Because of my ongoing research in the area I thank you for the personal invitation and sponsorship to attend the Saturday May 19, 2012 Catholic sponsored 'Interactive Conference on Catholicism' with Scott Caton and William Gent as the radical false teachers speaking out for the Mother of Harlots¹. The sorry state of these two once ordained Baptist Preachers is disturbing but their final sorry state will be more so. You mentioned that I could be a 'mole' in this meeting but I could not. A mole stays underground; I therein introduced myself openly, was well received by the catholic clergy, and my presence quelled some of the murmuring about the Baptist street preaching going on outside. Presently the law is on our side and Baptists need not be underground in the presence of Catholicism. I bring that up because Scott Caton and William Gent were indeed 'moles' for their Satanic mother and made it all the way through our Baptist ordination recognition before they returned to their Roman mother. No other explanation will suffice and there is no new lesson we can learn therein. We already know “the devil is a sly old fox, I'd like to chain him up and put him in a box²”, but alas, that is not the job of a servant, and our Lord will do that soon enough. Whether these two were Catholic moles wittingly or Catholic moles unwittingly I have opinion which will remain unwritten; I know they were befriended by several close and respected colleagues, who are still hurt by their Iscariot turnings.

Please find attached three pages of a priori questions I wished could be asked and below three areas that should have been more clearly addressed. There was an honest effort on the part of the five sponsoring 'churches³' to provide an environment of open dialogue. Some attendees may have had a sincere desire to get to the truth. Surely the leadership knew the ultimate goal was to perpetuate their Roman cause and use Gent, and Caton as their deceiving false teachers. Both of these men were able to use their embedded research of Baptist doctrine to scoff and ridicule surface issues of the difference between Catholics and Protestants. It is unfortunate that during their time underground with Pastor Grace of First Baptist in Greece they were not exposed to the root cause and origin of the differences, displaying no understanding of these root differences between the catholic tradition and the Church that Jesus built. Far to few Baptists, no Roman Catholics, no Protestants of any denomination, and nary 1 or 2 'evangelicals' have come to a place where they could word the source and origin of this great divide inflicted on the cause of Christ. The venue of this 'Interactive Conference on Catholicism' provided only minor opportunities to briefly expose these sources and origins but Caton and Gent were very effective at keeping things shallow with their surface scoffing and ridicule.

Three basic truths related to the origins and sources of Roman error, truths which they effectively po-poed and side stepped in this conference are 1) The Clement-Origin-Augustinian progression and development of systematic Roman Catholic error. 2) The existence and perpetuity of the true independent autonomous Church that Jesus built, and its miraculous survival through the Satanic and Roman Catholic attempts to annihilate it; and 3) the existence and perpetuity of the written Apostolic record in Holy Scripture and its miraculous survival and preservation through the Satanic and Roman Catholic attempts to modify it. In brief⁴, these 3 areas are highlighted here and should have been the emphasis in an acknowledgment of truth for the Catholics in this conference.

The Catalyst for Roman Catholic Error

The very first catalyst for Roman Catholic error came when Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD) saw the total destruction of Jerusalem and the total annihilation of every Jew therein. To believe that God could honestly restore Israel and the throne of David, and literally rule and reign for 1,000 years from such a cite as the Holy Hill of Zion (Psalm 2) took more faith than he could muster. But to deny it would require the rejection of the literal-historic interpretation of the Scripture before him. The means for this rejection was founded in his student Origen of Alexandria (185-254 AD) the 'Father of Biblical Criticism' and the 'Father of the Allegorical Method⁵' of hermeneutics. Roman Catholic Church Father Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, now took up the baton from Clement and Origen. He more fully developed, defended, and excused their allegorical method of Biblical interpretation and then fully exploited it to ratify a departure from Scriptural Truth and cross the threshold into each systematic form of Roman Catholic error. Catholics have been errantly taught to defend this allegorical method by pretending that it is only the use of figurative language, by pretending that Paul gave a Biblical precedence and by denying or erasing its horrid impact on all Bible truth. After all, “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”

In reality this atrocious allegorical method is defined as the hermeneutic whereby Scripture “conceals a secret hidden meaning that only the supremely spiritually astute can see and comprehend⁶' and it caused the Roman Catholic Empire to ban the Bible to all but the Roman Catholic clergy. When Constantine (AD 272-337) determined to convert the whole Roman Empire to Christianity the Church of Rome seized the opportunity to declare itself as the sole authority in determining all proper allegorical interpretations and all Christian doctrine. Using Augustine's allegorical development of the doctrine of the two swords and his allegorical development of an ever changing, growing, maturing unified and universal (catholic) Church they exiled burned and banished all opposition to their concept and leadership. (No all, actually, because pockets of independent, autonomous, salvation by grace, believer baptizing, local Churches continued to operate and rebel against all forms of catholicism from the very start.) This actual development of Roman power and Roman error is buried and glazed over in their fiction about where Peter was when he wrote his letter from Babylon.

The Non Catholic Church that Jesus Built

The perpetuity of the Baptist distinctives through independent, autonomous, local Churches is likewise erased from Catholic minds and Catholic history. If the Bible is written as an allegorical message from God which conceals its truth in secret hidden meanings there will be no unity in churches unless there is one supremely spiritual and astute universal head and leader who is that singular pillar and ground of truth. Rome used its allegorical methods and Constantine's sword, and Augustine's twisting of Scripture to wipe out and otherwise banish the autonomous independent voices that spoke out against its new power.

