alright, i am beginning to think you are a Catholic posing as a Baptist.
This is not the first time you have been mistaken.
you keep underhanding them to me, so i guess i will keep knocking them out of the park.
You have quite insolent and arrogant in your imagination, as rather than knocking anything out the park, i invite all to see it is you who are getting counted out on strikes as you try to assert Roman doctrines or actually try to defend them.
►1. the arguement that the Church didn’t have a indisputable canon until the 16th century is the same as the Jehovah Witness saying the Church made Jesus Divine in the 4th century at Nicea...the Latin Vulgate had all of the canonical books in it already, the Protestants took the Bible of their day and REMOVED THE SO CALLED APOCRYPHA. ( some did not, the original King James Bible contained these books )
Wrong! Besides no one actually making Jesus Divine or made writings Scripture, the recognition of the Scriptural substantiated Divinity of Christ allowed dispute in Roman Catholicism after Nicea, while there clearly was for Catholics about the canon, despite the resistance to the fact that you did not have an indisputable canon until the 16th century.
Your assertion about the KJV containing the apocrypha (as did Luther's, and the KJV list is slightly larger than the Roman Catholic one), shows you are not informed that it was a practice going back to antiquity to include books in Bibles that were not considered properly Scripture, but were allowed to be read for edification, constituting a second canon. The Greek words Deutero and canona actually mean"second canon.” As the CE explains (emphasis mine),
“..the inferior rank to which the deuteros were relegated by authorities like Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome, was due to too rigid a conception of canonicity, one demanding that a book, to be entitled to this supreme dignity, must be received by all, must have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and must moreover be adapted not only to edification, but also to the "confirmation of the doctrine of the Church", to borrow Jerome's phrase. — http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm
As regards the Vulgate, apparently not all contained the apocrypha, nor were they all uniform (the oldest extant manuscript contains the “Epistle to the Laodiceans).
“At the end of the fourth century Pope Damasus commissioned Jerome, the most learned biblical scholar of his day, to prepare a standard Latin version of the Scriptures (the Latin Vulgate). In the Old Testament Jerome followed the Hebrew canon and by means of prefaces called the reader's attention to the separate category of the apocryphal books. Subsequent copyists of the Latin Bible, however, were not always careful to transmit Jerome's prefaces, and during the medieval period the Western Church generally regarded these books as part of the holy Scriptures.” — Introductory material to the appendix of the Vulgata Clementina, text in Latin
The Vulgate manuscripts included prologues that clearly identified certain books of the Vulgate Old Testament as apocryphal or non-canonical (Prologues of Saint Jerome, Latin text )
Nor did Trent settle the question as to which version of the varying Vulgate editions it affirmed, thus requiring a thorough revision, as there was no single authoritative edition at that time, and resulting in the embarrassing Sistine Vulgate. Correction of its many errors resulted in the first edition of the Clementine Vulgate (official version till 1979) which was presented as a Sixtine edition (with a preface in which Bellarmine charitably attributed the problem of the previous version to being that of copyist errors, rather than being the fault of Sixtus). In 1592, Pope Clement VIII published this revised edition of the Vulgate, referred to as the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate. He moved three books, 3 and 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses (commonly found in medieval MSS of the Vulgate, immediately after 2Chronicles, and not found in the canon of the Council of Trent) from the Old Testament into an appendix "lest they utterly perish" (ne prorsus interirent). — http://sacredbible.org/vulgate1861/scans/817-Apocrypha.jpg)
And then there is the confusing and contentious issue of non-canonical Second Esdras (two by that name) also known as 3rd (or Esdras A) or 4th Esdras (as in the Vulgate) , also called Apocalypse of Ezra!
►2. the Protestants took the Bible of their day and REMOVED THE SO CALLED APOCRYPHA.
Which “removal “presupposes that they were the first to remove books from an indisputable canon, rather than the established Protestant canon being one that reverted to antiquity, which it is evidenced to be the case (it is even argued that a Jewish canon was fixed by the time do Hasmonean dynasty).
Protocanonical (protos, "first") is a conventional word denoting those sacred writings which have been always received by Christendom without dispute. The protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants. The deuterocanonical (deuteros, "second") are those whose Scriptural character was contested in some quarters, but which long ago gained a secure footing in the Bible of the Catholic Church, though those of the Old Testament are classed by Protestants as the "Apocrypha" — http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm
As regards removing books from a dogmatic canon, I did not want to have to do this, but as you act as if my linked article did not substantiate that Trent provided the first indisputable canon, the FACT is that your own sources state (emphasis mine throughout the proceeding),
► “The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council. (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the New Testament, (1917); http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm)
► "The Tridentine decrees from which the above list is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal. ” (Catholic Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm;
► “According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent...The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, Bible, III (Canon), p. 390; Canon, Biblical, p. 29; Bible, III (Canon), p. 390).
