quote:

---

I am the one here with the outside the box scholarly insights of RCism here.

---

Your arrogance is amazing. What qualifies "outside the box scholarly inights of RCism"?
I will be handing in two papers to my assessors at Oxford tomorrow - one on Roman Catholic liturgical devlopment and the other on conciliar ecclesiology.

1) I'm not a Roman Catholic
2) You're not the only student of theology

You certainly know your convictions, but you need to keep such ignorant attitudes to yourself, buddy.

Notafraid,

(the thumb up is deserved for the clarity of this post)

quote:

---

That it was too far is debatable, but do you know their reasons for doing this?

---

One, IMO, is that alot of it can indeed be worked out when consulting the scripture. In some places, it differed from what had originally been worked out, regarding the meaning of same. That's the most honest way to put the end result.

quote:

---

I understand where you are coming form on this, but I would not put me exactly in the same category, especially with my appeals to early Church fathers. I agree that there was an abandonment of some early church things, but there were also some errors early on as well.

---

I also would not put you exactly in the same category. And regarding the early Church fathers. It more has to do with where some of the early lines were drawn and the conception going into the canon (not saying I know it either). And errors early on are alot trickier - calls for great caution in postulating.

quote:

---

When I think of foundation, I think of that on which the church his built, the Apostles. If your argument is about some transfer of power, and keys to an earthly lineage, I do believe that, some of those views were rightly abandoned.

---

Excellent point of clarity! We can honestly disagree on that point, and it won't derail.

BQ Mole Man.

quote:

---

Your arrogance is amazing.

---

Debatable. I can not undo my own experiences, nor can I rightly judge myself according to the same standards of those who do so according to their own ignorance of my experience.

quote:

---

What qualifies "outside the box scholarly inights of RCism"?

---

Well, my conflict with it for the past 5 years, as well as my study of it. I do not equate myself necessarily at the level of my own contemporaries, but years of continual debate with Tuag and Physics96, have had much to do with my understanding. That they are both mid-level and up and coming RC scholars, that this helped serve them as their own primary catalysts into their own careers, or at least for one of them hobnobbing with and contributing to todays RC theological inteligencia is something that is not meaningless. That I was for years the primary iron to their iron, if not their arch-nemesis is undisputed by those who know of it. I used to be afraid that I had helped to create monsters, but the reverse is also true, that I myself have learned much, and studied much. I do not speak of these things, and perhaps that might be why I am misunderstood by many RCs on this board, but I am amazed at the approach of many of them. My opinions are no empty posturing, or arrogance, but a natural and honest take, based in experience and much diverse and *tested* knowledge.

quote:

---

I will be handing in two papers to my assessors at Oxford tomorrow - one on Roman Catholic liturgical devlopment and the other on conciliar ecclesiology.

---

Well, good providence with them. I hope you do well.

quote:

---

1) I'm not a Roman Catholic

---

Did I say you were?

quote:

---

2) You're not the only student of theology

---

Did I say I was?

quote:

---

You certainly know your convictions, but you need to keep such ignorant attitudes to yourself, buddy.

---

You are assuming that my attitude stems from ignorance. I am still not sure that you established any kind of evidence of ignorance on my part with which to say this.

Let me ask you this, is your point that I be healed if this ignorance that you speak of, or is it simply to condemn?

There seems to be some sense of hatefulness in your comments. Not sure if it really there are or not, but I would say that our knowledge of Christianity is only as useful as it applies in our lives. That is the true power of Christianity, that the heart is addressed. Agreed?



[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 4/21/2005 3:00p).]

Titan,

quote:

---

(the thumb up is deserved for the clarity of this post)

---

Only you would give a thumbs up for the “clarity” of a post… Now, I wonder, do I infer from this that my other posts have been so obtuse that Titan finally found one that was clear and sensible, and therefore could not contain his enthusiasm?

quote:

---

One, IMO, is that alot of it can indeed be worked out when consulting the scripture. In some places, it differed from what had originally been worked out, regarding the meaning of same. That's the most honest way to put the end result.

---

Some primary source marital for stuff like this comes to mind particularly a letter of Calvin to an RCC official defending the Reformation.

quote:

---

I also would not put you exactly in the same category. And regarding the early Church fathers. It more has to do with where some of the early lines were drawn and the conception going into the canon (not saying I know it either). And errors early on are alot trickier - calls for great caution in postulating.

---

Keep in mind too that early on, even opinions on many of the things you may be thinking of were not quite so hardened as they were later. I’ll bet I can give you writings from Church fathers that counter whatever you might be thinking of. How is that for opening myself up to be wrong

quote:

---

Excellent point of clarity! We can honestly disagree on that point, and it won't derail.

