Replies

1. same old, same old. the style seems to be to make up for lack of content with lots of words. well at least there are no 108 word, 10 comma sentences!

The reality is that there is little new in your reply, and as before it mostly consists of ignoring what refutes you and failing to engage such, while basically making the same fallacious assertions.

2.some mistake fidelity to orthodox, historical Christianity as “insolent and arrogant” so be it.

The mistake is supposing Rome is Scripturally orthodox, while “insolent and arrogant” referred primarily to your attempted response.
3. the fact remains that the Protestants in the 16th century removed books from the Bible they received when they were still Catholic. the Church did not add books to the Bible in response to the “Reformers”.

Having been shown it was Rome who added books to the most ancient canon, and which the Protestant canon reflects, you now want to indict the Prots for not going along with Rome's later canon, and who did not even have an indisputable canon, and then you defend Rome by saying they did not add books to the canon of the Reformers!

C. The charge of having no ancient 73 book canon is one that could be leveled against the 4^th century church. In addition to the lack of uniformity and the many churchmen and groups who did not affirm the apocrypha, and that “in the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals,” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm) the most ancient Christian list we have is that of saint Melito, a Bishop of Smyrna, and esteemed as a prophet by many of the faithful, who in 324 provided a list of canonical books in response to a desire to have “an accurate statement of the ancient books,” and which list was published abroad and recommended by Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea. Yet Melito's list does not include the apocryphal books (unless Wisdom does not mean Proverbs, as was sometimes the case according to Eusebius, while possibly referring to all our books of the Hebrew canon minus Esther, though Jews sometimes combined this with Ezra, as Ezra and Nehemiah also counted as one book, being sometimes called Esdras (Greek for Ezra), like as Lamentations was with Jeremiah.

4. the fact remains NO 66 BOOK BIBLE EXISTED BEFORE THE 16TH CENTURY.

The premise behind your premise has already been demolished, as has the idea that the Protestant canon has no ancient support, but apparently you have a short memory and have to shout repetition in order to convince yourself, or make up for you lack of an argument with volume. "Why should ye be stricken any more? ye will revolt more and more: the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. " (Isaiah 1:5)

But i will reiterate what has been said and expand upon it, while the reality is that even if no 66 book list of Scriptural books existed before the Reformation, it would be irrelevant, as the issue for the Reformation is what is most warranted to be the canon Jesus recognized, rather than perpetuate error of Rome no matter how entrenched. And as regards all this, the facts remain,

A. Rome had no had no indisputable canon that would disallow dissent regarding apocryphal books, which dissent continued among Roman scholars right into Trent, while if the Protestant canon corresponds to the ancient Jewish canon, as the CE affirms, along with the ancient New Testament canon, then a 66 canon did essentially exist as in two parts, and had more support from antiquity than Rome's did. In addition, the reason a singular 66 book Bible apparently awaited the 16 century (and it cannot be proved one did not) is because the Reformation — which requires restoration of some things, rather than perpetuate error — had not happened until then!

B. If having a universal binding canon is the critical issue that Roman Catholic apologists want to make it as regards Protestants, then they need to likewise attack their own preTridentine Roman church, as well as the EOs and other Catholic churches who differ from her and each other on the canon.

C. The charge of having no ancient 73 book (or equivalent) canon is one that could be leveled against the early 4^th century church. In addition to the many churchmen and groups who did not affirm the apocrypha as properly Scripture, and that “in the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals,” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm) the most ancient Christian list we have is that of saint Melito, a Bishop of Smyrna, who was esteemed as a prophet by many of the faithful, who in 324 provided a list of canonical books in response to a desire to have “an accurate statement of the ancient books,” and which list was published abroad and recommended by Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea. Yet Melito's list does not include the apocrypha (with the possible exception of Wisdom) while containing almost or possibly all those of the Protestant canon. Nor (for whatever it is worth) can it be proved that some did not hold to a 66 book canon, following the rejection of apocryphal book by Jerome and others.

Thus both the 4^th century church and the early Protestant church were not settled on their canons, but it took Rome over 1400 years after the last books was written to provide her finalized indisputable canon (while leaving confusion to as to how many things require full assent of faith). And while Rome ended up following Augustine, the Protestants can be said to have followed Catholics on the canon (who followed antiquity) in rejecting the apocrypha, in judging what Old Testament books Christ held as inspired, and the Prots have the more ancient support.

