a former Evangelical "born again" explains why Protestantism isn't true

I love Mark Mallett, I believe he hears from Our Lord. Mark is a Catholic evangelist from Canada. His latest
writing "The Fundamental Problem" (Mar 2013) is a good read. He has a way, he explains things simply and
clearly. Here are a few paragraphs from his writing. Go to Mark's site and click on Mark's blog.

www.markmallett.com...

...Fundamentalists say the Bible is the only source of Christian truth. Yet, there is no Scripture to support such a notion. The Bible does say:

All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:16-17)

Still, this says nothing about it being the sole authority or foundation of truth, only that it is inspired, and is therefore true. Furthermore, this passage refers specifically to the Old Testament since there was no “New Testament” yet. That wasn’t fully compiled until the fourth century.

The Bible does have something to say, however, about what is the foundation of truth:

You should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth. (1 Tim 3:15)

The Church of the living God is the pillar and foundation of truth. It is from the Church, then, that truth emerges, that is, the Word of God. “Aha!” says the fundamentalist. “So the Word of God is the truth.” Yes, absolutely. But the Word given to the Church was spoken, not written by Christ. Jesus never wrote down a single word (and nor were His words recorded in writing until years later). The Word of God is the unwritten Truth which Jesus passed on to the Apostles. Part of this Word was written down in letters and gospels, but not all of it . How do we know? For one, Scripture itself tells us that:

There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written. (John 21:25))

We know for a fact that the revelation of Jesus was communicated in both written form, and by word of mouth.

I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon, when we can talk face to face. (3 John 13-14)

This is what the Catholic Church calls Tradition: both written and oral truth. The word “tradition” comes from the Latin tradition which means “to hand down”....

Originally posted by colbe

Still, this says nothing about it being the sole authority or foundation of truth, only that it is inspired, and is therefore true.

The foundation of the Church is the apostles and prophets, not pope and pedophile priests. Since only apostles have authority to write Church doctrine and there are not any currently living apostles. The only source we have for doctrine, is Scripture written by the apostles

reply to post by truejew

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by colbe

Still, this says nothing about it being the sole authority or foundation of truth, only that it is inspired, and is therefore true.

The foundation of the Church is the apostles and prophets, not pope and pedophile priests.

Seems like there are sexual deviants within the "Apostolic Oneness" nuts, as well...

Prosecutors: More Victims Come Forward In Church Molestation Probe

Jordan Young, 25, is facing a number of child molestation charges in four separate cases involving four separate victims stemming from an investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct at Faith Tabernacle Apostolic Church in Junction City where he had been serving as the music minister. His charges include Indecent Solicitation of a Child, Aggravated Intimidation of a Victim, Criminal Sodomy, Aggravated Indecent Liberties With a Child and Attempted Criminal Sodomy.

Since only apostles have authority to write Church doctrine and there are not any currently living apostles. The only source we have for doctrine, is Scripture written by the apostles

Which Apostle wrote The Gospel of Mark? Which one wrote The Gospel of Luke?

Regarding Mr. Young... he is not Apostolic. Just because someone claims to be one of us, doesn't make him one of us. To be one of us, a person must walk in the Spirit and have the fruit of the Spirit.

Originally posted by adjensen

Which Apostle wrote The Gospel of Mark? Which one wrote The Gospel of Luke?

I did not say that either one of those books were written by apostles. This is just another case of you adding/twisting my words.

Originally posted by truejew
Regarding Mr. Young... he is not Apostolic. Just because someone claims to be one of us, doesn't make him one of us. To be one of us, a person must walk in the Spirit and have the fruit of the Spirit.

Let me introduce you to the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

So, "Pedophile Priests" are true Catholics, but "Pedophile Oneness Pastors" are not true Apostolics, eh?

Which Apostle wrote The Gospel of Mark? Which one wrote The Gospel of Luke?

I did not say that either one of those books were written by apostles. This is just another case of you adding/twisting my words.

You said:

Since only apostles have authority to write Church doctrine and there are not any currently living apostles. The only source we have for doctrine, is Scripture written by the apostles

... which means that Mark, Luke, your beloved Acts, Hebrews, James and Jude are not valid Scripture.

And good luck proving that, apart from a subset of Paul's letters, anything in the Bible represents original texts from Apostles, as you're relying on Catholic tradition for a basis that they were.

Originally posted by adjensen

So, "Pedophile Priests" are true Catholics, but "Pedophile Oneness Pastors" are not true Apostolics, eh?

One difference is the Catholic Church is an organization and the Apostolic Church is not. Another is the requirements to be called a Catholic and requirements to be Apostolic. Continuing to bring forth good fruit is a requirement to be an Apostolic. While it is not a requirement to be Catholic. A person can be a pedophile and remain Catholic as long as they claim to believe in Jesus, take part in rituals, and confess their sin to a priest. A person cannot be a pedophile and remain Apostolic.

Originally posted by adjensen

... which means that Mark, Luke, your beloved Acts, Hebrews, James and Jude are not valid Scripture.

You are twisting my words again. I never said that only apostles wrote Scripture or that Scripture not written by apostles is not Scripture.