---

To add to my original quote … I would argue that if there is a lineage, then it is spiritual and therefore too organic to be contained in and limited to an earthly hierarchy.

quote:

---

Debatable. I can not undo my own experiences, nor can I rightly judge myself according to the same standards of those who do so according to their own ignorance of my experience.

---

But you can try on humility and see if it fits rather than resorting to condescending remarks like "shill" and "parrot". Though you may think yourself to be the most experienced, iron-tested theologian on this board, you don't have to wear such a conviction on your sleeve.

You're right to exalt titan for being learned, from which we can all learn. We can also all learn from titan's magnanimity and modesty. I posit that this includes you.

PurdueAg01,

quote:

---

But you can try on humility and see if it fits rather than resorting to condescending remarks like "shill" and "parrot".

---

Now the term shill was misapplied, and I apologized to Redroc for that. I simply misunderstood the meaning of the word. That was also a specific situation where he was displaying a wall of rhetoric, and unwilling to listen. As far as the parroting, well , if it was wrong, then show me where it was wrong. When someone posts links and more links, and simply argues what they find on other sites from other thinkers, they are parroting.

quote:

---

Though you may think yourself to be the most experienced, iron-tested theologian on this board, you don't have to wear such a conviction on your sleeve.

---

I would not use those words. Part of my fault is that while I knew what I knew, the explanation for my specific take on certain things came out in incomplete explanations that perhaps seemed like a cocky attitude. I was conflicted not to say much, but even saying a little about why sounds cocky. I will say again that if I know any truth, it is by the grace of God. My knowledge and experience is not something that I can simply divorce myself from. I don’t even really feel comfortable talking about this. That is why I am conflicted. I know what I know, but I don’t like to tell people “I know this, because”. I believe I have worked some thought out on certain things about the RCC that are unique to me, and seem to hold up. It is impossible therefore for me to consider myself ignorant of it.

quote:

---

You're right to exalt titan for being learned, from which we can all learn. We can also all learn from titan's magnanimity and modesty. I posit that this includes you.

---

I know him personally and have sat down with him dozens of times over the years. I consider him a good friend, if not a more distant friend more recently. I feel I know him pretty well. He is modest about certain things, and that is all I will say on that subject…

I appreciate your addressing me as a person in this post. Lets try to keep the rhetoric to the arguments, and not against people.



[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 4/21/2005 3:18p).]

Notafraid, Purdue,

First,

quote:

---

You're right to exalt titan for being learned, from which we can all learn. We can also all learn from titan's magnanimity and modesty. I posit that this includes you.

---

No, do not so exhalt. I would be lying if I didn't say it tickled some egotistical delusion or pleasure, but I know spirtually and mentally that it is wrong. To attempt to emulate some of the magnnamity or benefit of the doubt stuf, that's more advisable and can agree to.

quote:

---

Only you would give a thumbs up for the “clarity” of a post… Now, I wonder, do I infer from this that my other posts have been so obtuse that Titan finally found one that was clear and sensible, and therefore could not contain his enthusiasm?

---

It wasn't that, it was the plain stating of position. Not that it has been concealed, its just not the angle touched on.

quote:

---

Keep in mind too that early on, even opinions on many of the things you may be thinking of were not quite so hardened as they were later. I’ll bet I can give you writings from Church fathers that counter whatever you might be thinking of. How is that for opening myself up to be wrong

---

I know you could, and vice-versa. I am trying to draw attention more to whether the grounds for doubting the less "RCistic" and more "ante-Nicene" trends are really warranted? Is TULIP really what you see, for example, even if monarchial papism also proves wrong. And again, it depends on which Protestant group.

quote:

---

To add to my original quote … I would argue that if there is a lineage, then it is spiritual and therefore too organic to be contained in and limited to an earthly hierarchy.

---

It may be so, but I would argue that there is strong indication the early relatively stable church did feel there was an earthly institution, indeed an indispensable arbiter of it.

quote:

---

I believe I have worked some thought out on certain things about the RCC that are unique to me, and seem to hold up. It is impossible therefore for me to consider myself ignorant of it.

---

I have a similar view about the Catholic Church before it was RCC and EOC, and the Protestant Reformation raised to try to get some of that back on track.

From them learned not least that we can rely on and trust only in God for salvation, and indeed, must lose sight of the fact of the implication of His promises.

Notafraid did apologize to Redstone by the way, explicitly for the shill comment. I had always though a shill was the used-car type myself.

Here is one thread that I think demonstrates what Purdue is saying - and I agree totally.

notafriad has apologized for calling me a "shill," which I appreciate, but please notafraid if you look at this thread again consider how you can be counterproductive - and by that I mean not conducive to having people respond with points of religious content or Bible verses or quotes from other Christian leaders.

http://texags.com/main/forum.reply.asp?topic_id=431158&page=1&forum_id=15

Titan,

quote:

---

It wasn't that, it was the plain stating of position. Not that it has been concealed, its just not the angle touched on.

