocrites and false professors are comfortable in your church, then you have a good reason to question whether the gospel is being preached with clarity and power. Christ knows His sheep. They hear His voice. They do not listen to a man who claims to be the Vicar of Christ, who arrogantly allows himself to be called "Holy Father." They are satisfied with His Word, which is why false teachers tirelessly seek to inculcate dissatisfaction and distrust in the Word. That is how they get the false disciples to follow them. And we see it happen every day. We should expect to see it happening every day. It is a fulfillment of God's Word. (http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?catid=7)

But the TRUE church, the body of Christ, will ALWAYS be able to know and cling to the truth - we have the Holy Spirit within who leads us into ALL truth and who will never leave us or forsake us so we may boldly say, "The Lord is my helper, of whom should I fear?"

One last thing...I am tired of the false assertions that sola scriptura amounts to "the Bible alone as the sole authority in matters Christian." This is an error, it is NOT the true meaning of the term. The doctrine of sola scriptura holds the Scriptures are the sole infallible authority for the church and the sole infallible rule of faith. Protestants affirm church authority, but deny infallible church authority. Protestants affirm the necessity of a ruling office in the Church, because the Scriptures teach it (1 Tim. 3). Protestants affirm the necessity of a teaching ministry in the Church, because the Scriptures teach it (Eph. 4:11-16).

It must come down to whether or not we will believe God's voice. Rome teaches it is the "Church" and specifically the Pope and the Magesterium who comprise God's voice to believers. I believe God's voice is His revelation to man through the Divinely-inspired Scriptures. The Scriptures are God's voice. The Bible tells us it's God's voice: II Timothy 3:16-17 states, "All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction, for training in righteousness, in order that the man of God might be complete, fully equipped for every good work." The burden of proof lies on Roman Catholics who claim God's infallible voice is somewhere else besides the Scriptures.

Such a "solution" to the problem you cite (everyone having the "same" authority) is and would always be troublesome if that authority is based upon mere, fallible human beings.
...
It must come down to whether or not we will believe God's voice.

How encouraged I was to see this response, because I had other things to do, and your discourse spoke exactly what I had in mind, just in your own truthful words! So that gave me an unexpected breather. Actually, I was about to also conclude any further exchange with this opposer's intransigent approach to Scriptural admonition. The Risen Christ dealt with Cleopas and his companion during their hike to Emmaus,

"Then he said unto them, 'O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?'
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" (Lk. 24:2-27).

He called them fools for not taking counsel from the Scripture for their opinions, rather than relying on their own reasonings to interpret what they had observed; then proceeded to demonstrate how to apply Scriptural light to their predicament.

And I would say, for the three principal opposers that have plagued this topic that until they receive and apply that spiritual light, God will not give them more light--they will have to stay in the dark, with only the uninspired fallible Greater Catechism to keep them company (Which is, of course, just an accumulation of all their errors for some 1800 years, starting with the Catechical School under the Gnostic Pantaenus).

I intimated in my first response to this article that humanistic logic (reasoning, imagination, λογισμος) is not the way to approach Romanists, for they love that and is the way they are trained by Jesuits, using the same type of logic that the serpent deceived Eve. The Jesuits refined their form of logic to refine catholic doctrine in the Spanish Inquisition. If one contends on doctrinal issues, if they are allowed to employ catholic traditions, reasonings, and experiences, you will lose in that natural realm. The only way to contend is relying on their spiritual weaknesses in their attack, and cast down these reasonings through spiritual discernment that only the Holy Ghost can give you:

"For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)
Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled" (1 Cor. 10:3-6)

They absolutely hate it when you take the Holy Scriptures under the direction led by The Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:11), and with a literal hermeneutic, and apply them as Christ did to the Devil and his spawn the scribes, lawyers, Pharusim, Tsaddukim, and high priests. They will immediately run to the Patristics, for a start (as you pointed out) to intimidate you with their titles and writings.