I did say only apostles have authority to create Church doctrine and that Scripture is the only source for what the apostles taught.

Originally posted by truejew
A person cannot be a pedophile and remain Apostolic.

Does everyone that this particular Apostolic Oneness pedophile baptized need to be rebaptized, since it seems reasonable to think that abusing children was probably a lifelong habit?

You are twisting my words again. I never said that only apostles wrote Scripture or that Scripture not written by apostles is not Scripture.

I did say only apostles have authority to create Church doctrine and that Scripture is the only source for what the apostles taught.

I don't understand your criteria, then -- if an Apostle is required to "write doctrine" (your original phrase) and you agree that most of scripture was not written by Apostles, then how is one to discern correct doctrine? Your bit in Acts about baptism you consider solid doctrine, because it was said by an Apostle, but in reality, it's reported to have been said by an Apostle by someone that you say isn't an Apostle.

It seems like, if an absolute Apostolic connection is required, all you're left with is Paul's "genuine" letters -- everything else is second hand information, and you say that the source can't be trusted.

Originally posted by adjensen

Does everyone that this particular Apostolic Oneness pedophile baptized need to be rebaptized, since it seems reasonable to think that abusing children was probably a lifelong habit?

He was not in the five-fold ministry and therefore did not have authority to baptize even if he was not a pedophile. So yes, if he was allowed to baptize, they would need to be rebaptized.

Originally posted by adjensen

I don't understand your criteria, then -- if an Apostle is required to "write doctrine" (your original phrase) and you agree that most of scripture was not written by Apostles, then how is one to discern correct doctrine? Your bit in Acts about baptism you consider solid doctrine, because it was said by an Apostle, but in reality, it's reported to have been said by an Apostle by someone that you say isn't an Apostle.

It seems like, if an absolute Apostolic connection is required, all you're left with is Paul's "genuine" letters -- everything else is second hand information, and you say that the source can't be trusted.

Acts is the written record of the early Church led by the apostles. It is the teachings of the apostles.

You also must remember that Paul, an apostle, put his stamp of approval on the rest of Scripture. Therefore confirming that they are in agreement with what the apostles taught.

2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV)
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Does everyone that this particular Apostolic Oneness pedophile baptized need to be rebaptized, since it seems reasonable to think that abusing children was probably a lifelong habit?

He was not in the five-fold ministry and therefore did not have authority to baptize even if he was not a pedophile.

You knew him personally? Enough to know that he wasn't "in the five-fold ministry"?

So yes, if he was allowed to baptize, they would need to be rebaptized.

So, if anyone that he baptized had the experience of speaking in tongues, a required sign of a "real" baptism, they were just faking it?

Acts is the written record of the early Church led by the apostles. It is the teachings of the apostles.

But how do you know that, if the author is untrustworthy?

You also must remember that Paul, an apostle, put his stamp of approval on the rest of Scripture. Therefore confirming that they are in agreement with what the apostles taught.

2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV)
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

You realize, I hope, that Paul (assuming it was Paul, it is fairly well universally taken that Paul didn't write the Pastoral Letters,) is referring to the Hebrew Bible, as none of the other books of the New Testament were written at the time he was alive.

Originally posted by adjensen

You knew him personally? Enough to know that he wasn't "in the five-fold ministry"?

The article says he was a "music minister" which is not a real ministry position.

Originally posted by adjensen

So, if anyone that he baptized had the experience of speaking in tongues, a required sign of a "real" baptism, they were just faking it?

Speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of Spirit baptism, not water baptism. If they spoke in tongues, I was not there to know if it was fake or not.

Originally posted by adjensen

You realize, I hope, that Paul (assuming it was Paul, it is fairly well universally taken that Paul didn't write the Pastoral Letters,) is referring to the Hebrew Bible, as none of the other books of the New Testament were written at the time he was alive.

John was however.

Originally posted by truejew
The article says he was a "music minister" which is not a real ministry position.

Well, I read something earlier that said he was "co-pastor", but it doesn't matter -- his father, the pastor of the church (and apparently a "five-fold minister") was implicated in the mess, as well, and appears to have vanished after embezzling some money.

Speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of Spirit baptism, not water baptism. If they spoke in tongues, I was not there to know if it was fake or not.

So both are not related and/or required? You can have the spirit in you without a valid water baptism? Having a water baptism does not necessarily result in anyone ever being able to speak in tongues?

You realize, I hope, that Paul (assuming it was Paul, it is fairly well universally taken that Paul didn't write the Pastoral Letters,) is referring to the Hebrew Bible, as none of the other books of the New Testament were written at the time he was alive.

John was however.

John was what?

If you mean The Gospel of John was written in Paul's lifetime, no it was not. The Gospel was written in response to the Ebionites, who didn't come around to prominence until after Paul was dead (their writings rejected his, in fact.)

Originally posted by adjensen

So both are not related and/or required?

Both are necessary for salvation.

Originally posted by adjensen

You can have the spirit in you without a valid water baptism?

Yes, for a time. The Gentiles in the book of Acts received the Holy Spirit before water baptism.

Originally posted by adjensen
John was what?

