An interesting read....

Kelly,

You wrote, "WOW. You typed all that out? Now I feel bad for not reading it."

Why are you bumping this thread to the top? Do you think that it is reasonable for us to respond to you when you do not read our responses? Should we read what you have to write when you admit that you are disinterested in what we have to write? Extend the courtesy that you expect, or lower your expectations.

 

Your post was a bunch of quotes from an old dead guy.

What did you expect me to say?

I suppose my expectations are too high. I expected intellectual integrity from your end, which incorporates and recognizes the value of Patristic witness and exegesis. I recognize now that you - in your plight to uphold your sectarian and a-historical reading of Scripture - would rather classify such witness as "a bunch of quotes from an old dead guy". I would too, if I disagreed with him and would rather he just go away so that I could have my way.

G.K. Chesterton (another old dead guy) once wrote, "Tradition may be defined as an extension of the franchise. Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death."

 

His input has value, but by no means is his input gospel truth. Do you believe everything Origen did (I just use him because I believe I saw you quote him somewhere)? Are you a universalist?

God Bless You,
Neal

P.S. I am not really defending 3AM, I really haven't read much in this thread so I don't really know what is being discussed. Just throwing out my 2 cents worth.

 

Hi Neal,

You asked, "Do you believe everything Origen did (I just use him because I believe I saw you quote him somewhere)?"

Do I believe that what is said of him is true or do I believe everything that he believed?

The answer to both of these questions is "no".

You asked, "Are you a universalist?"

No, I am not.

 

So you do believe that the Early Church Fathers could get some things wrong?

God Bless,
Neal

 

Hi Neal,

You asked, "So you do believe that the Early Church Fathers could get some things wrong?"

Of course I do.

The Church Fathers are not infallible.. but it does not follow to reject them wholesale. For instance, when every witness points to baptismal regeneration, I would think that we have a consensus that is worth quite a few witness points (even among the martyrs like Justin), wouldn't you?

 

I have never said that. If you can show me where, I will gladly recant. I hope you weren't really implying that I was saying that.

My next question, how do you judge the truthfulness of their views? Majority rule? Or is there some other standard that we can use?

As for baptismal regeneration, if a work was what truly saved us, I could believe it. As it is, it is our faith, bottom line. But true faith will produce good works. I have not study the issue at length, so I am not really in position to discuss in depth. However, I will ease your mind. I have been baptized out of obedience and so if it is the baptism that regenerates, then I am okay.

In Christ,
Neal

 

Hi neal,

You asked, "how do you judge the truthfulness of their views?

By the authority of the apostolic teaching office.

As for baptismal regeneration, if a work was what truly saved us, I could believe it. As it is, it is our faith, bottom line. But true faith will produce good works.

You're mingling two concepts. One is an oath and one is an act of charity. Baptism is not a "good work" as in an act of charity flowing from faith. That would be feeding widows, housing orphans, visiting the sick, nursing the wounded, etc. Baptism is an oath by which we enter into a covenant.

I have not study the issue at length, so I am not really in position to discuss in depth.

Protestant early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, "From the beginning baptism was the
universally accepted rite of admission to the Church ... As regards its significance, it was always held to convey the remission of sins ... we descend into the water ‘dead’ and come out again ‘alive’; we receive a white robe which symbolizes the Spirit ... the Spirit is God himself dwelling in the believer, and the resulting life is a re-creation. Prior to baptism ... our heart was the abode of demons ... [but] baptism supplies us with the weapons for our spiritual warfare" (Early Christian Doctrines, 193–194).

Here are some useful resources:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Born_Again_in_Baptism.asp
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/borna.htm
http://www.catholic-convert.com/writings/bornagain.html

 

Which I do not acknowledge. Thus we will not agree. My ultimate standard is Scripture, which is God-breathed, and yours is in a position for men.

Thank-you for the info, but you should know by now that quoting a 'Protestant' doesn't necessarily go too far with me. I will look into it more when I get time someday.

God Bless,
Neal

P.S. I haven't forgot you other reply on the other thread, I just haven't had time to get back to it.

 

Hi Neal,

You wrote, "My ultimate standard is Scripture, which is God-breathed, and yours is in a position for men."

It may seem to you that your ultimate standard is Scripture, but in reality, your ultimate standard is Scripture as interpreted through the interpretive framework and the interpretive lens of Neal. You cannot escape your own eyes when you look out upon the horizon, colored as the horizon is by your own subjective bias.

I witness Justin Martyr, a pagan convert to Christianity and a martyr for Jesus Christ, and a whole host of prominent early Christians who spoke for the universal practice of the Church in their time, and I see John 3:5 being explicitly referred to as "baptism". This is what we call the "rule of faith"; it's an interpretive framework by which we read Scripture in the light of apostolic tradition. We do not divorce Scripture from its lived expression in the Church and fool ourselves in saying, "Oh, but I'm going to look to Scripture, not tradition!" In doing so, you are placing yourself in a position to nullify the very word of God by misinterpreting it according to your own ideas, not the ideas of the apostolic church.