Today anyone with a computer and an interest in truth can read Catholic Saint Augustine's letter to the Donatists, his allegorical development of this doctrine of the two swords, his allegorical development of the maturing universal (catholic) church which in his mind was supposed to grow into something different than what Jesus Christ started, i.e. Jesus started exactly what the Apostolic Churches were, not what Augustine expected a catholic church to become! What if the Church that Jesus built was NOT to be the Church that Augustine defined. What if the Church that Jesus built was always meant to be like the autonomous, independent, local, salvation by grace through faith, believer baptizing, non-denominational individual bodies of believers like the Apostles established at Galatia, Corinth, Ephesus, and Thessalonica? (Baptist have always been of that belief, and of that stripe.) What if these independent autonomous bodies of believers refused to lord over any other body of believers? What if they recognized false 'apostles' (cf Rev 2:2) and refused to accept any authority but that of the genuine authorized Apostles authority? What if they refused to bow to Rome and refused to unite in a massive universal (catholic) denominational movement? Indeed there remained through the whole ugly history of the Roman Catholic Tradition these autonomous, independent, local Churches that Jesus built. Dr. J.H Carol and John T. Christian superbly draw out the history of these local autonomous bodies of believers. The Roman Catholic's named them Donatists, Paulicians, Montanists, Henricians, Arnoldists, Albigenses, Waldensians, Anabaptist, and eventually during the Protestant reformation they called them Baptists. Rome labeled them as a denomination and/or group that rose up against their authority; they painted them as heretical against their allegorical tradition, doctrine and practice, and they destroyed them en-mass.

There were doubtless rouge autonomous independent pockets of Donatists, Montanists, and Waldensians, et.al. Who were very heretical in their beliefs. The Roman Catholic empire painted them all with the same brush stroke and strove to annihilate all opposition to their own singular catholic authority and control. Baptists still proudly claim as their heritage the autonomous independent ecclesia that opposed Roman tradition and Roman rule in all spiritual decisions. Mr. Gent, Catholics and Protestants do not understand why we choose to stand beside these “known heretical groups” because they do not understand the autonomous, independent, NOT catholic, Church that Jesus built. Sometimes Baptists do not understand it as well as they ought.

In Topeka Kansas there is found today one Westboro Baptist Church which preaches and demonstrates hatred toward our nations military. (Incidentally, this author is a retired U.S. military veteran.) They are heretical. They are also a U.S. Supreme Court sanctioned example that Baptists are not a denomination, and never have been. Baptist are independent, and autonomous with certain inalienable rights to act upon their own system of beliefs. When even the American Baptist Association, does not understand this distinction and becomes a denomination; when the GARBC fails to appreciate or appropriate this autonomy; when the Southern Baptist Convention owns buildings and find denominationalism in their own polity, there is precious little hope that a Catholic or Protestant will comprehend it. The Roman Catholic Mother of Harlots will always be at war against the autonomous independent local body of believers, yeah they must be. They always have been and they are today, despite the airs of this 'Conference on Scripture and Tradition in the Catholic Faith”; catholic and autonomous are opposites, never to be united. There is a war on, and the modern American Catholic is completely ignorant of this source of contention . Caton and Gent think its about whether there are two Holy Catholic Sacraments or Seven Holy Catholic Sacraments; whether the Bible is rightly divided dispensationally or based on a Covenant Theology⁷ ; whether Martin Luther should have said 'sola scriptura' when he then stuck with his private interpretation. It takes wisdom to dig to the source and bottom of a dissension, none of that wisdom was evident in this conference. Satan is no fool.

The Final Authority, 'Sola Scriptura' Not Roman Catholic Tradition.

When one understands the origin and source of this dissension between the Roman Catholic Tradition and the autonomous, independent, local Church that Jesus built, there is little need to make a wordy defense of the Final Authority that Baptists use for all faith and practice, but humor this author for a moment. The Apostolic Churches and all the second, third and forth century Churches patterned after them, all cried 'sola scriptura' ,as it were, and used Holy Scripture as their final authority and sole authority for all faith and practice. There always existed those who rejected Roman Catholic authority and held onto the Holy Scriptures as their sole authority, this is amply documented by Dr. Carol, Mason and John T. Christian⁸. To subvert this reality the Roman's developed the fiction which was regularly herolded by Caton and Gent in this conference. They contend that Churches had no Bible until the Roman Catholic Tradition said they had a Bible, and that did not occur until the Counsel of Nicaea in the forth century A.D. (325 A.D.) On Saturday in Rochester Gent extended the fictitious deception to say the earlier Churches had nothing to go on except “oral tradition” with “no written Bible available” until the 4^th century A.D.

Roman Catholics have so recited and repeated this fiction that all Roman Catholics believe it and Protestants are all off on a quest into Origen's old library in Alexandria Egypt in order to piece together a 'real bible' that was lost because of these fictitious oral traditions! Baptists are not. (At least the ones which remain independent and autonomous with the Bible as their sole authority for all faith and practice.) At the close of the 1^st century we know Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, had all 66 books, as did the other six mentioned Churches of Asia Minor. North Africa had all 66 books, especially noted in the modified and corrupted copies of Alexandria Egypt. Babylon of Persia had copies of all that Peter had and translations into multiple languages were ongoing all through the 2^nd century.

The lie of the Roman Catholics, that there was no Bible until the Roman Catholic Tradition said there was a Bible, is but cruel fiction devised to extend control over others with their own allegorical fiction. The Church that Jesus built has always used, and still does today use, Scripture as their sole authority, and castigated and thrown off the cords of all Roman Catholic Tradition. We do not throw off all tradition, this confused Gent immensely. We throw off all Roman Catholic tradition and defy all Roman Catholic authority, contending that she is the apostate, she is the Mother of Harlots spoken of in the Revelation of Jesus Christ. Baptists still defy the Roman Catholic Tradition and the American Roman Catholic grunts still don't get it.

