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.
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?