► The Catholic Study Bible, Oxford University Press, 1990, p. RG27: "The final definitive list of biblical books (including the seven additional Old Testament books) was only drawn up at the council of Trent in 1546. “Most Christians had followed St. Augustine and included the 'Apocrypha' in the canon, but St. Jerome, who excluded them, had always had his defenders." (Joseph Lienhard, The Bible, The Church, And Authority [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1995], p. 59)
► "...an official, definitive list of inspired writings did not exist in the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent (Yves Congar, French Dominican cardinal and theologian, in Tradition and Traditions" [New York: Macmillan, 1966], p. 38).
► As Catholic Church historian and recognized authority on Trent (2400 page history, and author of over 700 books, etc.), Hubert Jedin (1900-1980) observes, it also put a full stop to the 1000-year-old development of the biblical canon (History of the Council of Trent [London, 1961] 91, quoted by Raymond Edward Brown, American Roman Catholic priest and Biblical scholar, in The New Jerome biblical commentary, p. 1168)
►It may be a surprise to some to know that the “canon,” or official list of books of the Bible, was not explicitly defined by the Church until the 16th century though there was a clear listing as early as the fourth century. (Leonard Foley, O.F.M., Believing in Jesus: A Popular Overview of the Catholic Faith, rev. ed. (St. Anthony Messenger Press, 1985, p. 21)
► "For the first fifteen centuries of Christianity, no Christian Church put forth a definitive list of biblical books. Most Christians had followed St. Augustine and included the 'Apocrypha' in the canon, but St. Jerome, who excluded them, had always had his defenders." (Joseph Lienhard, S.J., A.B., classics, Fordham University, “The Bible, The Church, And Authority;” [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1995], p. 59)
In addition,
The Catholic Encyclopedia also states as regards the Middle Ages,
In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)
▀ Dissent before and in Trent
Among those dissenting at Trent was Augustinian friar, Italian theologian and cardinal and papal legate Girolamo Seripando. As Hubert_Jedin explained. “he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent.” Jedin writes that his position was
► “Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only "canonici et ecclesiastici" and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome's view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages.” (Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 270-271)
►“While Seripando abandoned his view as a lost cause, Madruzzo, the Carmelite general, and the Bishop of Agde stood for the limited canon, and the bishops of Castellamare and Caorle urged the related motion to place the books of Judith, Baruch, and Machabees in the "canon ecclesiae." From all this it is evident that Seripando was by no means alone in his views. In his battle for the canon of St. Jerome and against the anathema and the parity of traditions with Holy Scripture, he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship.” (ibid, 281-282; https://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?blogid=1&query=cajetan)
Cardinal Cajetan himself was actually an adversary of Luther, and who was sent by the Pope in 1545 to Trent as a papal theologian, had reservations about the apocrypha as well as certain N.T. books based upon questionable apostolic authorship.
►"On the eve of the Reformation, it was not only Luther who had problems with the extent of the New Testament canon. Doubts were being expressed even by some of the loyal sons of the Church. Luther's opponent at Augsburg, Cardinal Cajetan, following Jerome, expressed doubts concerning the canonicity of Hebrews, James, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Of the latter three he states, "They are of less authority than those which are certainly Holy Scripture."63
Erasmus likewise expressed doubts concerning Revelation as well as the apostolicity of James, Hebrews and 2 Peter. It was only as the Protestant Reformation progressed, and Luther's willingness to excise books from the canon threatened Rome that, at Trent, the Roman Catholic Church hardened its consensus stand on the extent of the New Testament canon into a conciliar pronouncement.64 http://bible.org/article/evangelicals-and-canon-new-testament#P136_48836
Theologian Cardinal Cajetan also stated,
"Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome.” — Cardinal Cajetan, "Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament," Bruce Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York: Oxford, 1957), p. 180.)
► 3. the Church meets in Council and decides matters ONLY WHEN THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT QUESTION RAISED
So much for Vatican Two, which was called to “to let some fresh air into the Church” and to promote within her an aggiornamento. The Italian word aggiornamento is usually translated as ‘bringing up to date’. Initially, Pope John’s intentions were to open the Church and strive for Christian Unity, but without detail. — http://vatican2voice.org/2need/need.htm
However, while you seem to reject Vatican Two, the premise of the often used above polemic is that the lack of an ecumenical council providing an infallible canon was because it was not an issue, as no one questioned the apocrypha, as reflected in its inclusion in the Vulgate. However, books were questioned by substantial scholars, and no one version of the Vulgate was yet official so as to disallow dissent, nor apparently did they all contain the apocrypha, but the lack of dogmatic status for the apocryphal books only became a conciliar issue when they became being part of a challenge to doctrine by those who rested upon Scripture and who challenged Rome and doctrine thereby. Thus while internal dissent was allowed, to counter the Reformers on their own basis it was necessary to dogmatically affirm the books in question, which Trent finally did.