The Conclusion of the Matter

The purpose of the conference in Rochester was to dangle two 'ordained protestant ministers' out in the forefront and say, “See these two Protestants came back to their Mother Faith, and you can too. Protestants did not stray very far from their Mother and may indeed return to their roots. The real distention, the original division from the Roman Catholic Tradition was not even on the agenda. Even with Caton and Gent acting as Catholic moles in First Bible Baptist Church, there is no Catholic comprehension of these three real issues. The Church that Jesus built did not originate through the Father of Bible Criticism, nor his Allegorical Hermeneutic. The Church that Jesus built is not Catholic, it is Autonomous and Independent. The Church that Jesus built will never use Roman Catholic tradition as any authority, but will use only Scripture as its final authority and as its sole authority for all faith and practice. These Catholics, like the moles that served them, did not have a clue what was going on in the street outside their conference. The questions I had lined up to ask their moles may have caught some inquisitive ears but in general the source of the contention has never been visited by these diluted Catholic leaders. They still think the Church is supposed to be catholic and little understand the autonomous independent Church that they vehemently oppose. We should cry like Asa did, “And Asa cried unto the LORD his God, and said, LORD, it is nothing with thee to help, whether with many, or with them that have no power: help us, O LORD our God; for we rest on thee, and in thy name we go against this multitude. O LORD, thou art our God; let not man prevail against thee.” (2Chron 14:11)

I appreciate the opportunity to attend and record this conference at the request of your Church. There was mention of your hosting a follow up Bible Conference on Catholic Error at Gospel Light Bible Baptist Church and if you do I highly recommend the Berean Beacon Ministries which proclaims the Good News of Salvation, The Gospel of Jesus Christ via the President and founder, Richard Bennett, a former Roman Catholic Priest. He has had regular interaction with such RC apologists, to their embarrassment in his keen quest for gospel truth. He can be readily contacted at http://www.bereanbeacon.org . This encounter has been beneficial for me, in that it requires me to word and re-word, search and research the core cause and drive of our Baptist heritage. The non-catholic, non-protestant heritage that I have worded and reworded in my Masters of Theological Studies degree efforts. Thank you again for the invitation.

Chili Baptist Church, Pastor Rosco, 224 Chestnut Ridge Rd P.O. BOX 26203, Rochester, NY 14626

First Bible Baptist Church, Pastor Strobel, 949 Lincoln Ave., Lockport, NY 14094

Mr. William Gent, c/o Holy Name of Jesus Parish, 3050 North Highway A1a., Indialantic, Florida 32903

Note to cc recipients: Two appendix to this article, Appendix 1 Conference A Priori Notes and Questions, (4pages) and Appendix 2 A Chapter From My Master Thesis, (Available in its entirety in hardback at lulu.com or in ebook at GSBaptistChurch.com/ebooks) Chapter VI. Reform Theology's Failures in Eschatology., are available in entirety at www.GSBaptistChurch.com/catholicism/giardino_catholic_conference_notes.pdf

Appendix 1 Conference A Priori Notes and Questions

'Interactive Conference on Catholicism with Fr. Scott Caton and William Gent, Saturday, May 19, 2012

By Mr. William Gent and Mr. Scott Caton (who wants to be called 'Father' and knows better)

Pastor Rice's A priori questions prepared prior to the conference, next 3 pages.

Session 1 Historical Issues 9:00-9:50 (Understanding the Church's doctrines with a historical perspective)

Baptists are not protestants. Your credentials say your are each ordained 'Protestant Ministers', I believe you were both ordained Baptist Preachers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and Baptists are NOT protestants. This is well established in several Baptist History books which should be familiar to you. There are now multiple works which showing the perpetuity of Baptists holding to Independence, and Autonomy, Salvation by Faith alone, Baptism of only Believers and that by immersion alone, a perpetuity that has cost Baptist, Anabaptist, Monetanist, Waldensian, Donatist, and Bible Believer⁹ their martyrdom at the hands of Roman Catholics, and Protestants throughout all Roman Catholic history.

So my question is: Are you at all familiar with the work of Dr. J.H. Carol's 1931 book The Trail of Blood, or Roy Mason 1960 exceptional book, The Church That Jesus Built¹⁰, or Dr. John T. Christian's two volumes titled, A History of the Baptists¹¹ published in 2006, which staunchly defend this existence of Baptists 1,300 years before any Protestants stoop up?

Leonard Verduin, in his book “The Reformers and Their Stepchildren¹²” says “All the errors of catholicism are in embryo stage in the teachings of Augustine.¹³ ” My book states it that “Augustinian error fell from Roman Catholic Church Father St. Augustine ( AD 354 – 480), Bishop of Hippo, North Africa, in two major areas. The first in the doctrine of the church, the second in the doctrine of salvation.”

So my question is: Can you explain for me Saint Augustine's “Doctrine of the Two Swords” framed up from Scripture in order to kill the Donatists, (that he so hated)?, AND ALSO How the Roman Catholic Church used this doctrine, AND ALSO if the Roman Catholic Church still holds this doctrine today?

What is your allegorical explanation of “Mt 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.”?

When did the Roman Catholic Church realize that it was in doctrinal error about the infallibility of the Pope? About the sale of indulgences? About the existence of purgatory?