I thank the Lord that you sensed this (1 Cor. 2:15) and responded accordingly to the natural, logical human's reproaches:

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man " (1 Cor. 2:14-15).

It's good that you came out of your corner swinging, in Spiritual armor and wielding "... the sword of the Spirit, which is the ρημα of The God" (Eph. 6:17b,c).

This reminds me of Priscilla and Aquila, who responded to Apollos:

"This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly" (Acts 18:25,26).

Their New Testament doctrine was enhanced by Paul ( A.D. 57-58, Winter, The Epistle to Romans, by Paul The Apostle, from Corinth), and their experience was later described by Luke, Paul's disciple (A.D. 63, Acts of The Apostles written by Luke at Rome).

Any doctrine that claims apostolic authority must be grounded in Scripture. This was commonly stated by those early church fathers.

The opposers do err, as you have said, and as I would have also, in running to the unscriptural portions of the Patrisics, and equating those embroidered observations and Platonic-supplied twistings of the Word as having the same reliability as the very God-breathed Truths. Dr. Thomas A. Strouse, former Dean of the Emmanuel Baptist Theological Seminary, Newington, CT, in his paper "Ye are The Body of Christ" observed:

"Although the Apostolic Fathers stood near the Apostles, this chronological proximity may have caused them to be unable to discern distinctive NT truth. Berkhof offers several characteristics of the Patristics' theological writings. Their writings reflected the lack of originality, depth, clearness and definiteness. The Patristics, most of whom were unregenerate, considered the NT Scriptures to be the continuation of the OT with no distinctions concerning the people of God or His agency through which he ministers (i. e., the assembly of immersed believers; cf. Mt. 28:19-20; 1 Tim. 3:15). In failing to use the historical-grammatical (dispensational) hermeneutic to interpret Scripture, the Patristics superimposed the sacral society concept upon the NT. They looked to the OT for the antiquity of church leadership and for the meaning and mode of baptism. The sacral society concept is the state religion in a certain region, headed up by one leader, entered into by one means for all inhabitants, and defended by exterminating all dissidents. Constantine embraced the platonic (sic) catholicity of the Patristics to form the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), with its one head of the bishop of Rome, with its baptismal regeneration of infants, and with its persecution of all dissidents. This visible catholic ecclesiology, initiated by Ignatius and his ilk, propagated by Iraneus and Cyprian, and popularized by Augustine, became the orthodox position for Christendom until the Reformation." (my emphasis)

Strouse, in a footnote, indicated the lack of some Patristics ne birth briefly:

"The writings of the following men indicate their dim awareness of soteriological truth. Ignatius taught baptismal regeneration, Cyprian believed in purgatory, Iraneus maintained salvation by works, and Augustine held to prayers for the dead."

And I previously in this topic noted the questionability of that of Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen (Hexepla), and Eusebius of Caesarea; Origen being one of the foremost known corrupters of the text in history, and is said by Eusebius to have castrated himself to avoid female temptation. (Was that God's plan for him? What kind of doctrinal basis provoked that? or is even worth gearing?)

So you see the nature of the kind of self-promoting people upon whom the Romanist place great reliance for their traditions -- but not so much on the Bible without them. You will note one discourse here was about Acts 2:38, which is extremely difficult to harmonize with the rest of the NT when it is interpreted as supporting baptismal regeneration (even with immersion as the mode).

Well, again, your note was very welcome as another witness to a Bible truth:

"He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?" (Heb. 10:28-29).