And again there is the the unresolved problem with whether the canon of Trent is exactly the same as that of early lists (as well as the doubtful character of the Decretum Gelasianum, as regards Rome's 4^th c. list).

St Jerome was a great scholar, but he did not substitute his private judgement for the judgement of the Catholic Church. Christians have always understood the unity of faith that Jesus and Paul commanded.

Besides what Rome holds being irrelevant to us as to canonical certainty, you cannot restrict the canon to what a regional council listed, and if the canon really was universal and or binding, then men like Jerome, who was held in high esteem by Rome, would not have been allowed to dissent.

Moreover, “the judgment of the Catholic Church” affirms many different canons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Old_Testament), as seen today among different Catholic churches. But you show relatively little concern about that.

5. the unbelieving Jews who have the 39 book OT were not led by the Holy Spirit to all truth. the Church, which did have the Holy Spirit leading it to all truth, had the correct OT canon. why would anyone follow the judgement of those who reject Jesus as opposed to those who proclaim Jesus as Lord?

This also have been refuted.

First, Catholic churches who claim to be “led into all truth,” “are led” into different conclusions, and it took Rome till the year Luther died to be “led into all truth” as regards canonical certainly, while her claim to assuredly infallibility is autocratic presumption.

Second, according to the logic being your polemic, none of what the Jews taught is trustworthy, yet the Lord exhorted general obedience (Mt. 23:2) to the Jewish leaders, and while He reproved their hypocrisy, impenitence and presumption, yet He never criticized their canon, but reproved their doctrinal errors by Scripture. (Mk. 7:3-16) It is also not simply unbelieving Jews who are indicated as holding to the protoProtestant O.T. canon, but the Lord (Luke 11:50-51, cf. Matthew 23:35; 24:44) while N.T. writers are said to have explicitly referenced from all but 6 books (with 275 direct quotes).

The issue then is really Rome's presumption of assured veracity, by which she yet may declare some infallible truths, but which is akin to that of the Jewish leadership, who likewise presumed assured veracity as inheritors of Divine promises, guidance, presence and perpetuation, and as having historical decent, (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; cf. Mt. 23:2 etc.) and under which leadership writings were recognized as Scripture and truth preserved.

And thus they rejected the Itinerant Preacher who reproved them by Scripture, and who established His claims thereon, in text and in power.

6.many times more can be gleaned from what is not said, rather than what is said. this is true of your post. no appeal is made to any 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th century non-Catholics. hmmm, why not? why are only Catholic Church Fathers who believed in baptismal regeneration and the Eucharist mentioned? the answer is obvious.

The answer is indeed obvious. Rather then perpetuate accumulated errors, we should no more follow the “tradition of the elders” with its accretions over Scripture any more than the Lord Jesus did. And Rome herself is selective as to which strains of the varied “traditions” she will follow, as are the EOs, with both following “tradition “and both disagreeing. (http://www.bible.ca/catholic-vs-orthodox.htm)

Nor are the so-called church “father's,” whose writings we have relative little of, uniform in doctrine (nor does Rome have its claimed required unanimous consent” of the fathers), of the fathers” and they are to be judged by Scripture. Even in beliefs in which there is the most general unanimity among CFs there are differences with Rome today, as the real authority is Rome, as tradition is whatever she autocratically declare it is, and “she judges them more than she is judged by them”, (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm) To which (again) the words of “Most Rev.” Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning attest:

It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine. — The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.

And likewise Rome rejects those who reprove them by Scripture, as she has autocratically infallibly declared that she is assuredly infallible.

And this is really the basis for your objections, as your faith assurance of the veracity of Rome rests upon her declaration to be so. However we are not impressed by her claims in the light of Scripture, and of her leading souls into error and to Hell.

7. the post shows throughout it’s 2,000 year history, Catholics have disagreed on various theoligical questions, DUH!!

And which is no less today, and so radical that Catholic sects have resulted that dissent from Vatican Two, which you seem to be part of. And which disunity is contrary to the typical Roman Catholic portrayal of unity, including as regards the canon prior to Trent.

8. you missed the point completely on the eunuch, Philip and SS. there is not any OT verse that Philip could point to that says Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God. of course the OT speaks of and points to Jesus, but in types and shadows. Philip was bringing new doctrine to the eunuch not contained in the OT and the eunuch believed it. if he followed SS, he would have rejected this doctrine. none of the Apostles believed or practiced SS, and that’s why the Church has never accepted either.