What is your allegorical explanation of “Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.”?

Session 2: Hermeneutical Issues 10:00-10:50 (Proper understanding of the Bible through the Church's lens)

Bible believers like Baptist, Anabaptist, Monetanist, Waldensian, and Donatist have always held to the Millennial Reign of Christ and to the dispensational divisions that frame it. Millennial is a Latin reference to the literal 1000 years called out specifically 5 times in Revelation 20 (called the Millennium in Latin, Chiliasm in Greek) Beginning with your Church Father Clement of Alexandria and his student Origen of Alexandria this literal 1000 year reign has been edited out of their bible with very extreme and perverse allegorical methods.

So my question is: Do you NOT believe the Bible when it describes the promised literal 1000 year reign of Christ on the Throne of David, in the literal Holy Hill of Zion, in the literal city of Jerusalem, after a literal period of great tribulation period?

And do you then endorse the extreme and perverse allegorical methods of Saint Clement, Saint Origen and Saint Augustine, over the hermeneutic that Jesus used and taught, one of “grammatical-historical interpretation, wherein a text should be interpreted according to the rules of grammar and the facts of history?

The primary tool for the Catholics blatant rejection of Scripture truth is the hermeneutical method developed by the Catholic Church Fathers, Saint Clement of Alexandria (150-215 A.D) and Saint Origin of Alexandria. Their allegorical method, whereby Scripture “conceals a secret hidden meaning that only the supremely spiritually astute can see and comprehend” caused the Roman Catholic Church to ban the Bible to all but the Roman Catholic Clergy. You know that many thousands of believers were burned with their Bibles by the Roman Catholic Church.

So my question is: Do you endorse this allegorical method of secret hidden meanings only assessable by the supremely spiritually astute, and do you then endorse the banning of Bible reading to all but the Roman Catholic or perhaps now even Protestant Clergy?

Dr. Samuel Berger in his book “Cambridge History of the Bible” declares that the Roman Catholic's Latin Vulgate is riddled with error and states that “Well known examples of 'far reaching errors' include the whole system of Catholic 'penance', drawn from the Vulgate's “do penance” ... when the Latin should, of course, have followed the Greek “repent.” Likewise the word “sacrament” was a mis-rendering from the Vulgate of the original word “mystery.” Even more significant, perhaps, was the rendering of the word “presbyter” (elder) as 'priest' in the Latin Vulgate “ In the teachings of Jesus Christ, brought to us by the Apostles who wrote the Bible, there is NO “Do Penance”, there is NO “Sacraments” and there is NO “Priest” in the New Testament Church.

So my question is: Have these translation errors been removed from the sanctioned Roman Catholic English Bible or do they remain in it as prominently as they remain in your Roman Catholic doctrine?

Salvation by works via sacraments vs Salvation by Faith alone is the ONLY thing Protestants seriously REFORMED in Catholicism and they did not get that all the way back to Bible truth. This is especially important for Baptists, who have always preached salvation by faith and who for 1,978 years have based all their faith and practice on the Words of this book, the Holy Bible.¹⁴ The reformers, led off by Martin Luther (1483-1546 AD), finally broke away from Catholic doctrine to contended that salvation was by grace “through faith; ... not of works, lest any man should boast.”¹⁵

So my question is: If Roman Catholicism's horrid soteriology with its penance, purgatory and indulgences caused Martin Luther to write Ninety-Five Theses that he refused to retract at the demand of Pope Leo X in 1520 and the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Worms in 1521, why do you, here today attempt to shamelessly retract them and pretend they do not exist?

In the Bible Salvation consists of five specific things which occur simultaneously and eternally in an individual's soul. By faith, through grace, without works, they are 1) Converted through repentance (NOT penance) and faith in Christ, 2) they are Justified, 3) they are Quickened, 4) they are Indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God, and at the same time they are 5) Baptized into the body of Christ. Roman Catholic soteriology has NONE OF THAT, transaction. Protestant soteriology has precious little of it, and has none of it as an instantaneous prospect. The Apostle John put it like this 1 John 5:12-13 “He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.”

So my question is: Can you as clearly define what Roman Catholic Salvation is, so that I, or any of these folks here today, could be killed in a car wreck on the way home but still KNOW FOR CERTAIN that we will go to heaven?

1 Tim 2 says that God our Saviour will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. Mr. Caton you once professed to believe that verse.

So my question is: Mr. Caton, as a Roman Catholic priest, can you now act as a mediator and perform last rites or what was once called “extreme unction” and remit venial sins and cleanse a soul from the remains of sin? And also what happens to me when I refuse to let you perform “extreme unction” for me?

Appendix 2 A Chapter From My Master Thesis

REFORMED THEOLOGY'S REFORMATIONS ARE NOT PRODUCING A BIBLICAL SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY

Available in its entirety in hardback at lulu.com or in ebook at GSBaptistChurch.com/ebooks

VI. Reform Theology's Failures in Eschatology.

An overwhelming and systematic failure of Reform Theology is evidenced in its wholesale acceptance of Catholic Doctrine of last things, or Eschatology. Indulgences, Sacraments and Penance doctrines logically demanded that Catholic soteriology be overthrown and over hauled with major reforms. Likewise Catholic authoritarian and tyrannical slaughter of millions logically demanded that Roman Catholic ecclesiology be overthrown and overhauled and it received inadequate treatment by reformers. But the idea that God's promises to Israel, her restoration into the promised land, her wholesale salvation from all the nations of the world, and her reestablished throne of David to be occupied by the Lord Jesus Christ for a 1,000 year reign, ... such Biblical promise was still logically and perceptibly inconceivable to reformers. Reformed Augustinian Theologians refused to reform Catholic Eschatology, instead only a couple of minor patches were in store for this massive and now diabolical categorical denial of Scripture.