Going forward,

"Let brotherly love continue ... Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me" (Heb. 13:1,5-6)

So long for now ---

a few random thoughts:

1. you state the same authority would be troublesome if that authority is based upon “ mere fallible human beings”. i think you have hit the nail on the head between those in the Church and those that reject the Church - the Church is a divine institution, it is the Body of Christ, it is not a human organization like the Moose Club, it is led by and protected by the Holy Spirit. the same Holy Spirit that is the author of the Scriptures. how could Jesus say the gates of hell would not prevail against it? how can the elect not be fooled? the answer is the Holy Spirit.
2. please don’t think i am sticking my chest out, the glory of the Church and it’s 2,000 years existance is all of God and the glory goes to Jesus Christ. i have nothing to boast about, any faith i have is a gift from God, just as saving grace is a gift from God.
what i can’t understand is those outside the Church will read the OT and see the hand of God protecting His people Israel from her enemies who wished to destroy her. yet these same people believe that God, in the person of the Holy Spirit, was unable to protect the Israel of God, the Church, from apostasy. even when the Scriptures, which they claim to believe, tell them is is impossible, they still don’t believe it. of course, without the Holy Spirit opening their spiritual eyes, such a thought seems like foolishness to them. to the Catholic, the foolishness is believing Satan could overtake the Church.
3. the Sacred or Holy Tradition received from the Apostles is absolutely verifiable, the evidence is the Church itself. what do you suppose Andrew, James, Philip, Matthew, Jude, Thomas and the rest of the Apostles were doing after Pentecost? the Scriptures don’t say, but i believe that they obeyed the great commission and went into all the world, preaching Jesus Christ and adding to the Church those that were to be saved. small (t) tradition tells us they all met a martyr’s death except the beloved John.
as i indicated in a prior post, they left behind One Church, One Faith. their teaching was accepted as the Word of God, the Church did not wait until a new Epistle from Paul was received to know how to baptize or what the Eucharist was. these men, appointed faithful men to teach the Faith to others, just as Jesus commanded them to do and Paul instructed Timothy to do. Teach, Teach, Teach, this is the mission of the Church. no where did the Apostles command the Scriptures me copied and everyone read them for themselves and then, thinking they are being led by the Holy Spirit, decide what of the Church’s teaching they will accept and what they will reject.
4. i have never met anyone who was Orthodox in their Faith that has a problem accepting Sacred Tradition. in fact, those outside the Church reject doctrines that are plainly taught by the Scriptures and can be shown to have been believed by the Church from Apostolic times. i’ll name two:
a. baptismal regeneration
b. the Real Presence in the Eucharist
why argue about doctrines derived from Sacred Tradition ( such as the canon, infant baptism, worshipping on the first day of the week, apostolic succession ) when the two great Biblical doctrines of Baptism and the Eucharist are rejected?
5. doctrines that are derived from Sacred Tradition must not be found in the Scriptures, but they also can not contradict the Scriptures either. for example, if someone was to claim there are two baptisms ( water and spirit )and use Sacred Tradition as the basis for this belief, it would need to be rejected out of hand because the Scriptures are clear there is only One Baptism.
6. the Romans did not kill off the Apostles before they had a chance to say everything, that is the point of Sacred Tradition. what do you think the word count would be if you compared all of the spoken words of the Apostles from 33ad to each of their deaths, compared to all the words of the 27 book NT? i dare say, the spoken words of the Apostles would exceed the written NT by about a factor of at least 1,000 times!! do you think men like Polycarp and Ignatius, men who learned the Faith at the feet of the Apostle John and loved Jesus to the point that they were put to death fo that love, do you think they understood infant baptism? they didn’t wait to see if Paul addressed it in an Epistle, they saw John do it. sola scriptura was not in effect in 50ad, 95ad, 108ad, nor 2012ad.
7. you quote 1 John 2:19 and i am very glad you did. you notice the Biblical pattern is the false comes out of the true, the true never comes out of the false.
you can go through Church history and you will see many, many groups have come out of the Catholic Church ( gnostics, arians, nestorianism, monophytisism, donatists, mrcionsim, protestantism, etc ) and you will see they all fit 1 John 2:19. the Catholic Church has been here since 33ad, it will be here until Jesus returns - although i do believe we are witnessing the great falling away that will occur before the end. the two witnesses are dead and the world is rejoicing.
8. you claim the True Church will always know and cling to the truth. we agree!!! the question i have that no one can answer is where was this “true church” before the 16th century?
9. i will accept your definition of sola scriptura, but like many other doctrines, different Protestants have different beliefs on its meaning.
do you ever wonder what Jesus thinks of 38,000 different denominations all claiming to follow Him, when He prayed His followers be one in John 17?
10. the only burden on the Church is the same one that it has had for 2,000 years - to go into all the world and make disciples of all nations and baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that Jesus commanded them to do.
the burden on us, is are we going to be led by the Holy Spirit to be obedient to that Apostolic Faith, that after 2,000 years, thanks to the grace of God, is still here, just as Jesus promised it would be.

