In “Debunking Sola Scriptura,” Roman Catholic Alex Jurado apologist (aka Voice of Reason) said:
“The conscience of the Christian can only be bound to whatever was revealed by Jesus Christ to his apostles. Not even the church can bind us to anything that isn’t part of revelation.”
Which sounds very much like Sola Scriptura!
Now then the Church must heare Christs voice: Christs sheepe will heare his voice. Iohn. 10.16. They wil neither heare nor follow a stranger, ver. 5. Christs voice is not to be heard but in the Scriptures: therefore other doctrine must not be receiued of the Church, than is taught and deliuered in the Scriptures.[i] This directly impugneth the popish opinion of unwritten traditions: which they bring in beside, yea contrary to the scriptures, which they hold, not to conteyne all things necessary to saluation. But the Apostle saith otherwise, that the Scriptures are able to make one wise unto saluation: and to make the man of God perfectly prepared to every good worke, 2. Timoth. 3.15,17. If perfect wisedome then bee found in the scriptures, what need is there of any other additions: whatsoeuer is added to that which is perfect, sheweth a defect and is superfluous: Therefore Tertullian saith excellently, Nobis curiositate non est opus post Christum Iesum, nec inquisitione post Euangelium:[ii] Wee need no curious invention after Christ, nor no inquisition after (or beside) the Gospell. If any will search further, he is like a wayfaring man without a guide in a desert country, and as a shippe on the sea without a Pilot: to leave the scripture is a way to error, not a stay from erring as he againe worthily saith. Credunt sine scripturit, vt credant aduersus scripturas: They beleeue without Scripture, that they may beleeue against Scripture.
For better or worse, there are many discussions regarding numbers in the Bible and about the Bible, from the obvious numbers that any reader can read on its surface to the supposed hidden numbers that someone with secret knowledge must reveal to you. A lot of terms, for better or worse, which may not be understood, are thrown around the issue of numbers and the Bible. The issue itself is confusing, as well as the jargon.
Geometric Jargon.
First I will attempt to give definitions of some of these words used often, as well as a few others less commonly used. There may be some differing opinions on how they are used, and how they should be used.
Significant People.
David Bay (“Ivan Panin: Russia’s Gift to Christianity”).
“Don’t just read your Bible – Count It!”
“You and I have to go to numerics in Greek when we wish to prove the correctness of a passage…The amazing design of numeric features or facts discovered in the structure of the Greek text used by Wescott and Hort definitely settles the question concerning the correct reading of the last verse in the Bible. The numerical facts prove that they are right in ending the New Testament with the word ‘saints.’ (Mathematics Prove Holy Scriptures, Karl Sabiers, latest reprint 1969, pp.91-94)
“We are so amazed by the effectiveness of Bible Numerics in proving, or disproving, all textual question that we can only marvel that every Christian college and university does not include a full line of study on this subject. Certainly, no one has stepped forward to challenge Panin’s conclusions, either Christian or secular.”
Chuck Missler (“Preface,” Cosmic Codes: Hidden Messages from the Edge of Eternity).
“There are actually many types of hidden codes in the Bible, and the recently controversial equidistant letter sequences are but one of them. There are those who are irrepressibly enthusiastic about the equidistant letter sequences in the Bible. There are others who dismiss these incidences as simply statistical oddities that will occur in any extensive corpus of text. And there are some who even regard the pursuit of these codes as having a sinister portent.
“However, very few of the popular treatments of this intriguing subject evidence any background in cryptology, with is precisely the science at issue. Having spent a 30-year career in both military and civilian pursuits in advanced communication and information science technologies — including deeply classified ventures in the intelligence field — and, also, having more than three decades in serious Biblical studies, I felt that a broader approach to the subject of hidden messages was appropriate.
“Are there really hidden messages in the Bible? If so, why?
“We will, of course, also explore the controversial equidistant letter sequences, their potential significance, and their latent dangers. And yet the most astonishing codes are of the kind for which you do not need a computer.
“We will explore some remarkable discoveries about the alphabets used in the Biblical texts and the microcodes which reveal some surprising aspects hidden behind the text itself.”
The late Ivan Panin (See “Bible numerics”).