Covenant Theology is the patch work quilt used to provide a scholarly cover up for the brazen denial of literal Scripture. The rejection and scoffing of the millennial reign of Christ, was not to be reformed. The primary tool for this blatant rejection of Scripture truth is the hermeneutical methods developed by the Catholic Church Fathers, Clement of Alexandria and Origin of Alexandria. There allegorical method, whereby Scripture “conceals a secret hidden meaning that only the supremely spiritually astute can see and comprehend” caused, and causes, unmitigated problems. This same myth of allegory caused a caste system of clergy vs laity to grow and flourish. This lording of clergy over laity is called out in Revelations as the doctrine of the Nicolaitans.¹⁶ Ergo it is called out in the very book that reformers most wanted to allegorize, the Revelation of Jesus Christ.¹⁷ This Nicolaitan doctrine is hated by the Lord, but coveted by Protestants. Covenant Theology and its A-millennial prospectus is set at odds with the literal rendering of Scripture which purports a Dispensational Theology. Ergo the battle lines are drawn. It is wise to step back and take in the big picture wherein one realizes that Covenant Theology is Roman Catholic Eschatology repackaged. This bad doctrine of last things initiated from the Greek philosophy of Alexandria Egypt is a philosophy that has gone through the whole of the reformation without receiving any of its own.

A. Dispensational Theology vs Covenant Theology

Theology books do not distinguish well between Biblical Dispensational Theology, and Reformed Augustinian Covenant Theology. The best coverage of the two was found in Virkler's Hermeneutics Book, but Virkler's coverage is quite bias towards the reformed position. A dispensation is “a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God.”¹⁸ The seven dispensations outlined in Scripture and presented by C.I. Scofield¹⁹ are:

Dispensationalism has its origin in the Scriptures and a good hermeneutical exegesis. When Jesus says he WILL build his Church, and we have a NEW covenant, Bible believers tend to believe Him over what Catholic Saint Augustine believed. Covenant Theology has its origin in Reformed Theology's unreformed Catholic error about the Church and its dismissal of Israel as God's chosen People. This error was rooted in their Alexandrian philosophers and Church Fathers, to include Catholic Saint Augustine.

Dispensationalism is found always holding to the exact accuracy, inerrancy, infallibility, and literalness of Scripture, as did Christ. Virkler accuses dispensationalists of inserting discontinuity in the 'pattern of salvation', but if any discontinuity truly exists it occurs because God intended it, and revealed it in His Word. Virkler accuses that dispensationalism was developed in 'stages of development'; as if it was therein invented, but if there have been stages they are stages of resurgence. It is only because dispensationalism has long been squelched out by Catholic and Reformed Augustinain Theologians that it is finding resurgence in these last 100 years. The 20^th century recall and re-establishment of dispensationalism as a doctrine of Protestant denominations²⁰ has thus seen the following steps:

3. The Scofield Reference Bible in 1909, worded it well. C.I. Scofield attended that Niagara Bible Conference.

4. Lewis Sperry Chafer developed multi-volume Systematic Theology promoting Scofield's dispensational delineation, and

5. In 1965 Charles Ryrie's Dispensationalism Today more thoroughly defined it (two years later modernists of the New Scofield Reference Bible slightly modified Ryrie's description of it.)

These steps are not the development of dispensationalism but its resurgence. When Cain, the first born of Adam and Eve, became the first first-degree murderer, God refused that man should take justice into their own hands (Gen 4:15) Lamech strove to expand and exploit the lack of man's governing power when he became the second first-degree murderer. (Gen 4:15) But when it had “repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart” (Gen 6:6) God destroyed ma and set up a new dispensation with new rules and a new covenant. From now on God levies a new system of man governing man for these first-degree murders. “And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.“ (Gen 9:5-6) Clearly and with the most straight forward hermeneutics this is dispensationalism. The Reformed theologian, allegorizing this change of plan and purpose out of God's Holy Word is diabolical. Trying to contend that there is only one covenant is the blind leaders of the blind.

Again these steps are not the development of dispensationalism, because Jesus and Paul declared dispensational truth that was present in the Scriptures back to creation. The table below contrasts the features of Biblical Dispensationalism and Reformed Covenant Theology.

Theology books covering Eschatology do not provide an adequate contrast between Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology. Any short and honest analysis of the two shows the latter to be derived from the literal rendering of the Bible, the former derived from Reformed Augustinian Theology, and their twisting of Bible truth to force fit the Alexandrian philosophy of the Catholic Church Fathers.