as i indicated earlier, i firmly believe we are witnessing the great falling away which will happen right before the end. many, many false prophets have arisen and many are being led astray. the testimony of the Church is dead, Satan is taking his seat in the temple of God ( the Church is the temple of God, not some rebuilt bricks and mortars in the middle east ) it truly is a time of great tribulation for those who hold to the Apostolic Faith. every day, when i go outside and look up at the clouds, i pray, is today the day you return Lord? he ( or she ) who has an ear, let them listen.

i never got the chance to get into your use of the “authorized version” of the Bible and why you would use a Bible that can’t be trusted to translate Acts 2:38 properly. or maybe they did translate it properly ( like every Bible does that i know of ) and others must try and twist the Scripture to attack the doctrine of baptismal regeneration.

You have refused to peruse through the particular response to your questions, in which the meaning of "authorized version" was explained, about which you asked some six-odd questions. I see not even a considered "thank you" for taking the time for answering them, nor for supplying a reference to improve your posts for your own benefit and the convenience of others, nor of hinting quite broadly of how to amend your manners in using this site.

Apparently you either do not want to get into exactly what the Scripture says, or else do not know how to do that. The allegory of the Scripture not being able to stand on its own without your help of human traditions and a fallible church organization simply proves the error of using a paradigm not needed nor supported by Scripture itself. When I talk Scripture and you talk only Roman tradition, we are like ships passing in the night -- no communication.

So, I find debating with you unprofitable to the Lord's purposes and mine, because unlike the noble Bereans, your mind is closed, and you will not search the Scriptures to see if what I said was true.

You haven't won anything by being tantalizing, you have been just inviting me to irretrievably waste my time that can be spent on other projects the Lord has lined up for me. And you certainly are not only refusing the options The God has given you, but also are trying to prevemt others from recognizing and accepting them.

To further your intentions would be a sinful occupation, and I am refusing to participate. If you think this is humorous, let's just wait a little while and see what the end is. It will not be laughable if Sherlock misses the boat, will it?

no, i find it sad, not funny.

let’s recap, i came into this thread because i read someone declare mr sherlock still lost, even though he confesses the Apostolic Faith. God alone knows if mr sherlock is in Christ, but this poster took it on himself to opine on something only God would know. when challenged, he backed away from doing exactly what he did. right there i knew i what i was dealing with, but i pursued the matter since the truth of Jesus Christ would be made known thru the debate.

it is hard to debate someone who claims some level of knowledge on the Scriptures and history, yet offered the following gems:

1. constantine established the statist roman religion
2. tertullian was a hero of the faith, yet believed in baptismal regeneration which is a roman pagan belief
3. montanism was an example of early Christians, when they believed in baptismal regeneration and continuing revelation from the Holy Spirit. this is in direct opposition to wittman christians, which hold to a closed canon.
4. novatians were early Christians, when they believed in the pagan belief of baptismal regeneration.
5. ditto for donatists.

but love is patient, and i am commanded to love. so the debate continued, even though i don’t think the other side appreciated having their lack of knowledge of history exposed. oh well.

maybe we would do better by concentrating on the Scriptures, a wittman christian surely believes the Scriptures. so a discussion of Acts 2:38 ensued.
to those who follow the 16th century tradition of man and deny the Apostolic teaching of baptismal regeneration, Acts 2:38 is devastating and they know it. for if baptism is “ for the remission of sins” as Peter stated, they are teaching a false gospel and not the Apostolic Faith.

