"Burgon has amassed overwhelming evidence from manuscripts, lectionaries, ancient versions, and church fathers proving the genuineness of the last twelve verses of Mark! ...A thorough grasp of Burgon's methodology of textual criticism such as is exhibited in these pages will convince the honest reader to reject the false conclusions regarding these twelve verses (and other verses as well) which have been accepted by the NASV, the NIV, the RSV, the NRSV, the NEB, TEV, CEV and the other modern versions! If indeed, as Dean Burgon shows clearly, "B" (Vaticanus) and "Aleph" (Sinaiticus) are in serious error here, they cannot be trusted elsewhere either. The manuscripts, the lectionaries, the ancient versions, and the quotations from the church fathers all unite to show that Mark 16:9-20 was in Mark's Gospel from the very beginning" (back cover). 370 pages.

I find your ability to remain a Catholic and continue to post on this site amazing.

You remind me a lot of my father. He is a very liberal, Teddy Kennedy type Catholic, and blindly supports his Roman Catholic tradition and roots. He does not read the bible as he feels that anything he needs to know he can speak to the priest, or read his monthly Notre Dame magazine, or do a quick web search. He has been trained that the Church and Pope is the voice of God on earth, not the Bible!

I ask him how the Vicar of Christ became the Pope, rather than the third person of the Trinity, and he says because Peter was the Pope appointed, not the Holy Spirit. He firmly believes, without a shadow of a doubt, that Peter was appointed by Christ to be the head of the Church and the Holy Spirit is not the Vicar of Christ on earth.

I sometimes ask about the contradictions between Romish teachings and Scripture, and he can only say there is no contradition in Scripture, and any view of Rome is faithful tradition, plus Scripture so Scripture cannot be the final arbiter. Only the Church & Pope!

"Nevertheless, he seems to have translated the Bible into German, French and Italian. If he did all that unaided (or even if he did it aided), he must have been quite extraordinary."

Agreed in some respects. I have a partner than speaks 5 languages and as you know most Pope's speak more. The ability to use languages I've found to be very helpful, but I've also seen a substantial amount of misunderstanding from false translation.

I work in at least 4 countries with partners/customers that do not speak english, and everything requires translation. I can get auto translation from the internet, but the translations and meaning are very bad. Even when I hire two different translators to do the same document the meaning in english is sometimes very different. I have sermons translated as well into foreign languages, and the translations are different of the same sermon.

"Yes, Lance, this why the Darby Bible is more accurate than the KJV."

Sure, if you are seeking a specific theology that endorses falty manuscripts based upon a textual critical mind.

The forward states:

"In my first edition my translation was formed on the concurrent voice of Griesbach, Lachmann, Scholz, and Tischendorf: the first of soberer judgment and critical acumen and discernment; the next with a narrower system of taking only the very earliest MSS., so that sometimes he might have only one or two; the third excessively carelessly printed, but taking the mass of Constantinopolitan MSS. as a rule; the last of first-rate competency and diligence of research, at first somewhat rash in changing, but in subsequent editions returning more soberly to what he had despised."

His editions beyond the first only got worse and worse to help fundamentally change a faithful translation from the majority text (textus receptus) to these critical transliterations.

"BTW I might not have thoroughly read all your posts but I don't precieve you as one speaking promoting divorce, it is something after all which God hates, let alone divorce for any reason."

Indeed, it is ridiculous as a minister to run around claiming Christians promote divorce...let alone Calvinists. It is just a bold faced lie, and I have never said this nor taught this.

My point was making the biblical distinction in the sermon I posted below between what is called, in our society, "no fault divorce" which is a plague, and biblical (or lawful) divorce.

Certainly, we know Christ's position on unlawful divorce, but a minister can call God a liar and claim that His clear passages on divorce of Israel was all just a sin in the OT, and Christ clarified the matter in the NT showing all divorce (including His divorce of Israel in the old testament) was unlawful and forbidden.

"I am sure that in the F_anciful L_and of the Calvinist, the hurricane crisis that Florida had last year was Darby's fault as well."

This is a another perfect example of an ordained minister of God in this generation who will do everything they can to make fun and provoke everyone to anger as they can. The whole purpose in the modern day minister is to reject most or all of history and make fun of people who see all history as God's fulfilled divine providence.