---

Oh… Ok, now you are saying that I am plain! Gosh, and after you were just praised by others!

quote:

---

I know you could, and vice-versa. I am trying to draw attention more to whether the grounds for doubting the less "RCistic" and more "ante-Nicene" trends are really warranted? Is TULIP really what you see, for example, even if monarchial papism also proves wrong. And again, it depends on which Protestant group.

---

TULIP was just a specific response offered by “Calvinists” after Calvin’s death to the 5 points of Armianism. The mistake that people make is they assume to define Calvinism strictly by those 5 points, but that is a mistake. While Calvin was alive, he was known even by his opponents as “The Theologian” , but also as “The theologian of the Holy Spirit” . It is that His doctrines were build more off of the doctrine of Union with Christ, rather than strictly off of Justification as people these days assume. (The New Perspective people build much of their case on that) Even 4 or the 5 points of TULIP could be well argued by statements from Augustine and Orange, the 5th (Limited Atonement) more so by Aquinas.

quote:

---

It may be so, but I would argue that there is strong indication the early relatively stable church did feel there was an earthly institution, indeed an indispensable arbiter of it.

---

Well with that choice of words even I might agree with. Careful words can bring unity by fuzzy definition, as Rome knows full well. Indeed, it makes up the backbone of the modern ecumenism movement.

quote:

---

I have a similar view about the Catholic Church before it was RCC and EOC, and the Protestant Reformation raised to try to get some of that back on track.

From them learned not least that we can rely on and trust only in God for salvation, and indeed, must lose sight of the fact of the implication of His promises.

Notafraid did apologize to Redstone by the way, explicitly for the shill comment. I had always though a shill was the used-car type myself.

---

Used car type? … well then, maybe I did mean it after all! Just kidding!

Redstone,


I already stated that I was a little frustrated with you there, and my response was to your 4:11p, 4/14/2005 post where you first accused me of saying Jack Chick type of stuff and not knowing what I was talking about. That kind of personal insult stuff is where it started on that thread. You are the one who rudely called me out, and as I showed, you were the one who didn’t know what you were talking about.

As I proved, the stuff I wrote DID come directly from the language of Trent, straight from my memory of it, because I have studied it. Something YOU had not done.

The problem is that you could not even give even an inch when you were wrong about me, and that is what will hold you back to being just a parroter of the latest rhetoric, and poster of the links of others thoughts.

Thusfar you refuse to see your own faults, or admit to being wrong. I would suggest that you have got some issues, and they are just coming out in conflict. What is counterproductive is mindless parroting of the party line, and refusing to see your own faults, or when your own position is wrong. I truely beleive that if you judged me as liberally as you judged yourself, you would have no problems with me.

Why don’t you try focusing on not making stuff so much about the other person, personalities and such, and keep it to doctrines and the argument it’s self. There is where things truely go astray and become counterproductive.



[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 4/21/2005 5:43p).]

quote:

---

Did I say you were?


Did I say I was?

---

I know you are but what am I?

Infinity.

Arch nemesis, indeed.

Ronnie

quote:

---

I know you are but what am I?

Infinity.

Arch nemesis, indeed.

---

Was that corny? I have never claimed that I was a great writer, or great thinker! Perhaps “chief adversary” would have been better… I don’t know…


[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 4/21/2005 10:21p).]

Okay. We'll just disagree about this little, insignificant conflict.

No one else cares, which is good, but they can judge for themselves if they wish. I have yet to be "called out" by anyone but yourself, and as I stated on other threads, if I ever "cross a line" by all means highlight and link, because I am open to it.

Notafraid, I have given your posts much thought and much prayer. I would thoughtfully ask you to consider something: When posting about Christianity, contemplate this: Consider our Lord Jesus Christ's humility, his throne in Jerusalem was a donkey. Your posts would be better accepted if you would witness in Charity. Mark's wife

Gig'em, Ole Army Class of '70

Redstone

quote:

---

Okay. We'll just disagree about this little, insignificant conflict.

No one else cares, which is good, but they can judge for themselves if they wish. I have yet to be "called out" by anyone but yourself, and as I stated on other threads, if I ever "cross a line" by all means highlight and link, because I am open to it.

---

It’s not insignificant Redstone. Here is the deal… You need to look at what the Lord is doing with you. These conflicts are not all about your opponent. If you will look, there are things that you can learn.