Brandon Peterson (Sealed By the King, page 207).
“So what about these men, Moses and Elijah, do we discover in the numerics of the KJB?
“To begin, as you might expect, they are sevened. It is concealed to those who quickly search their names without careful attention…”
Gail Riplinger (New Age Bible Versions, page 150).
“Acrostic algebra reveals the ashy residue on which the NIV and NASV rest. When you shake down the ‘Lite’ versions like the New American Standard Version (NASV) and the New International Version (NIV), you find some heresies which are common to both (like their common letters ‘N’ and ‘V’, as shown in Step 2.)” …
“When the portions of the true text of the Authorized Version (AV) are removed from these other versions, the sheep’s clothing comes off the hand of the wolf’s skin spells—SIN. (Steps 4 & 5)”[v]
Step 1: (NASV - NIV) - AV = X
Step 2: (NASV -
NIV) - AV = XStep 3: (ASI + NV) - AV = X
Step 4:
ASI + NV- AV = XStep 5: SIN = X
[Note: I have used strike-through, not knowing how to create a slash-through as in New Age Versions.]
Gary Rovarino (Concealed from Christians for the Glory of God, page 3).
“The secrets that God keeps are matters of divine revelation and require a prophet to reveal them. To understand the issue of God’s authoritative Bible we do not need historians, manuscript experts, textual critics, or linguistic scholars but we do need the voice of a prophet. The word of God is this prophetic voice, and God will use it alone to reveal glorious secrets to you or to conceal costly secrets from you.”
Leo Tavares (Geometric Exegesis).
“I showed how the Standard Greek value of ‘TEMPLE’ (from Matthew 12:5) yields the G-base of the Genesis 1:1 Triangle and forms a Star that accommodates Snowflake 373. This now leads to another hidden identity I uncovered in this very same Greek word, which is this: The Ordinal Greek value of ‘TEMPLE’ (Matthew 12:5) = 64. Why is this significant? Because the 64th Triangle is the precise Triangle that accommodates the Star of 925!”
These (above) are just a few promoters of “biblical” numerology, and there exists lots of other “Bible-code” talk in addition to the numerology. The following are samples of titles out on the World Wide Web which sound esoteric and Gnostic.[vi]
There is a wide range of beliefs among the proponents of “biblical numerology.” We supporters of the King James Bible have been “blessed” with an inordinate amount of them – but among these numerology folks are also users and promoters of modern Bibles. Bay and Missler follow the late Ivan Panin, who used numeric methods to try to establish the “correct” Greek text of the New Testament. The range of folks leads from the more circumspect (like Brandon Peterson, who seems primarily interested in supporting the King James Bible) to Gary Rovarino (who seems to now be identifying himself as a modern-day prophet). Nevertheless, there will be no good to come from bogus biblical beliefs. They will not lead to a deeper spiritual journey, but rather into a fog of confusion and unbelief. “Bible codes are contradictory to the doctrine of sufficiency of Scripture” (Creation.com).
Serious Problems.
Conclusion.
Beware of false prophets. Watch for weird witnesses. Do not be deceived. Partake of the good food our Lord has put on the shelf for all to receive.
“The attempt to find mysterious numerical patterns and values in sentences, words, and phrases which have a plain and obvious meaning, whether the meaning is sublime or trite or trivial, whether it is found in the Bible, or in a masterpiece of secular literature, or in the commonplaces of ordinary life, is to say the least a tremendous waste of time and effort; and, what is far more important, resting as it does on principles that are demonstrably false, it may lead to serious and disastrous consequences. A man who rests his faith in the inerrancy of the Bible on Bible Numerics is trusting in a broken reed, which if he leans on it will go into his hand and pierce it.”[viii]
“Sola Scriptura” “Solo Scriptura” “Nuda Scriptura” “Nada Scriptura”
What is Sola Scriptura? Sola Scriptura is a Latin phrase meaning “scripture alone.” It is a Christian bibliological doctrine. It means that the Bible is the sole source of authority (either explicitly or implicitly) for Christian faith and practice. If only the canonical Scriptures are completely inspired and the only encapsulation of all truth, then only the Scriptures are authoritative in a way nothing else is. “The scriptures are the only rule of faith and practice” has been a common way Baptists have stated their belief in the Bible.