so when challenged on Acts 2:38, what did my friend do? he changes the Scripture to read something no honest Greek scholar would agree with!! ( we are supposed to have the Scriptures change us, not us the Scriptures ) this is something the cults like Jehovah Witnesses do! i pointed out that everyone ( Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox ) agrees Acts 2:38 says baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. reading the wittman christian way makes no logical sense and that is why no Bible that i am aware of translates Acts 2:38 as wittman apparently proposes.

so you can see that my friend, who claims to want to “get into exactly what the Scriptures say” really wants to get into exactly what wittman wants them to say and is not opposed to changing Scripture to meet the wittman preconceived notion of what they ought to say. very cult like.

but love is patient.

my friend ignored my question on the authority for the canon, i am not suprised. it would be a bitter pill to acknowledge the same “romanist cult” is the one who set the 27 book NT canon i bet a wittman christian uses ( if they use the “authorized version” which is intersting they would use a version translated by so called scholars who apparently didn’t understand Greek well enough to translate Acts 2:38 properly, but that’s another story i am sure my friend does not want to discuss )

did the “noble bereans” change the words of Scriptures when they were checking them? just saying.......

so now my friend looks like he is saying “no mas”, and i understand. after all, when i am falsely accused of using “roman tradition” ( i challenge him to find where i ever claimed this ) as opposed to the Apostolic Tradition or Sacred Tradition, you know you are losing the debate.

i stand ready, willing and able to discuss any matter or subject and answer any questions. i only ask that the other side takes the same approach.

for example, i asked where the Scriptures ever say that baptism is is an outward display of what has happened already or that baptism is a first act of obedience. cue the crickets, no answer will be forthcoming. but he wants to “get into exactly what the Scriptures say” riiigghttt!
i ask where the Scriptures ever use the term “water baptism”? cue the crickets! or where the Bible says there are two baptisms for the Christian, water and spirit??
somehow, i think the man who wants to “get into exactly what the Scriptures say” will want to talk about what wittman thinks the Scriptures say. ( with a lot of “romanist” jabs thrown in for good measure! )

so maybe a Protestant is reading this who is not a delicate flower and can man up ( or woman up BB ) and actually have a civil, Christ honoring debate.

finally, i congratulate man who calls me an “opposer”, ( that did make me laugh i must admit! ) on posting the comments from a dr strouse of the baptist theological seminary. dr strouse is honest enough to realize that if Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Athanatius and Augustine were Christian, he is not. he is honest enough to realize that he has a different gospel than these men and both can’t be true. many baptists claim to be following the same faith as these fathers ( BB call your office ) but Strouse is dead on. if these men were correct, strouse is a heretic who opposes the Church of Christ.
now, let’s just see, who should i believe has truth, Strouse or Ignatius??
Ignatius was ordained a bishop of the Catholic Church by Peter himslef in Antioch. for Peter to do this, he would have had to know Ignatius was a faithful man. Ignatius also was a disciple of the Apostle John . Ignatius was a very beloved Bishop in the Church and Rome saw how effective he was in spreading the Gospel that they had him put to death in Rome.
now, call me a “romanist”, but i don’t think Peter would have laid hands on someone who did not understand what baptism is, and doesn’t understand the Eucharist.
now, call me a “romanist”, but i think anyone who spends one week with the Apostle John would understand what he taught about baptism and the Eucharist, let alone years Ignatius probably did with him.
now, call me a “romanist”, but Ignatius would not have been beloved by fellow Christians if he did not teach exactly what the Apostles taught about baptism and the Eucharist.
now, call me a “romanist”, but Ignatius would have renounced Christ to save his life if he was not a true Holy Spirit filled believer in Jesus Christ and His Body, the Church.
so who to believe? St Ignatius or a Dr Strouse?
i think i know what a wittman christian would answer.