And rather than helping your case for an indisputable canon, the reality is that if there had been one then Trent would not have had to finally issue one, which it did after internal disagreement, and after an informal vote of 24 yea, 15 nay, with 16 abstaining (44%, 27%, 29%) as to whether to affirm it as an article of faith with its anathemas on those who dissent from it. Had not Luther forced her hand, Rome would be content with a generally accepted canon, not an indisputable one, as she, and not Scripture is the supreme authority. And even then, Catholics cannot tell how many infallible pronouncements there are and which they must give assent of faith to.
►4. no one had a 66 book bible until the 16th century!
As if this were disparaging in the light of the facts even if it could be proven, which it cannot, an presupposes an indisputable fixed canon, while the evidence shows they were reverting back to a more ancient canon than Trent's. If there was a ancient 39 book canon of the OT books Prots hold to (taking into account how books were divided), reflective of the tripartite Palestinian canon of the time of Christ which is indicated in Lk. 24:44, as well as an long-established 27 book canon, and if the Reformation began in the 16th century, which it did, then the Prots have a solid basis for their canon, and overall settled it quicker (in about 100 years) than Rome did (though history helped).
But even in thinking to prove something, you are either denying that there never was an ancient canon of the books of the Protestant OT, and or that 39 + 27 do not make 66, or that no Bible existed that reflected the rejection of the apocryphal books as Scripture (note again that there was a distinction often made between books included in bibles, even in the early KJV), and no such canon could exist because the canon was indisputable, but which it did not, even if it was overall settled.
However, if there was no infallible indisputable canon, which there was not (and again, some also argue that the canon of Trent differs with Hippo and others as regards 1 + 2 Esdras with its confusing nomenclature), and if some rejected the apocrypha as actually being Scripture, and if not all the Vulgates had the apocrypha, and they did not, then then this allows for editions reflecting a rejection of the Apocrypha.
And which may be reflected in 16 century Bibles. Cardinal Cajetan. who opposed Martin Luther at Augsburg published a Commentary in 1518 on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament but which did not include the Apocrypha. Also,
In the early sixteenth century, just prior to the Reformation, Cardinal Ximenes, the Archbishop of Toledo, in collaboration with the leading theologians of his day, produced an edition of the Bible called the Biblia Complutensia [the first printed polyglot of the entire Bible, which was sanctioned by Pope Leo X.]. There is an admonition in the Preface regarding the Apocrypha, that the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the Maccabees, the additions to Esther and Daniel, are not canonical Scripture and were therefore not used by the Church for confirming the authority of any fundamental points of doctrine, though the Church allowed them to be read for purposes of edification. — http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=1877
The Zürich Bible (The French Bible (1535) of Pierre Robert Olivétan placed them between the Testaments, with the subtitle, "The volume of the apocryphal books contained in the Vulgate translation, which we have not found in the Hebrew or Chaldee".1529–30) they are placed in an Appendix. They include 3 Maccabees, along with 1 Esdras & 2 Esdras.
The French Bible (1535) of Pierre Robert Olivétan placed them between the Testaments, with the subtitle, "The volume of the apocryphal books contained in the Vulgate translation, which we have not found in the Hebrew or Chaldee." — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha#Other_early_Bible_editions
Yet the point is that rather than a departure, the 66 book Protestant canon had ancient support.
►5. now, as concerning the “material sufficiency of sola scriptura” Acts 8 blows this false doctrine right out of the water. neither Philip, nor the eunuch practiced or believed in SS.
Nor by that measure, did Mary or Elisabeth believe in sola ecclesia, as the church was not yet constituted, likewise the full formal sufficiency of Scripture awaited the fullness of written revelation, and Scripture materially provided for the church and that. But before both the church and the competed canon Scripture was the supreme transcendent standard as the assured Word of God, and both Philip and the eunuch treated it as such, by which the claims of Christ were substantiated, and enabling further writings to be recognized as Scripture.