On Facebook awhile back, Alexander Thomson wrote “there is a growing attempt to argue that ‘Sola Scriptura’ is not ‘Solo Scriptura; and that resort to Scripture-only proof is ‘Biblicism’.”
A cadre of evangelical theologians today like to contrast “Sola Scriptura” with phrases such as “Solo Scriptura” and “Nuda Scriptura” – or draw a hard line between only and alone (which, of course, are English synonyms). Some of them may merely be trying to correct radical errors of individualism.[i] Others, however, are watering down the strength of Sola Scriptura.[ii]
Jeremy D. Myers, a former pastor who would like to redeem Christians from their biblical faith and practice, defines “Solo Scriptura” thusly: “‘Solo’ Scriptura is the idea that we can learn all matters about faith and practice using the Bible alone, plus nothing else.”
Marty Foord, a lecturer at the Evangelical Theological College in Singapore tells us that “sola scriptura does not mean that the Bible is the only authority for believers.”
Canadian minister Lawson Murray expands the idea, claiming, “Protestant reformers made a distinction between the principles of ‘sola Scriptura’ (Scripture alone) and ‘nuda Scriptura’ (bare Scripture). ‘Sola Scriptura’ has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as the Christian’s supreme authority in all spiritual matters. ‘Nuda Scriptura’ is the idea that the Bible is the Christian’s only theological authority in all spiritual matters. The best transliteration for ‘nuda Scriptura today is ‘solo Scriptura’ (just me and my Bible).”[iii]
Greek Orthodox Archpriest Andrew Stephen Damick (who doesn’t believe in either sola or solo) piles on against the “Protestants,” writing, “Solo scriptura, it is argued, is what most Evangelicals would probably understand as their basic matrix of church authority—the Bible is above everything. Some might say that the Bible is the only authority in church life, while others might say it is the primary authority in church life, but it’s still over everything.” In the end he concludes, “this ‘sola’ vs. ‘solo’ business is really a distinction without a difference” and that “sola” is really “just a better-read version” of “solo.” I sort of agree, though I would change “better-read” to “more sophisticated.”[iv] After receiving a thoroughly “liberal” education, some want a more sophisticated way to explain Sola Scriptura. They elevate themselves above being so simple in belief as to receive the phrase from a children’s song, “the Bible tells me so.” (Cf. Matthew 18:1-4.)
Many “Protestants” now nuance the terminology. They may argue that the Bible is not the “only authority,” just the “supreme authority.” It is not the “sole authority,” but “an authority” (or “final authority”) above other “lesser” authorities.[v]
We do not (and should not) reject the teaching of God’s people in his churches through the years, neither what someone has written in a commentary or theological book, nor how the Holy Spirit has led someone else to understand the passage – but we still stand on “Scripture alone,” “Only Scripture,” and/or any or whatever term means that the only authority for our faith and practice is found in the Bible. The book of Acts extols the virtues of the Bereans, who would not take the word of an apostle, if such word did not agree with Scripture (Acts 17:11). The Bible trumps every Roman pope and every little Baptist “pope.” It is above all of them, the one and only and final authority. We do not use the Scriptures as our “sole resource” – but it is the “sole recourse.” There is no higher court of appeal.
If we do not believe that the Scriptures, inspired by God, throughly furnishes us with all we need for every good work, including doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16-17), then we have gone over to the other side![vi]
Beware of the new nuancers. The nuancing of the term “Sola Scriptura” is an admission that the term is not “sufficient” and may even suggest that those nuancing the term do not really believe the Scriptures themselves are sufficient! In the end, the fight against “Sola Scriptura” or “Solo Scriptura” may leave us with “Nada Scriptura.”[vii]
2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
General comments on verses 16 and 17:
The fact and purpose of inspiration is to profit the man of God in giving him all he needs to know, believe, and do. The Bible tells us what to believe and how to live. Doctrine (belief), Reproof (direct blame or censure), Correction (making accurate the inaccurate), Instruction (informing the understanding, conveying knowledge) – what is right and wrong to believe (doctrine, reproof), what is right and wrong to do (correction, instruction in righteousness), all four to know. Cf. Matthew 7:15-16 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits... Both their forecast and fruit is false.