Translation of Acts 2:38 By Baptist Schools and Scholars

Luther W. Martin
St. James, Missouri

We have yet to locate a single Baptist scholar of New Testament Greek, the koine Greek in which the New Testament was originally written, who will turn his back upon his learning and scholarship, in order to wrest the meaning of Acts 2:38. It is not unusual to hear of individual Baptist preachers with a smattering of exposure to the Greek language who will assert that scholars exist who render “eis” in Acts 2:38, “because of.”

However, when these gentlemen are pressed for the New Testament translation that so gives this passage, they have failed every time. In fact, they have even failed to produce a professor or instructor of New Testament Greek, who will scuttle his scholarship in order to render “eis” as “because of.”

American Baptist Commentary on Acts

In my library, I have a Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, authored by Professor H. B. Hacket, D. D., of Newton Theological Institution, and edited by Alvah Hovey, D. D., LL. D., in consultation with Ezra Abbot, LL. D. Concerning Acts 2:38, it states:

37 “Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do? And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

“IN ORDER TO THE FORG1VENESS OF SINS (Matt. 26:28; Luke 3:3) we connect naturally with both the preceding verbs. This clause states the motive or object which should induce them to repent and be baptized. It enforces the entire exhortation, not one part of it to the exclusion of the other.” (page 53.)

Charles B. William’s Translation (1950 Edition)

38 “Peter said to them, ‘You must repent—and, as an expression of it, let everyone of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ—that you may have your sins f orgiven; and then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Concerning the above translation, Professor J. R. Mantey, of the Department of New Testament Interpretation, Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Chicago, has stated: “We concluded that it (C. B. Williams Translation. L. W. M.) is the best translation of the New Testament in the English language.”

Charles B. Williams has served as Dean of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas. Professor Ray Summers, head of Department of New Testament, at the same institution, has written in reference to the Charles B. Williams Translation, “I commend it most heartily to all who desire to know the real message of the New Testament.”

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

38 “And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be immersed each one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto remission of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Letter to L. W. M., 12-2-’42.)

University of Chicago Divinity School

38 “And Peter (said) to them,’Repent (plural) and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for (lit., “to”) the forgiveness (or “remission”) of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” (Westcott-Hort text). (Letter to L. W. M., 12-2 ‘42, and signed by Allen Wikgren.)

Northern Baptist Theological Seminary

38 “And Peter (said) to them, ‘Repent and be baptized (be immersed) each one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’”

“The remission of sins is conditioned by one’s repentance, turning from sin, and by one’s identifying himself completely with Christ, as baptism implied. Thus, the believer turns from sin to Christ and all that Christ wants him to be and do.” (Letter to L. W. M., 12-10’42, signed by Prof. J. R. Mantey.)

H. B. Montgomery Translation (1924)

38 “Repent,” answered Peter, “and 6e baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Mrs. Helen Barrett Montgomery, the translator of the above passage, was president of the Northern Baptist Convention in 1921. She was awarded an honorary LL. D., degree by Wellesley College.

Summary and Conclusion

In each and every one of the above translations, the Greek word “eis” points forward to the remission of sins; not backwards toward something that supposedly happened prior to repentance and baptism. The words “unto,” “to,” “that you may have,” and “for” were used by these Baptist scholars as properly translating “eis.” No scholar has ever rendered its usage in Acts 2:38 as pointing backward.

Truth Magazine VI: 5, pp. 9-10
February 1962

found this article in truth magazine ( which i believe to be Church of Christ )

interesting to read honest Baptist Greek scholars and how they faithfully translate Acts 2:38 rather than something called ATP = a precise translation.

ok, let’s see what the Scriptures teach about Baptism. as promised i will look at Acts 8.

the Church has received from the Apostles the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, that is a person becomes born again thru baptism into Christ. the baptized receive remission of their sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit, just as Peter preached in Acts 2. ( the non-precise version for all the wittman christians out there )

now, certain men came along in the 16th century and using the Catholic NT, started preaching a new doctrine on baptism ( or should i say baptisms ) they said the Scriptures actually teach two baptisms, spirit baptism is for regeneration, forgiveness of sins and receiving the Holy Spirit and it is done to you by the Holy Spirit the moment you accept Jesus as your Savior. after you are born again, they say you should do something they call “water baptism”, which is a first act of obedience and is done to publicly symbolize what has happened already.

ok, i think i fairly presented what both sides teach, Christians can do that in a debate because we are not afraid of the truth, the truth is our friend.