Thank-you for the info, but you should know by now that quoting a 'Protestant' doesn't necessarily go too far with me.

Protestant or no Protestant, JND Kelley is a prominent historian of the early Church alongside Henry Chadwick; for that very reason, his historical account holds intellectual weight.

 

As neither can you. You chose to be a RC. You are responsible for that. I am responsible for me and my convictions. The best I can do is to pray for God to reveal those things that I am wrong with and lead me into His truth, as in fact I do. And I feel no inkling that the RCC is totally His truth. So I make a choice based on what I feel God is leading me to do, as you did by choosing to join the RCC. You can try to make it look like I am some cavalier rebel, but I am doing the same thing that you have done and continue to do. You just choose something different because you feel that God has led you to that. I do what I feel God has led me to do. I have read some books by Catholics and truly looked at some of their claims. Thus far I am not moved in any other direction. If anything, I am strengthened in my faith. So call it what you will and try to paint the picture however you want, but I am doing the same thing you are. You have chosen something different. What you choose is not binding on me.

God Bless You,
Neal

 

Neal,

Well don't trust JND Kelly. Get it straight from the horses mouth. You can download the ECF in several places on the net right on to your very own PC and do your own anlysis right in the comfy cozieness of your very own home that he did. And alot easier than he did. It's searchable. Try this. Search for the words water and spirit together and see if you can find anyone who did not view Jesus words in John 3 (born again) with Baptism. Find me one! Let's say in the first 500 years of Christianity. Here are a couple sites that let you do just that.

http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/fathers/
http://www.redbay.com/newbies/mag/ecfwh.htm

Do you think the what's right for you isn't right for me thing will be of much use in the end? Keep praying that God leads you to all truth (with an open heart) and so will I (for you). The only way you will know that you have it is if he has given you the grace to see it. (blessed are you Simon Bar Jona. For flesh and blood hath not revealed this to you but my Father in heaven).

Blessings

 

See, I do not see the ECFs as infallible. So if they said it, fine. I DO NOT have time to study the issue and it really is not a priority now. I have been baptized, so I have no worries.

Are you telling me that I am not responsible for my choices? It would be easy for me to simply appeal to the church and try to blame them for what I believe. But I can't. I am a personal being. Ultimately, I am responsible for me. You are responsible for you. There is absolutely no way I could in good conscience I could agree with many of the RCCs teachings because I see them as wrong. I am sorry that you don't like that. Am I saying that what is right for me is okay and what is right for you is okay? No. I believe in one truth. However, I am not convinced that the RCC has that one truth. So, you see, there is really nothing else I can do personally. If I was moved otherwise, I would subscribe to the beliefs of the RCC in a heartbeat. But I am not. Take it or leave it, it really doesn't matter. Just don't play like I am the only one here making personal decisions, each of you have as well. You simply chose something different and then appeal to it as your authority. I choose not to acknowledge your authority as mine. But we both make choices. You choose to accept what the church teaches you and choose to believe that it is THE truth. I choose not to. See, we really are not that different, despite how some here try to slant the picture. When we each stand before the Almighty one day we will have to give an account for OURSELVES. I can't blame my wrong beliefs on anyone else. If the RCC has got some things wrong you won't be able to blame them, because you are responsible for yourself and what you accept as truth. I would appreciate it if some would stop acting like I am being some rebel that has set up my mind as the test for truth. Bottom line, we all do. We have to choose what we believe. Just because you appeal to some authority in the RCC that does not take away your personal responsibility and the fact that you have to choose with your mind to accept what the RCC teaches as truth.

In the Glorious Lord Jesus Christ,
Neal

[ July 07, 2003, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]

 

"See, I do not see the ECFs as infallible. So if they said it, fine."

Neither do I, but as a witness on this issue the testimony that they give is most powerful. Where were the people who believed as Baptists do today that being born again meant declaring Jesus Christ as PLS and saying a sinners prayer. Or did everyone have it wrong, in which case the gates of hell prevailed and Jesus was a liar.


I agree that we are all responsible for our choices.
I don't blame the Church for what I believe.
I don't believe that any amount of studying will help you come to the truth if it has not been revealed to you.
I don't believe you are a rebel of any sort though I don't believe that you have recieved the fullness of the truth yet and pray that you will. That is the gist of my post to you. I pray that you recieve the grace.


God bless you Neal

 

Thank-you for clarifying, Thess. I took some of what you said the wrong way. I apologize.

God Bless You,
Neal