John was alive when the other books were written.

Originally posted by truejew
You can have the spirit in you without a valid water baptism?

Yes, for a time. The Gentiles in the book of Acts received the Holy Spirit before water baptism.

So if someone has a "Spirit Baptism" and immediately drops dead of a heart attack before they can be dunked in water, are they saved or condemned?

Originally posted by adjensen
John was what?

John was alive when the other books were written.

What does that have to do with anything? You quoted Paul as saying:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

What does that have to do with John being alive? Are you claiming that he is the author of Timothy?

Originally posted by adjensen

So if someone has a "Spirit Baptism" and immediately drops dead of a heart attack before they can be dunked in water, are they saved or condemned?

Doesn't God have the power to prevent a heart attack at least until the person has had opportunity to be baptized?

Originally posted by adjensen

What does that have to do with John being alive? Are you claiming that he is the author of Timothy?

John and Paul were one in doctrine.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

So if someone has a "Spirit Baptism" and immediately drops dead of a heart attack before they can be dunked in water, are they saved or condemned?

Doesn't God have the power to prevent a heart attack at least until the person has had opportunity to be baptized?

That isn't an answer. Want to try again?

What does that have to do with John being alive? Are you claiming that he is the author of Timothy?

John and Paul were one in doctrine.

Again, what does that have to do with anything? Paul supposedly wrote Timothy before any other books of the New Testament were written, so how can he endorse something that doesn't exist yet?

Did Paul have a time machine?

Originally posted by adjensen

That isn't an answer. Want to try again?

Yes, it was. Jesus says that we must be born of the water and the Spirit. Unless Jesus lied, if the situation you brought up were to occur, I am sure God would protect the person at least until they had the opportunity to be baptized.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

That isn't an answer. Want to try again?

Yes, it was. Jesus says that we must be born of the water and the Spirit. Unless Jesus lied

I don't think one needs to assume Jesus is a liar -- when Jesus speaks of water, he's not necessarily talking about the stuff in your tub. Seen in the light of his words to the Samaritan woman, it's likely that he isn't talking about baptism here, either. Christ is the Living Water, who brings life to those born in him.

One would think that, if baptism was so important, Jesus would have been a little less obscure. And would have baptized people himself, for that matter.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

That isn't an answer. Want to try again?

Yes, it was. Jesus says that we must be born of the water and the Spirit. Unless Jesus lied

I don't think one needs to assume Jesus is a liar -- when Jesus speaks of water, he's not necessarily talking about the stuff in your tub. Seen in the light of his words to the Samaritan woman, it's likely that he isn't talking about baptism here, either. Christ is the Living Water, who brings life to those born in him.

One would think that, if baptism was so important, Jesus would have been a little less obscure. And would have baptized people himself, for that matter.

edit on 6-3-2013 by adjensen because: (no reason given)

Although, Jesus did not have the opportunity to baptize for the remission of sins since He obviously lived before the crucifixion and the day of Pentecost 29 AD.

Originally posted by truejew
Jesus did not have the opportunity to baptize for the remission of sins since He obviously lived before the crucifixion and the day of Pentecost 29 AD.

Once again you've created a god who is hostage to a book. Scripture does not dictate what God can do -- if Jesus wanted to baptize someone, there's no reason he couldn't. His admonition that "one must be born of water and spirit" obviously preceded the crucifixion and Pentecost, and he said that the thief on the cross would be saved, so he either lied or his "must" there had nothing to do with baptism.

And, elsewhere in scripture, we see that it does not:

Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”

“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

“Which ones?” he inquired.

Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’”

“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”

Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” (Matthew 19:16-21 NIV)

There you go, Jesus' very words as to how to receive eternal life... and not a peep about being baptized.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

That isn't an answer. Want to try again?

Yes, it was. Jesus says that we must be born of the water and the Spirit. Unless Jesus lied

I don't think one needs to assume Jesus is a liar -- when Jesus speaks of water, he's not necessarily talking about the stuff in your tub. Seen in the light of his words to the Samaritan woman, it's likely that he isn't talking about baptism here, either. Christ is the Living Water, who brings life to those born in him.

One would think that, if baptism was so important, Jesus would have been a little less obscure. And would have baptized people himself, for that matter.

edit on 6-3-2013 by adjensen because: (no reason given)

Although, Jesus did not have the opportunity to baptize for the remission of sins since He obviously lived before the crucifixion and the day of Pentecost 29 AD.

Wrongo, no offense, you have no authority. You will mature spiritually truejew when you accept God did not give everyone the authority to interpret Scripture, He gave that authority to the Church alone. It fits, by the same authority, she compiled the Bible. The world sees the fruit of the awful heresy of "private interpretation of Scripture." Error and division (35,000 and counting Christian sects).

Jesus did too baptize! He explained first, read John 3, to be born again is "water baptism" And not one Church Father disagrees. See how it is a help to read their quotes.

Read a little further on in John 3, John 3:22.

Gosh, we want you to find the faith, especially Adjensen. He doesn't give up on you.



colbe

John 3:22
After these things Jesus and his disciples came into the land of Judea: and there he abode with them, and baptized.

www.drbo.org...