Basic orthodox Christianity has become a big joke by the vast majority of our minister today, and Yamil is an example of this type of minister. If it does not fit into his specific and define presupposition of fundamental Baptist, Arminian and Dispensational theology, it is all just a big joke.

Well folks, anyone can look around the television or read the news stories about these fundamental Baptist type ministers, and see for themselves. They might be able to reject history, but it is tough to reject the evening news.

"Why won't you prove your position from Scripture so that I may you the ridiculousness of your position to the 1,542 plus users present. This childish namecalling gets real old real quick, do you not think."

You lie and claim that I promote divorce and as such people will loose their salvation. You spend half your time on here slandering people, and the other half going around telling people to clean it up and stop the attacks. You are like a spinning top where nobody knows where you will land at any giving time.

Come on, as a Minister of God, please just argue your position against these verses:

"And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also." Jer.3:7-8

..."D. Thus, the Lord permits (but does not demand) a lawful divorce in the case of fornication. I simply mention that the apostle Paul (speaking by inspiration of the Holy Spirit) adds to what Christ has said by teaching that an unbeliever who willfully deserts a believer also dissolves the marital bond which also allows the believer to remarry (1 Corinthians 7:15).

E. In closing, we cannot succeed in having a marriage that fulfils the goals intended by the Lord without Christ—our prophet (who reveals to us the will of God concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage), priest (who cleanses us from our sins of anger, bitterness, selfishness, lust), and king (who empowers us to overcome the enemy who would destroy our marriages).

There is hope in Christ (for He has already purchased all that we need to glorify Him in our marriages). Dear ones, if our religion does not work with her or him is nearest to us, how will it work with others who are not so near to us (this is hypocrisy). God grant us the faith to look to Him who is all-sufficient for our needs."

Sermon is:

Are you classifying the Angelican church as the Protestant church? Hardly.

Any king who proclaims himself the head of the church, like the pope proclaims himself the head of the church, is Romish in church government, not true protestant.

What the Angelican AND Erastian/Independent (e.g., congregational) churches have done in history to persecute the true Christian testimony is equally as evil as what Rome has done to persecute the church.

I don't find much difference like you admit below, but I would not label those churches ruled by Kings and Queens or Popes (whether Baptists acting as little popes) to be truly protestants.

Indeed there is a visible protestant view to them as they are not Roman Catholic, but especially in today's generation, the daughters of Rome have come into greater visibility and cooperation/unity on many things. The congregationalist have adopted many teachings of Rome, but still have no reason to be persecuting the faithful churches and her testimony in history.

"HAY FLEMING, DAVID
Illustrations of Antichrist's Rejoicing over the Massacre of St. Bartholomew (1912)

...It is estimated that over 30,000 Huguenots were slain in France during a six week period in 1572.

Baird, in his Rise of the Huguenots (volume two) notes that "on the plea of religious zeal the most barbarous acts were committed... The weaker sex was not spared in the universal carnage, and, as in a town taken by assault, suffered outrages that were worse than death. Matron and maiden alike welcomed as merciful the blow that liberated them from an existence now rendered insupportable.

"The Darby Bible (DBY, formal title The Holy Scriptures: A New Translation from the Original Languages by J. N. Darby) refers to the Bible as translated from Hebrew and Greek by John Nelson Darby. The English version was first published in 1890. Darby also published translations of the Bible in French and German.

In his introduction to the 1890, German version, he wrote, "In the issue of this translation, the purpose is not to offer to the man of letters a learned work, but rather to provide the simple and unlearned reader with as exact a translation as possible."

In the Old Testament Darby translates the covenant name of God as "Jehovah" instead of rendering it "LORD" or "GOD" (in all capital letters) as most English translations do. Among other widely-used translations only the American Standard Version (1901) and the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation (1950) have followed this practice.

For some verses the Darby New Testament has detailed footnotes which make reference to his scholarly textual criticism comparisons."

I would encourage you to climb out from behind your computer and get yourself out there traveling around the world to practice what you preach.

Your great at slamming reformed ministers who have taken the true gospel to more areas of the world than any denominational sects out there in the visible church. Notice I mentioned the true gospel, not the Roman Catholic, Mormom or Anabaptist arminian, pelagian gospel. There is a difference.

The true gospel of Christ has always been delivered, including the faithful translations of the Scriptures into vulgar languages, by the Reformed. They have not come from Rome, nor Arminians, nor your idol Scofield, nor Mormons. By God's divine holy providence, they have been delivered to the world by the most faithful reformed and, in fact, have been severely attacked, tortured and ridiculed by Rome and her daughters.

