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 ---
i am sorry you are withdrawing from the discussion. i am not sure how many people are reading ( i like to think thousands!! ) but even if it was just the three of us, i think the discussion is worthwhile and i looked forward to getting into many other topics.
i did chuckle at your term “opposer”, LOL!
and chuckled again at your statement that the romanist “hate” when you quote Scripture....nothing could be further from the truth. The Scriptures, The Church and Sacred Tradition are like a three legged stool, they are all needed for the stool to stand, take one leg away, and the stool falls.
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.
oh well, i was hoping to discuss how the canon of Scripture came about and how the Church used Tradition to establish it.
i think i will try to post over the weekend on Acts 8 and how it absolutely proves the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. i know you will read it and i am hoping thousands of others who follow the 16th century tradition of men will read it as well.
I was reading this passage earlier and I think it is relevant to why we engage on these threads:
Flee the evil desires of youth and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart. Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will. (2 Timothy 2:22-26)
Thank you again for your kind words. God bless you, my friend. I hope you have a good weekend.