B. Replacement Theology

The acceptance of the Reformed Augustinians Reformed Theology's Covenant Theology endangers all Biblical eschatology because of their Replacement Theology. Replacement Theology is a subdivision of Covenant Theology that deals with the audacious act of substituting the Catholic Church into the promise line of Israel. The contention is that the Catholic Church (Roman or Protestant) replaces Israel and stands in line to allegorically receive all the promises made to Israel. Israel was replaced because of her rejection of Messiah. Harsh and extreme allegorical methods are used to force fit all those promises into the Catholic Church. With horrid allegorical methods Roman Catholics have force fit into their purview and domain all the promises God made to Israel during his millennial reign period. “And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD. And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh....” (Isa 66:23-24) cannot be accomplished in Catholicism. “The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent’s meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD....” (Isa 65:25) is not a Catholic Church provision. “Shake thyself from the dust; arise, and sit down, O Jerusalem: loose thyself from the bands of thy neck, O captive daughter of Zion....” (Isa 62:2) is not for Catholiism. Rome cannot replace Jerusalem when God says “O Zion, that bringest good tidings, get thee up into the high mountain; O Jerusalem, that bringest good tidings, lift up thy voice with strength; lift it up, be not afraid; say unto the cities of Judah, Behold your God! Behold, the Lord GOD will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him: behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him. He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young....” (Isa 40:9-11) because indeed “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.” Roman Catholicism cannot allegorically replace Israel when God says to her “The wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them; and the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose. It shall blossom abundantly, and rejoice even with joy and singing: the glory of Lebanon shall be given unto it, the excellency of Carmel and Sharon, they shall see the glory of the LORD, and the excellency of our God. Strengthen ye the weak hands, and confirm the feeble knees. Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you.” (Isa 35:1-4) Nor can they replace “Look upon Zion, the city of our solemnities: thine eyes shall see Jerusalem a quiet habitation, a tabernacle that shall not be taken down; not one of the stakes thereof shall ever be removed, neither shall any of the cords thereof be broken. But there the glorious LORD will be unto us a place of broad rivers and streams; wherein shall go no galley with oars, neither shall gallant ship pass thereby. For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” (Isa 33:20-22) No replacement theology hatched in Alexandria philosophy and Roman Catholic doctrine can make the replacement. They feared that some un-indoctrinated eye may find these Scriptures and see their lie. The reformers would not even reveal the lie. They instead concealed it in their Covenant Theology. Shame on Reformed Theologians for relying on such brazen tactics.

Letter From A Roman Catholic Priest

I appreciate your copying me on the letter that you sent to Pastor Vince Giardino. I am writing in response to that letter.

I have read the letter carefully, and I certainly owe you an apology. You wrote a couple of times in it that I scoffed and ridiculed at that conference you attended. I am very sorry if ther was anything in my demeanor, personality, tone of voice, or way of saying things that could be conceived of as scoffing and ridicule 00 to you or to anyone else present at that conference. The whole approach of the conference was supposed to be irenic in nature, discussing points of difference in order to promote mutual understanding. I ask you forgiveness, as a Christian brother, for whatever I may have said that evinced a spirit that fell short of this goal and was contrary to the atmosphere of charity I deeply wished to promote.

As a token of my good will, I am enclosing a gift certificate for $50 to Applebee's Restaurant. I hope you and your wife can enjoy a nicec dinner “on me” (and that there is an Applebee's reasonably near where you live).

Letter To A Roman Catholic Priest

Thank you for writing. Your apology is noted and graciously accepted. All forgiveness that I may hereby grant is herein granted. Thank you also for the gracious $50 Applebee's gift certificate. If it were cash I would likely be obligated to purchase a potter's field to bury strangers in, but since not, I will take your recommendation and my wife to a nice dinner 'on-you'. Thank you.

The scoff and ridicule that you and Mr. Gent pulled off in this conference was indeed well disguised and not blatant in your demeanor, personality, tone of voice, or way of saying things. The ever present scoff and ridicule was very well cloaked to the Roman Catholics and to the Protestants present, but to those who know the truth about Baptist heritage and your own immersion into its precepts, your scoff and ridicule were grotesquely blatant.

Consider your billing as 'previously ordained protestant ministers' for example. You know very well that Baptists are not Protestants. Ergo there is scoff and ridicule in your very billing for this 'irenic'²¹ conference. Baptists boast seven distinctives (listed below for your recall!²²) and the systemic nature of all seven make the Church that Jesus Built – non-catholic, i.e. VERY non-catholic, and most certainly non-Roman-catholic. Protestantism never broke from the catholicness of 'The Church', never accepted the distinctives of the anabaptists which they killed and persecuted with there own version of union of Church and State, and their own version of 'the doctrine of two swords.' If you want the Roman Catholic Tradition²³ reconciled with Baptists in an 'irenic' environment you will need on the table 'catholic' vs 'autonomous local' governing polity and you will need to confess the 'doctrine of the two swords' for both Roman Catholic and Protestant systems vs 'separation of church and state'. To do otherwise is scoff and ridicule of the whole Anabaptist-Montenist-Baptist-et.al. Biblical belief system.

Secondly consider your brazen scoff and ridicule of Baptist Soteriology. Your grand reconsilliatory speech about whether there are 12,7 or 2 sacraments for salvation of a soul was grand indeed. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the grand divide between catholics (of any Roman or Protestant stripe) and the Biblical doctrine of Soteriology espoused by Anabaptist-Waldensian-Baptist-et.al., and dogmatically held for 1,979 years. There is no sacrament, none, in that doctrine. In fact any sacrament administered by any catholic church is heresy, yeah, blasphemy, to the true Biblical doctrine of soteriology which you were clearly taught while you were a “protestant minister” (indeed, Scott, you may have been more a 'protestant minister' than you ever were a “minister of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ”.) The letter to the autonomous local Churches of Galatia was bold and clear that when a catholic (Roman or Protestant) system preaches a salvation by 12-7-or-2 sacraments, … or any other gospel, let them be accursed. Ergo you and your Roman Catholic System stand accursed in the eyes of the Anabaptist-Henricians-Baptist-et.al. You are not going to reconcile that in any 'irenic' conference. The best you could ever do as a Roman Catholic Priest, is to scoff and ridicule the truth of the matter.