The Bible is inspired, preserved, and sufficient. If the Bible were the only book you had, you are able to find every truth you need for salvation and for living the Christian life.
Correction indicates there is a standard, and that a standard is needed.
We see a standard in the shorter word “correct.” As a noun, it means free from error; accurate; an acknowledged or accepted standard.
Let God be true, but every man a liar, Romans 3:4.
Every word of God is pure, Proverbs 30:5.
We live in an age when men generally – and even professed Christians – are more concerned about correcting the Bible than about the Bible correcting them. A serious problem with the status of Bible reading in the United States – after the lack of Bible reading – is that we live in a time and with a state of mind such that if you don’t like what you read in the Bible today, you can buy a new version tomorrow. Additionally “everyday” Christians have been flooded with the kind of research that was once mostly limited to higher and lower critics in the dusty musty halls of academia. Notes and brackets cast doubt on the text. Those who don’t know the difference between majuscules and magistrates, minuscules and miniscules, or uncials and uncles, think they have become the arbiters of the text of the Bible. On the alleged authority of the scholarship somewhere behind the notes in their Bibles, these readers often choose what they like and reject what they don’t like.
Correction begins with wrong and brings it to right.
As a verb, “correct” means to point out or mark the errors in, to remove the errors or faults from. The noun “correction” refers to the act of pointing out and removing errors from, substituting the right for what is wrong. Webster says “the act of bringing back from error or deviation to a just standard.” It is used in Proverbs in connection with the training of children (Proverbs 22:15; 23:13; 29:17) and more broadly of wrongdoers.
Proverbs 15:10 Correction is grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: and he that hateth reproof shall die. Cf. Proverbs 7:22.
Often, we tend to think of correction as only the pointing out of what is wrong. We may think of a teacher “correcting” her students’ answers by marking them wrong. It must begin there, but should not end there.
Ephesians 4 excellently illustrates this principle – put off and put on. Don’t do this, but rather do that. 4:14-15 (not tossed about, but grow in truth and love); 22-24 (put off old man, put on new man); 25 (put away lying, speak the truth); 28 (steal no more, but labour); 29 (no corrupt communication, communication that is good); 31-32 (put away this, and do this instead).
Proverbs 3:12 for whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.
If all have sinned, we need correction.
If the Bible is true, we need correction.
If there is a God, we need correction.
What is Sola Scriptura?
Sola Scriptura is the belief that the Bible alone is the supreme, final, only infallible source and authority for all matters of Christian faith and practice. Sola scriptura comes from Latin, meaning Scripture alone. The Bible is authoritative for the faith and practice of churches and in the lives of Christians. Often in Baptist documents we speak of Scripture as the “only rule of faith and practice” rather than using the Latin terminology Sola Scriptura.[i] Our church believes and declares “the sufficiency of Scripture for all matters of faith and practice.” Here are some other examples:
First London Baptist Confession, 1644/1646
“The rule of this knowledge, faith, and obedience, concerning the worship and service of God, and all other Christian duties, is not mans inventions, opinions, devices, laws, constitutions, or traditions unwritten whatsoever, but only the word of God contained in the Canonical Scriptures.”
Second London Baptist Confession, 1677/1689
“The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving Knowledge, Faith and Obedience…” (also Philadelphia Baptist Confession, 1742)
Principles of Faith of the Sandy Creek Association, 1758/1816
“[We believe] That Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the word of God, and only rule of faith and practice.”
The New Hampshire Confession of Faith, 1833
“We believe that the Holy Bible…is…the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried.”
What is the problem?
In a recent blog post, Kent Brandenburg addressed a problem of Christians asserting a Sola Scriptura position of biblical authority, while not having the ability to provide scriptural support for the assertion. In “God-Breathed Scripture & Sola Scriptura,” Simon Turpin notes this same problem, while suggesting some who have held it historically may now be positioned to abandon it.
“…many Christians simply pay lip service to this doctrine without being able to defend or define what it actually is.”