"My Friend in northern Kenya tells of this, and how the African knows there is a God, and some are obedient to that calling in them, and God sends missionaries."

Since I consider you to be a Pelagian for rejecting the doctrine of original sin, we really don't have a foundation in which to discuss predestination.

For someone to believe that all babies and small children have no original sin through natural generation, as Adam was the head of all mankind, and claim they only will sin when they reach an age of accountability and "choose" to sin or not sin, is a non-starter with me. I know all the arguments on this thread that these people argue, like Pelagians, that infants can choose not to sin because they don't know the law of God written on their hearts. Because they don't know what sin is, therefore, they have no original sin from Adam and no actual sin until they "choose" it...therefore they claim these children are all sinless creatures of God. This is a error and arguing with you folks is really a waste of time.

You said, "What is a Pelagian?" There is no sense explaining it as if one rejects history as a teacher, then explaining it is a waste of time.

"The Calvinist (Walt and Seaton) favor divorce which would mean that one can lose his salvation,"

I've never taught this absolute bold face lie. Who is Doc? Is this Yamil you are referring to below? I hope not as that statement is a serious lie for someone claiming to be a Baptist pastor.

"Can you blame them, Jim? It's the largest Christian denomination by far. (In fact, it IS Christianity.)

And even more important, it's the only one with a clearly identifiable body of doctrine."

Lance, are you sure this is true? I agree it is the largest denomination in the visible church, but some believe the Scriptures (and history) show her early faithful testimony as a church of Christ' has severly defected into the great western Antichrist...with the Pope being that Man of Sin sitting in the temple of God proclaiming to be God.

Can you tell me how the true Vicar of Christ on earth, which Christ appointed after his resurrection, to be the Holy Spirit of God (the third person in the Trinity), got replaced with the Pope claiming to be the Vicar of Christ?

Also, by what Scriptural warrant does the Papacy get authority to declare anything infallible?

..."There are two parts to the “whosoever” clause (“whosoever shall put away his wife” and “[whosoever] shall marry another”) and these two parts are bound together by the connective conjunction “and.”

Thus, you cannot qualify the one part without qualifying the other part. And if the whole “whosoever” clause (with its two parts) is qualified (by “except it be for fornication”), then the conclusion (“committeth adultery”) must also reflect that same qualification (in the one stated exception of fornication, a man does not commit adultery if he puts away his wife and marries another).

3. Let’s try another exception clause in order to see the effect that the exception has on all the parts. “Whoever draws his sword, except it be in self-defense, and kills a man, commits murder; and whosoever assists him that kills a man commits murder.”

Q.64. What is the invisible church?
A. The invisible church is the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one under Christ the head (Eph.i.10 & 22-23, Jn.x.16, Jn.xi.52).

Q.65. What special benefits do the members of the invisible church enjoy by Christ?
A. The members of the invisible church by Christ enjoy union and communion with him in grace and glory (Jn.xvii.21, Eph.ii.5-6, Jn.xvii.24)

"...but I have a question concerning part of the above statement; namely, "they can be saved by God's free gift of grace extraordinarily..."

Alan, there is a distinction made between something extraordinary and something ordinary in Scripture. To our finite minds, we would find it possible to will as hard as we like a parent or relative to come back from death. In an ordinary sense, it would be impossible to raise someone from the dead by our speaking and using our will.

But what is extraordinary or even impossible for us is possible for God. Therefore, ...“He upholdeth all things by the word of his power,”... (Heb.1:3)

“Our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased,” (Ps.115:3). “I will do all my pleasure.” (Isa.46:10). “None can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?” (Dan.4:35). “As I have purposed, so shall it stand,” (Isa.14:24)

Thus, we can conclude that God is able to do something extraordinary (ordinary for Him) that we cannot do.

..."For the passages of Scripture from the Old Testament to which Christ alludes or which He cites (namely Deuteronomy 24:1 and Genesis 2) speak of marriage and not of betrothal.

C. There are also those who would argue that the exception clause (in Matthew 19:9) applies only to divorce and not to remarriage (i.e. that one may lawfully divorce for fornication, but not lawfully remarry).

1. However, one cannot disconnect a lawful divorce from a lawful remarriage in this passage or in any other passage (as in 1 Corinthians 7:27,28). If the one is granted, so is the other.