But besides the aforementioned differences which contrasts Acts 8:29-27 with Rome, which per usual, you ignore, you indicate that you do not understand the difference between material sufficiency and formal sufficiency. The latter is restricted (normally enabling salvation and growth but not replacing the church or negating the need for the magisterium, etc., as instrument and helps) and most fully refers to a completed canon (likewise sola ecclesia awaited to the apostolic age), while the supremacy of Scripture is upheld, and it materially provides for additions to it by Scriptural substantiation of the Word of God being written, and of such writings being established as Scripture (without Rome), due to their qualities and attestation. In so doing it also provides for a canon of Divine writings being recognized, as well as for the church, but in subjection to Scripture.
And as the Old Testament establishes Scripture as being the standard for testing and establishing truth claims, thus the Son of God and the Holy Spirit inspired writers so often invoked them for support , in text and in power. For they substantiated “the gospel of God, Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures, " (Romans 1:1-2) and which mystery was revealed in power, as it "now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: " (Romans 16:26)
The fact is that even if the assuredly infallible magisterium owed its validation to Scripture then it would cede primacy to it, but instead assurance of its decrees effectively rests upon its premise of formulaic infallibility, rendering its own teaching that it is infallible to be infallible, and Scripture and its authoritative meaning is what she declares.
► 6. if the eunuch believed in SS, he would have rejected Jesus as the Son of God since there is not any OT verse that says Jesus is the Son of God. Philip did not practice SS since He preached Jesus as the Son of God, again not using the OT.
You again demonstrate seeing only what you want to see, as besides the fact that the New Testament invoked OT texts as teaching that Christ was the Son of God (below), Philip was indeed using the OT. The eunuch himself was reading Is. 53, a most profound extended prophecy of Christ, and what Acts 8:35 actually says is,
"Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. " (Acts 8:35)
Thus rather than not using the O.T. as you assert, Philip began at the same scripture and preached unto him Jesus, and after the manner of the apostles who trained him (and the N. T. writers), it is most naturally expected that he would have explained what Is. 53 meant in the light of Scripture to men such as this, backing up the story of Christ from the Old Testament. As Peter did, (Acts 2:14-36) and Paul , who “preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God,” who “reasoned with them out of the scriptures,” “persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses,“ (Acts 9:20; 17:2; 28:23) and Apollos, "For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ." (Acts 18:28)
As for your other assertion that “there is not any OT verse that says Jesus is the Son of God,” that is like saying there is no verse that says “Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ,” but such demands for such explicit verses the apostles disagreed with, as Paul, who for one certainly found that there was:
"God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. " (Acts 13:33) Which references, "I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. " (Psalms 2:7)
And which also provides, "Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him. " (Psalms 2:12)
As did the writer of Hebrews,
"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? " (Hebrews 1:5; cf. 5:5)
The OT also provides, "Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell? " (Proverbs 30:4)
►7. Acts 8 also blows the Baptist doctrine of asking Jesus into your heart as your “personal Savior” and asking for Him to forgive your sins SEPERATE from Baptism. it is obvious Philip preached to Him Jesus Christ and baptism for the remission of sins. as they went along,
Yo are correct that he did not lead him in a verbal “sinner's prayer,” yet while you ignore what i said, as that other souls were justified and saved through expressing such, (Lk. 18:13,14; 23:39-43) being those of a broken and contrite spirit whom God promises to save, (Ps.. 34:18) testifying that the faith that is behind baptism is what appropriates justification, as per Rm. 4:1-7ff. And the RC teaching on “baptism by desire” actually allows for salvation with out actual baptism, but not normatively. (http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=32085) CCC1281 Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, can be saved even if they have not been baptized (cf. LG 16).
But under the premise that baptism is necessary for the remission of sins you then must reprove Peter for not preaching this in Acts 10:38-43, in which (as i showed you last year) souls clearly were forgiven of their sins and born again SEPERATE/ before from Baptism. (Acts 10:43-47; 11:18; 15:7-9), despite your attempts to explain it away. Thus in restricting your soteriology to selective verses you disallow others.
Moreover, what Phillip essentially did is lead the eunuch in a “sinner's prayer” in body language, as both are a confession of faith in the Lord Jesus, as per "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. " (Romans 10:9-10)
But as in Acts 10:43-47, baptism should be concomitant with the salvation decision. As while it is clear that souls can be regenerated before baptism, and again, which the Roman Catholic teaching of baptism by desire recognizes, but normatively as possible believing and confessing in baptism that should be one event. That they not is a result of the overreaction to teaching the act of baptism works ex opere operatos (by the act itself) conveying the grace of regeneration in infants, etc. by proxy faith, which Acts 8 does not teach, nor that any other conversion account.