Thirdly, and finally, for brevity's sake, there was present brazen scoff and ridicule when you attempted to convince us that 'sola-scriptura' is just ludicrous tom-foolery and impossible. You not only scoff and ridiculed on this point you insult common intelligence with your regurgitation of Roman Catholic teaching about how we got our Bible. I have addressed this issue in my previous writing and will not relabor it here. These are three major, major and irreconcilable, differences which will never be resolved in your conferences. They will be resolved when every knee shall bow before the King of kings and Lord of lords and that meeting will not bode well for your 'holy potentate' nor your traditions of Rome.

Scott, calling yourself a 'father' in the Roman Catholic System, please consider carefully what I say here “lest haply ye be found to fight against God”. If your Roman Catholic System is right and there is only one “Holy Mother Church” with her one sanctified “High Priest” called 'Pope', and she alone can dispense the sacraments which mystically produce eternal life in a soul, and I defy her absolutely, calling her “The Great Whore” and “Mother of Harlots”, rejecting all her sacraments, all her Popery, all her Roman traditions, refusing to bow to her authority and refusing to call you or any other of her clergy 'father' and refusing any 'priesthood' that you or they claim to have and be, and yeah, refusing any title of 'brother' that you may ascribe here or there, then you and she knows my fate as sealed and solidly taught in her tradition!

Contrariwise, if you, clinging to her holy sacraments as a means of eternal salvation, teaching and holding to her pernicious ways and traditions, asking others to call you 'father' and 'priest', bowing to her statues and statutes, and praying to Mother Mary instead of “Our Father, which art in heaven”, you hiding back in that confessional doling out “Hail Mary” penance assignments with no Biblical repentance, you of all Roman Catholic Priests know the certainty of God's Holy Word and your certain fate. One here is right, one here is dead wrong. There is no middle ground. There is no compromise. There is no 'conciliatory' position. There is no brotherhood between you and me. Some have said of you that “He chose his position, let him be damned with his Roman Catholic System.” I would say to you “While you have breath in this life you may still reject the Roman Traditions of the Mother of Harlots, REPENT, and cling in FAITH to the Lord Jesus Christ, and Him alone. … Choose you this day whom ye will serve. Your eternity hangs on your choosing.”

cc Mr. William Gent, Holy Name of Jesus Parish, 3050 North Highway A1a., Indialantic, Florida 32903

Gospel Light Bible Baptist Church, Pastor Vince Giardino, 4393 Lyell Road, Rochester, NY 14606

Chili Baptist Church, Pastor Rosco, 224 Chestnut Ridge Rd P.O. BOX 26203, Rochester, NY 14626

First Bible Baptist Church, Pastor Strobel, 949 Lincoln Ave., Lockport, NY 14094

1Revelation 17:4-6 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

3This author takes great caution to avoid calling anything 'catholic' a 'Church'. Baptists categorically deny that the Roman Catholic Tradition produced anything even remotely resembling the Church that Jesus built. (The 'Church' is an English rendition, (not a translation or a transliteration) for the NT word 'ecclesia' which is properly defined as: the called together (often misnomered 'called out') assembly of believers in Jesus Christ. Although the assembly is not to be confused with a catholic church, a universal body or an invisible church, there are a few uses of the ecclesia to refer to the people themselves whether assembled on not.)

5From Hermeneutics, by Henry A. Virkler & Karelynne Ayayo, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007) The most important exegetical presuppositions and principles of the 'Patristic Exegesis (100-600 AD) contrasted with Alexandrian school is exposed by Virkler on page 53. There were two primary schools of thought, The Syrian School of Antioch wherein Christ's group of CHRISTIANS (Virkler calls them 'scholars') avoided both 'letterism' of the Jews and the 'allegorisms' of the Alexandrians. They avoided dogmatic exegesis, asserting instead that an interpretation be justified by a study of its grammatical and historical context rather than by an appeal to any other authority. And The School of Alexandria with Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD) wherein Scriptures hide their true meaning. Especially Origen (185-254 AD), Noted successor of Clement, contended that Scripture is one vast allegory in which every detail is symbolic. They completely ignore the literal meanings of Scripture, and seeded, yeah created, Roman Catholic Hermeneutics, from which the world has not yet recovered. There remained no regulative principle to govern exegesis, ergo Catholicism, ergo Alexandrian manuscripts in modernist bibles.

7Devised by Clement of Origen to eliminate Judaism, drawn from Catholic doctrine and developed and defined by reformer John Calvin. Please see an appendix to this article for a chapter from my Masters Thesis that clearly differentiates Dispensational truth from Calvin's Catholic fiction.

8Carol J.H., The Trail of Blood, 1931; Christian, John T., A History of the Baptists, Providence Baptist Ministries, PBM Desktop Publications, Granbury, Texas, 2006. [both volumes obtained in full from http://www.pbministries.org], Mason, Roy, The Church That Jesus Built, Challenge Press, Lehigh Valley Baptist Church, Emmaus PA, 19??.

11Christian, John T., A History of the Baptists, Providence Baptist Ministries, PBM Desktop Publications, Granbury, Texas, 2006. [both volumes obtained in full from http://www.pbministries.org/History/John%20T.%20Christian/vol1 ]

13Anderson, Sir Robert, “The Bible Or The Church”, 2nd ed., London: Pickering and Inglis, n.d., quoted “The Roman Church was molded by Augustine into the form it has ever since maintained. Of all the errors that later centuries developed in her teaching, there is scarcely one that cannot be found in embryo in his writings.”