Acts 2:38 pretty well lines up with the historical, orthodox teaching on baptism, this is why some try and play greek gymnastics to justify their twisting the plain words of Peter.

but what about Acts 8, does it also back up the historical orthodox faith or the baptist/wittman position?

before we look and see what Acts 8:26-39 says, the following must be stated:

1. the Holy Spirit sent Philip to the eunuch to teach him.
2. the eunuch had the Scriptures, but needed the Church ( Philip in this case ) to open his spiritual eyes.
3. Philip used the oral teaching to accomplish this, no sola scriptura was in evidence.
4. Acts 8 does not contain every word spoken by Philip and the eunuch, but we can see by what is recorded and their actions, what must have been said.

i am going to assume everyone can read Acts 8 for themself, before continuing reading this ( i have no idea what the “precise translation” says, i have the RSV.

Philip asks the eunuch if he understands what he is reading in Isiah, and the eunuch is wise and humble enough to answer, how can i unless some one guides me? ( oh, is that attitude all too rare, but i digress )

then Philip sat with him and explained that verse and preached to him the good news of Jesus.

now, let’s pause here for a moment and note Luke doesn’t tell us everything Philip preached, but it obviously mentioned “baptism” to him at some point.

in v36, the eunuch says “see, here is water. what is to prevent me from being baptized?”

very interesting. we know at this point the eunuch has not expressed faith in Jesus Christ and therefore could not have been “spirit baptized” already.
how can we know this? because if he had said a sinner’s prayer, or accepted Jesus as his Savior, Philip would not have responded as he did in v37, “if you believe with all your heart, you may”
you see, at this point the eunuch wanted to be baptized before Philip heard his declaration of faith “ i believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God”
why was the eunuch so concerned about being baptized?? ( notice the eunuch says what’s to prevent me from being baptized, he doesn’t say what’s to prevent me from being “water baptized” he also didn’t say, now that i am spirit baptized what’s to prevent me from being water baptized.
no, the eunuch was anxious to be baptized obviously because Philip told him what baptism is for, remission of sins and receiving the Holy Spirit and being placed into the Body of Christ.
if the eunuch had already expressed faith in Jesus, Philip would have responded “ nothing prevents you from being baptized”. since he had not, Philip had to say “if you believe with all your heart, you may “

this is devastating to the 16th century tradition. the eunuch wanted salvation, he wanted remission of his sins, he wanted the Holy Spirit, he wanted baptism.
Philip made no mention of two baptisms, no mention of a first act of obedience and obviously the baptism wasn’t for an outward sign of what had happened because Philip and the eunuch were the only ones mentioned, there was no local congregation to “witness” the baptism.

absolutely, 100% puts the nail in the coffin to the 16th century tradition.

finally, let me mention the mode of baptism. i have heard baptists say Acts 8 teaches immersion because it says they both went into the water and both came out of the water.
i have witnessed Baptist’s baptisms,only the one being baptized is immersed, i have never witnessed the minister immerse himself.
Acts 8 does not mention how much water there was. for all we know, it could have been a little creek that was a foot deep. obviously, in that case, immersion would have been impossible. they just both would have went into the foot deep creek and Philip could have poured water on the eunuch and then they both came out of the creek. the Scriptures are silent as to mode.
what we do know from Apostolic Tradition, is that the mode could have been immersion, pouring or sprinkling.
Jesus didn’t command or authorize a mode, He commanded teaching and baptism.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.