That is absurd as it rests upon a straw man. Doctrine is based upon texts and SS preachers also deduce meanings from Scriptural exegesis, for what you “miss completely” is that SS does not require explicit statements for doctrine, but that what is necessary is “either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture, (Westminster Confession) which is why they support they Trinity, etc. as well as SS, as Scripture provides for the establishment of Truth, and abundantly substantiates the supremacy of Scripture as the assured Word of God.

And which Phillip exampled, as did men like Apollos, “shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ,” (Acts 18:28) and Paul, who “reasoned with them out of the scriptures, as we do. Which is why the Lord and His apostles established their claims on Scripture, in text and in power, appealing to human reason to discern truth in the light of Scripture ad or Scriptural attestation.

In contrast, what what is not taught is the assured formulaic infallibility of Rome.

9. if the NT is clear about any doctrine, baptismal regeneration is it. there is a reason no one disputed this doctrine for 1,500 years, the NT teaches we ARE SAVED BY BAPTISM. ( 1 Peter 3:21 ) the NT never speaks of baptism as symbolic ( like the silly Baptist ring analogy )or as a first act of obedience or as an outward display of something that has happened inwardly already. NO SCRIPTURES EXIST SAYING THESE THINGS ABOUT BAPTISM. this is Baptist myth making. the Scriptures say Baptism is for the remission of sins, for being baptized into Christ, for saving us. I guess Baptists don’t realize types and shadows were pointing to Christ, once Christ came, THERE IS NO NEED FOR TYPES AND SHADOWS.

Thus besides rejecting prophecy in which figures typify Christ, you ignore what i said about 1Pt. 3:21, which refers to baptism as a “like figure,” like (using the same word) the holy places on earth were “figures,” (Heb. 9:24) except in this case baptism is not the antitype fulfillment of the flood of Noah, but a “like figure,” representing salvation through Christ, who is the Ark saving souls from the judgment of water which destroyed the wicked. And Scripture affirms that it is the faith which baptism requires and expresses that appropriates this cleansing, despite your desperate attempt to deny that, which comes next:
10. Baptists love to point to two instances in the NT to try and disprove baptismal regeneration. one, the thief on the cross - that is an east one since the thief died before Mattthew 28 where Jesus COMMANDS AND AUTHORIZES THE CHURCH TO BAPTIZE. the second is a little tougher, Acts 10. was Cornelius regenerated before his baptism because he received the Holy Spirit? the first point that must be made is the story a miracle the Holy Spirit performed to show Peter the Gospel is for the Gentiles as well as the Jews. o this was an extraordinary event, not to be repeated today. and indeed, the Holy Spirit does not fall on anyone today and give them the gfit of tongues. that said, a careful reading of Acts 10:44 and 11:15 shows the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard Peter. Cornelius and his family and friends did not express faith in Jesus or repent PRIOR to receiving the gift of tongues. this was the very same gift the Apostles received in Acts 2. Cornelius still needed to be baptized for the remission of sins as Luke shows in Acts 2:38 and 22:16. Baptists need to read Acts 10 and 11 carefully instead of reading their preconceived notions into the Scriptures.

Rather, it is you who example superficial and myopic reading and knowledge of Scripture, and of what i showed you, and who needs to read more Scripture more objectively iw/ a Berean-type heart, instead of forcing Scripture to conform to your extremist notions. And the more you try to deny regeneration preceded baptism here then the deeper you bury yourself, and indicate that you are a fringe Catholic.

In order to negate regeneration by faith, you must flatly deny regeneration before baptism, and so you argue that this was merely the Holy Spirit “falling” on Cornelius and company and giving them the gift of tongues, and that these did not believe first, but which is refuted by the relevant texts.

Peter expressly states that these baptismal candidates “have received the Holy Ghost as well as we,” (Acts 10:47) “as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ;" (Acts 11:17) as “God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:8,9)

Thus while you demand outward manifestation of repentance and faith, Peter, supposedly your first pope, teaches that because God chose that these Gentile should hear and believe the gospel, thus Peter preached “that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” (Acts 10:43) And that God knew their heart, and thus gave Cornelius and his pious household the same gift of the Holy Spirit as the apostles, with their hearts being purified by faith, the remission of sins which Peter promised in v.43. Thus Peter asked, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? " (Acts 10:47)

It is obvious that Cornelius and company took Peter at his word and believed and were baptized with the Holy Spirit, even though you will not do so.