Meanwhile, it is not enough for you to contend against baptism being marginalize as a superfluous act, which i also oppose due to what one is confessing by it (and have no problem with baptism being a “sinner's prayer” in confessing Christ unto salvation), but you must not allow anyone to be forgiven and regenerated before baptism.
Thus the eunuch was saved because he was reading and searching for truth in Scripture, heard the gospel supported by Scripture, was not told anything about submitting to a church in Rome or going through weeks of indoctrination promoting her as per the norm for Roman Catholic converts, in contrast to Scripture, and was baptized as a believer according to Scripture, and was left with no discipleship but his Bible. While the latter was not the norm, yet despite the warranted emphasis on baptism, this is still much in contrast to Rome.
►8. btw, what Scripture likens a marriage ring to baptism,
The context was your reference to Baptist teaching, which uses it to explains baptism, and the use of analogies is Scriptural. But if you are against analogies or against this one then you must oppose baptism being referred to as “the like figure,” [antitupon=Neuter of a compound of G473 and G5179; corresponding (“antitype”), that is, a representative, counterpart: - (like) figure] as the flood and deliverance of Noah was, (1Pt. 3:21; cf. Heb. 9:24) both of which can be seen as figures representing salvation through Christ. Baptism there is called “the demand of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” as a good conscience calls for obedience toward Christ, and thus souls being called to confess Christ for salvation, as well as those who have already received Him, would answer the call to be baptized, such faith as is behind the confession being justificatory.
In summation (order not exact)
1. Any idea is refuted that the Protestants removed books from an a indisputable canon, under the inference of a uniform Vulgate or all containing it, rather than reverting back to an ancient OT canon, while affirming the long-established 27 book canon, thus having ancient support for its 66 book canon.
2. The premise that the lack of an ecumenical council providing an infallible canon was due to it being settled, reflected in the Vulgate, is refuted by the fact that it the apocryphal books were yet questioned, and their was not yet an official version disallowing that, and the lack of dogmatic status for the apocryphal books became an issue only because they were part of a challenge to doctrine by Luther and Reformers who rested upon Scripture and who challenged Rome and her doctrines thereby.
3. That Phillip not the eunuch did not believe in SS because he would have rejected Jesus as the Son of God since there is not any OT verse that says Jesus is the Son of God is refuted on that basis by the apostles and inspired writers who invoked O.T. texts as teaching that the Christ was the Son of God, as it does. (Acts 13:33 Psalms 2:7,12 Hebrews 1:5; cf. 5:5)
4. That Philip did not practice SS since He preached Jesus as the Son of God, again not using the OT is refuted on that basis as Philip began at the same scripture and preached unto him Jesus, and it is incongruous that he would not have done as the other apostles and disciples did with such souls, “shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.” (Acts 18:28)
5. The premise that SS is invalid because the Scripture lacked formal sufficiency ignores how SS is established, and also negates sola ecclesia before the church existed (as well as after it did, because it looked to Scripture as the supreme authority by which the claims of Christ and preaching were substantiated). But Scripture materially provided for both the church and the establishment of a complete canon, and before both of them Scripture was the supreme transcendent standard as the assured Word of God. And which is how both Philip and the eunuch treated it.
6. That Acts 8 also “blows the Baptist doctrine of asking Jesus into your heart as your “personal Savior” and asking for Him to forgive your sins SEPERATE from Baptism” is refuted as the Scriptures makes it clear that washing and regeneration can take place before baptism, (Acts 10:43-47; 11:18; 15:7-9) and that souls were justified by faith expressed in prayer, (Lk 18: testifying to the faith that is behind baptism is what appropriates justification, and which Rome allows for. And that the eunuch believed and thus was baptized, faith and works going together like light and heat as Reformers taught, for saving faith is not alone, and baptism can be the occasion of actual regeneration, though the faith behind it is precisely what is counted for righteousness.
7. That baptism cannot be representative but must be for the remission of sins is countered by the fact that souls were washed and regenerated prior to baptism, but can be seen in 1Pt. 3:21, this being the response of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ," (1 Peter 3:21) which those who are being called to confess Christ as well those have by other ways will answer. Glory to God.
Also refuted are the multiple other things in posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2891087/posts?page=906#906
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2891087/posts?page=851#851
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2891087/posts?page=870#870
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2891087/posts?page=806#806
These are cataloged due to you arrogant self promotion of Rome and rash reiterations of refuted polemics, and while you are discouraged from seeking Truth by objective examination, as you let Rome do the driving for you and Scripture is only used doctrinally to try to support and conform it to Rome, those of us who seek to live by it must seek to be and do as the noble Bereans did, by the grace of a merciful God of Truth.