“Nevertheless, many Christians today struggle to defend this vital doctrine while others say that Sola Scriptura is not even taught in the Bible.”
Both Brandenburg and Turpin point to scriptural proofs of this doctrine. Bible-believing Christians need to be aware of them and ready to provide an answer for their believing Sola Scriptura, that Scripture is and should be our only rule of faith and practice.
What is the proof?
The Bible is its own proof of itself. What does the Bible teach about itself? Does the Bible teach “Sola Scriptura”? I submit that the teaching can be found in the following Scriptures, as well as deduced from others.
Scripture is inspired and complete. 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
The source of the Bible is God. It provides completely for all good works – doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction.
Nothing can be added or subtracted from Scripture. Deuteronomy 12:32; Jude 1:3; Revelation 22:18-19.
“What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.”
“…earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”
“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”
The Christian walks and pleases God by faith, whose ultimate source is Scripture. Hebrews 11:6; Romans 10:17.
“But without faith it is impossible to please him…”
“So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
The Scripture from God provides all things that pertain to life and godliness. 2 Peter 1:3, 20-21.
“…according as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue…knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”
Scripture provides the ultimate testimony of Jesus Christ. John 5:39.
“Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.”
The commandment of God, via Scripture, trumps human tradition. Mark 7:7-8; Matthew 15:9.[ii]
“Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men…”
Man lives by the words from the mouth of God, which we know from Scripture. Matthew 4:4.
“…It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”
Religious doctrinal teaching must be tested by Scripture. Acts 17:11.
“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”
What must we do?
Let God be true, but every man a liar. The Bible is the only inspired infallible teaching available to mankind.
In his book Commenting and Commentaries, Charles H. Spurgeon wrote, “It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others.”
Sola Scriptura does not mean we cannot or do not consider and be helped by the words taught by other Christians, written in a book or commentary, found in creeds and confessions, and so forth. It means we consider and judge these sources by and under the authority of the word of God, as per Acts 17:11.
Neither archaeological discoveries, church tradition, decisions of church councils, popish pronouncements, historical evidences, human philosophies – nor even Baptist creeds and confessions – can be allowed to override the explicit commands and approved examples of the word of God found in Scripture. Let not man prevail or put asunder. The Bible, because it is God’s word, must reign Supreme.
Let us be able to define Sola Scriptura, defend it – and also live it with the Scripture directing our lives and actions as Christians, and establishing what our churches do and do not do. To the law and to the testimony.[iii]
Sprinkled as a Presbyterian infant, John Allen Gano studied the subject and mode of baptism and came out a Baptist. Benjamin Miller, pastor of the Scotch Plains Baptist Church, advised Gano to let God’s word and Spirit direct him, and if that did not make him a Baptist, Miller himself did not wish to do so.
For some reasons, I wished to join that of the Presbyterian; and as a communion season was approaching, I expected some examination. I took the Westminster confession of faith, and the Bible, with a view honestly to profess them. The doctrines appeared thoroughly grounded, and perfectly consonant with the Bible, until I came to the doctrine of baptism. The proofs there adduced, fell far short of my expectations, and appeared foreign to the point. I then took the Bible, especially the New Testament, and searched it for months together; and enquired for, and obtained all the disputes, especially in favour of infant baptism, that I could hear of; I, however, could find nothing that seemed to me to amount to a divine warrant. I went to a presbytery on purpose to converse with a Mr. Tennant, or rather to be instructed by him. A favorable opportunity presented, and from my attachment to the man, and a deference to his opinion, and the confidence he appeared to have of the justice of infant baptism, I was induced to embrace his sentiments. But on my road home, it turned in my mind, that this was not the way I had obtained the hope of salvation, or consonant with my former resolutions, to make the word of God my only rule of faith and practice. Let Mr. Tennant be ever so good a man, his belief, is not a di vine warrant for me to act upon. Before I got home, I was determined to try farther to see for myself.