In addition, while you must attempt to separate the “falling upon” from regeneration, yet a seen below, Scripture refers to the former as receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost promised by the Father, being “baptized with the Holy Ghost,” which the apostles realized, and which “gift” was what was promised in Acts 2:38:

"And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning [cf. Acts 2:1-4]. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. " (Acts 11:15-16; cf. Mt. 3:11; Acts 1:5)

"Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. " (Acts 2:33)

"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. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. " (Acts 2:38-39)

Peter thus promises to those who will believe, expressed in baptism, the same gift of the Holy Spirit promised by the Father, as that which the apostles realized, and which their audience had seen and heard. And which neither Mt. 10:1 or Jn. 20:22 fulfilled.

And while receiving of the Holy Spirit and baptism with Him was one event in Acts 2:38 and Acts 10, yet in Acts 8:15.17; cf. 19:4-6; Gal. 3:5) this event is post baptism, through the laying on of hands, and is termed having “received the Holy Ghost,” but in every case faith precedes this.

And in Ephesians 1:13 (a doctrinal book), it states "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise." (KJV) “In whom you also, after you had heard the word of truth (the gospel of your salvation), in whom also believing, you were signed with the holy Spirit of promise.” (DRB)

Thus believing always preceded receiving the promised reception of or baptism with the Holy Spirit. And regeneration clearly preceded baptism in Acts 10.

And again, Rome even allows for this under her “baptism of desire,” even if as an exception to the norm, and for which Acts 10 is invoked by Augustine.

17 Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?

A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire." — Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Sacraments - Baptism, Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized

The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed. (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57)" St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Whether a man can be saved without Baptism? — 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Baptism, Baptism of Desire

"I do not hesitate to put the Catholic catechumen, burning with divine love, before a baptized heretic. Even within the Catholic Church herself we put the good catechumen ahead of the wicked baptized person. . . . For Cornelius, even before his baptism, was filled up with the Holy Spirit [Acts 10:44–48], while Simon [Magus], even after his baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit [Acts 8:13–19]" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:21:28 [A.D. 400]).

“Those who have died without baptism are not to be given ecclesiastical burial. Catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of their own are to be counted among the baptized.” (Canon 1239) 1917 Code of Canon Law

Of course, if an exception is allowed then it negates the Catholic interpretation of Jn. 3:5 as a literal imperative necessity, as well as the traditional exclusive understanding of EENS statements, and substantiates that one may be justified by faith versus baptism operating ex opere operatos, while the Roman Catholic restriction to those of perfect contrition is subjective. But as i said, baptism can be the occasion for conversion as it requires as well as expressed faith.

You next state “that this does not happen anymore,” as regards the Spirit baptism of Cornelius and speaking in tongues, which indicates that you also deny the Roman Catholic affirmation of the charismatic gifts and theology. Relative to this is, "He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? " (Galatians 3:5)

Consistent with such rejection is the denial of baptism of desire, and thus i ask one more time, do you adhere to a sedevacantist or SSPX group or teaching? It makes a difference on how we respond as you all defend a church, not simply a faith.
11.the fruit of SS is a playground for the devil to sow confusion and force the Church to defend 2,000 year old doctrines, rather than exhibiting the ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM AND ONE BREAD THAT JESUS SAID WOULD RESULT IN THE WORLD KNOWING HE WAS SENT BY THE FATHER. what a shame.

In the light of the confusion and dissent among sola ecclesia churches and Catholicism, which you yourself example, and in the face of a widespread common assent to core truths and opposition by SS type churches against the traditions of men propagated by a self-proclaimed elitist church, and which is the church that is most guilty of giving the world reasons for not believing Jesus was sent by the Father, then you are left to more shouting the same old assertions and ignoring or blithely dismissing what refutes you.

As such is your continual modus operandi, then you once again you testify that you cannot allow yourself to think objectively, and which dissuades against expending further labor to respond to your arguments for Roman Catholicism, whichever brand you represent.

May God peradventure give you repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." (2 Timothy 2:25) Bye.