14The idea that Luther, Zwingly, Calvin, Knox or any other Protestant 'spawned' any Baptists, AnaBaptist, Waldensians, Albigenses, Arnoldists, Henricians, Donatists, Paulicians, or Montanists, who long preceded any of these 'Protesters' to Catholicism, and represent the 1,978 year old perpetuity of Baptist doctrine, especially that of salvation by grace alone and certainly that of believers baptism by immersion and voluntarianism of salvation, ... is preposterous. When Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and Knox finally made their protest against Catholicism and affirmed that salvation is by faith without works or indulgence, they got the grace of God into the proper perspective, ... the perspective that Baptists, by various names previous, had then been preaching for 1,400 years! But these 'protesters' never got the doctrine of baptism even close to the Biblical doctrine, and they continued killing Baptists with their powerful union of Church and state.

15 Ephesians 2:8-9, In 1517 Martin Luther wrote Ninety-Five Theses and refused to retract all of his writings at the demand of Pope Leo X in 1520 and the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Worms in 1521.

16 'Nicolaitans' is the combination of two Greek words, referencing the victor of the people and the destruction of the people, it also contains syntax of the 'laity' which comes from the middle English for non-specialized people. 'Nicolaitans' is thus, by linguistics, a reference to a professional 'clergy' raising victorious and lording over a non-specialized 'laity.' Clearly a thing which the Lord hates.

17 The Lord Jesus Christ's message to the Church at Ephesus said “But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.” His message to the Church at Pergamos was “So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.” (Rev 2:6, 15)

21 Irenic def (also i·ren·i·cal --adj.) Promoting peace; conciliatory. [Greek eirenikos, from eirene, peace.] --irenically adv. …. Conciliatory def con·cil·i·ate v. 1. To overcome the distrust or animosity of; appease. 2. To regain or try to regain (friendship or goodwill) by pleasant behavior. 3. To make or attempt to make compatible; reconcile. --intr. To gain or try to gain someone's friendship or goodwill. See Synonyms at pacify. [Latin concilire, concilit-, from concilium, meeting.] --conciliable adj., -conciliation n. --conciliator n. --conciliatory adj. (American Heritage Dictionary)

22 The 7 Baptist Distinctives are these:

A. Bible as the SOLE Authority of faith and practice.

B. Autonmy of the local independent Churches.

C. Priesthood of all believers.

D. Two Ordinances for the Churches, Baptism and Lord's Supper

E. Individual Soul Liberty

F. Saved, born again, baptized Church members.

G. Two offices of the Churches, Pastor and Deacons.

H. Separation of Church and State.

23This author takes great caution to avoid calling anything 'catholic' a 'Church'. Baptists categorically deny that the Roman Catholic Tradition produced anything even remotely resembling the Church that Jesus built. (The 'Church' is an English rendition, (not a translation or a transliteration) for the NT word 'ecclesia' which is properly defined as: the called together (often misnomered 'called out') assembly of believers in Jesus Christ. Although the assembly is not to be confused with a catholic church, a universal body or an invisible church, there are a few uses of the ecclesia to refer to the people themselves whether assembled on not.)

Biblical Dispensationalism	Reformed Covenant Theology
Has its origin in the Scriptures and a good hermeneutical exegesis. When Jesus says he WILL build his Church, and we have a NEW covenant, Bible believers tend to believe Him over Saint Augustine.	Has its origin in Reformed Theology's attempt to reform Catholic error about the Church and its dismissal of Israel as God's chosen People. This error originated in their Alexandrian philosopher and Church Fathers, Saint Clement, Origen, and Augustine.
Acknowledges the Bible's seven various relationships which God sets up with man.	Supposes a single covenant of grace to cover all time since the fall of man.
Recognizes eight specific covenants which God made with man. (Edenic, Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Promised Land, Davidic, and New)	Fabricates two umbrella covenants to cover all eight of the ones God calls out; a covenant of works in the Garden of Eden and a covenant of grace afterward. A Covenant of Grace, they reason, overshadows each of the lesser covenants.
Depicts the varied salvation history detailed in Scripture wherein presently, in the New Covenant, God provides a no-works salvation by grace through faith.	Supposes a single OT and NT covenant of grace wherein God promises Salvation through faith, and the sinner promises a life of faith and obedience (a conditional covenant)

Some Baptist Insights From the May 19^th 2012 Interactive Conference on Catholicism

The Catalyst for Roman Catholic Error

The Non Catholic Church that Jesus Built

The Final Authority, 'Sola Scriptura' Not Roman Catholic Tradition.

The Conclusion of the Matter

Appendix 1 Conference A Priori Notes and Questions

Appendix 2 A Chapter From My Master Thesis

VI. Reform Theology's Failures in Eschatology.

A. Dispensational Theology vs Covenant Theology

B. Replacement Theology

Letter From A Roman Catholic Priest

Letter To A Roman Catholic Priest

Some Baptist Insights From the May 19th 2012 Interactive Conference on Catholicism

The Catalyst for Roman Catholic Error

The Non Catholic Church that Jesus Built

The Final Authority, 'Sola Scriptura' Not Roman Catholic Tradition.

The Conclusion of the Matter

Appendix 1 Conference A Priori Notes and Questions

Appendix 2 A Chapter From My Master Thesis

VI. Reform Theology's Failures in Eschatology.

A. Dispensational Theology vs Covenant Theology

B. Replacement Theology

Letter From A Roman Catholic Priest

Letter To A Roman Catholic Priest

Some Baptist Insights From the May 19^th 2012 Interactive Conference on Catholicism