Soon after, Mr. Miller, a baptist minister, inquiring of me why I did not profess Christ openly, and join some church, I told him my difficulty. He replied, that God’s word and spirit would direct me, and if I at tended to them impartially, they would remove my doubts; and if they did not make me a Baptist, he did not wish to do it. This conversation led me to enquire if I had done so. I was soon convinced I had not; but had only searched for something to confirm me in the doctrine of infant baptism, which I had received from my education. I really think, that if any person was ever induced to take the word of God in hand, with a fervent desire to be free from all prepossessions, to see the truth as it really was, and to let the Bible be their guide, I was. A number of inconsistencies perplexed me in my infant baptism, and Providence gave me an opportunity to disclose some of them. I happened to spend an evening with Mr. Tennant, and some of my Presbyterian friends, when I was drawn into the conversation, from the supposition that I was the person who conversed. with him at the presbytery. He asked me, if I was yet satisfied, or wished to converse farther on the subject. I told him I did so, provided it would be agreeable to bring in all my objections; with which he complied. I then related to him the thoughts with which I left him, and those which occurred after, and mentioned, that after conversing with him, I had an opportunity of attending the baptism of a child, when the minister, in his prayer, uttered these words: “Lord bless so much of this element as is used in this ordinance, the washing away of original pollution,” which struck me very forcibly; he however condemned it. I also remarked to him, that the minister in speaking, called it a seal of the covenant of grace, which I told him appeared to be saying too much of any external ordinance. That the blood of Christ was the seal, and that He also, in my view, was the covenant; and that God’s word and spirit applying to our consciences was a seal. I wished, if I was wrong, that he would put me right. I also mentioned, that I had my doubts, whether baptism was a substitute for circumcision, both being in use at the same time; and even ought to be, as “the cutting off of the Messiah,” and the shedding of his blood, was pointed at in that ordinance till it was accomplished; that the same subjects relating to both were useless, if one was the substitute for the other.—Their subjects were different, and the end and design of the ordinances appeared to me to be different. I mentioned these, and other difficulties, with a sincere desire of being instructed; but I had neither my doubts confirmed or removed. I was however much pleased with the goodness and candour of the man, who closed with this address: “Dear young man, if the devil cannot destroy your soul, he will endeavour to destroy your comfort and usefulness; and therefore do not be always doubting in this matter. If you cannot think as I do, think for yourself.” I then endeavoured to learn my duty from the new testament, as being a new testament ordinance, and found that it was from Heaven, had its authority from God, and became binding by a positive command. The characters of those, who were to be baptized were, disciples, penitent believers, and such as had received the holy ghost. I could not find by any of the apostles’ practice, that any others were encouraged or permitted, unless they intruded as Simon Magus did. And the apostles declared him to have no part or lot in that matter. The end and design was to fulfil righteousness—to answer a good conscience. All things considered, I could see no ground for infant baptism in the new testament. I next turned I my attention to the mode, which appeared so plain in the example of Christ, in the places where he administered, and the reasons why he administered in those places, insomuch, that I was soon established in the belief, that immersion was the only mode, which could be gathered from the new testament; and with this mode my conscience pressed me to comply. I then addressed my father on the subject. I told him “his constant religious care over me entitled him to all the gratitude I was capable of rendering, yet I must beg his indulgence. I believed he was conscientious in having me baptized in my infancy, as he had supposed, and I had tried to suppose, it right. But, on the whole, I was convinced it was my duty to be baptised by immersion; and that it relied on the profession of my own faith, if the church would receive me.” He replied, “that what he did, he thought right, and in the discharge of his own conscience. If I was conscientious, (and he was thankful to God, that he had reason to believe I was, from his observance of my searching the scriptures and the time I had taken therein, and the books I had read, I had his full and free consent; and it was my duty to make profession. That whenever I went to offer myself, he would go with me, and give the church his consent, and answer any inquiries respecting my life, if they chose to make any; and that he would go and see me baptized.”— This he did; and there were a number baptized with me. I believe from this time, my father changed his opinion on the subject, although he never confessed it, until a few months before his death; which happened in the eighty-seventh year of his age.
Biographical Memoirs of the late Rev. John Gano, of Frankfort, (Kentucky.) Formerly of the City of New-York, John Gano, Stephen Gano, New York, NY: Southwick and Hardcastle, 1806, pp. 21-27