Mark Fairchild’s wife,

quote:

---

Notafraid, I have given your posts much thought and much prayer. I would thoughtfully ask you to consider something: When posting about Christianity, contemplate this: Consider our Lord Jesus Christ's humility, his throne in Jerusalem was a donkey. Your posts would be better accepted if you would witness in Charity. Mark's wife

---

First off, I appreciate your kind and thoughtful post. I do wonder, if you were not a Roman Catholic, would you have posted your post to me at all. Sometimes in debates between two opposing systems, the people in those debates posture. The thing is, that we tend to only see the faults of the person on the opposing side, or at least they tend to get magnified beyond the side we favor. I would also ask you to think of Christ’s approach to the scribes and the Pharisees. He was certainly not mild with them. We actually got to see a whole range from him, and being humble does not mean that one can not or should not speak the truth boldly when it is right to. We also see in the scriptures the incredulity of others who thought they knew their stuff who were amazed at and sometimes confounded by the teaching, and knowledge of Jesus. Now, I know that at that time they probably felt about our Lord, the same way you appear to have felt about me… Not humble… And to the scribes, and Pharisees, Not charitable…

Of course, it is a matter of ones perspective on the whole thing. As Christians we say “Get them bad ol’ Pharisees, Lord, and tell em’ how it is”, but imagine how the wives of the Pharisees felt about Jesus. Much like you may feel about me… Now I am not saying that you are the wife of a Pharisee, but can you see, how your own perspective of things has you in the same kind of position? I also certainly do not want to imply that I have the great understanding of Jesus, or that I am coming against inferior intellects or anything, but as sure as you are that the RC view of Christianity is right, that is as sure as I am that the Reformed view of Christianity is right…

So I would say to you, first off, thank you. I hope that you will trust that the Lord will keep His children safe, and that His purposes are being accomplished, even here, in ways that none of us even understand. Know that in times when we are frustrated with others, the Lord has much to teach us, perhaps the enemy is more in our own hearts and minds more than on our screens. May the Lord bless you and keep you!

Because He lives!

Notafraid

I really want this to not continue, but..

1) Is it significant that you are the only poster I have ever had a "conflict" with (certainly not a disagreement with) - this sort of childish back and forth?

2) Is it significant that several posters have "called you out" or posted something akin to Mrs. Fairchild?

3) Why do you post that people "need to look at what the Lord is doing in you" or should "get educated", "things you can learn" or you know the "spirit" in which they post, ect? I'm very far from some great wisdom, and learning more is the reason I post here, but can't you see how people would react to this by discounting in some way what you post? That the focus shifts from content to person?

Redstone,

I simply don’t see how we can make any progress here, because my explanations to you never seem to satisfy your arguments, so I am not going to spill a bunch of stuff out here for you to just expand your inquisition of me. You will have to be satisfied to continue in your own thoughts about yourself, and about me.

notafraid, Redstone has a pretty clear point that distaste for your combative, condescending style is widespread on this board. Among legitimate posters (meaning not the crazies that pop up and then disappear shortly thereafter), you're the only one that's drawn the ire of the masses, not because of your assertions, but because of how you belittle others to show that you're right. Even if all the Catholics on this board are indeed uneducated parrots incapable of honestly seeking the truth, is it necessary to tell them so in such words?

I'd recommend that you take what everybody here is saying to heart and really think about it. Do you really think it is out of fear of finding out that they're wrong? If that was the case, then they'd be calling out everybody on this board, as everybody here is convinced they're right, and most do a good job of bringing up legitimate points to back up their convictions. But folks like titan, Orphan, lar, 77, Longstreet, Bracy, A&O, etc., don't have to read the posts directed at you right now, because they're capable of civil, fair debate and don't resort to childish "if you don't like my tone it's just cause you're wrong, wrong, wrong and " posts. But if you think we're just afraid of your giant intellect, then we can't stop you from thinking that.

And finally, I think it's an absolute joke that you compare your condescending style to Christ's dealing with the Pharisees. He wasn't in the least bit mild with them, but he didn't call them shills (if you don't know what the word means, don't use it) or parrots. And the Lord had means to honestly question the spirit of the Pharisees, as he was aware of it. You have no idea in what spirit other folks write to you.

One more thing, please read this post from a while back and tell me if your spirit in it was Christ-like, or were you just flying off the handle, even using pejorative words that you didn't understnad.

quote:

---

I can’t help it if you don’t know what you are talking about. You should be educated in this stuff yourself. Like I said, read Trent yourself. It’s obvious that you never have studied it! Why should I educate you on stuff you should know from the councils of your own church? If you were not such a shill who is just out to disprove everything, or discredit everything I say (Which is obvious from your attitude), I might have done it, but as far as a challenge appealing to my personal pride or something, well, that’s something that does not motivate me, because I can tell the spririt you are approching this stuff with, and it's not a productive one.

---

PurdueAg01,

May the Lord bless you!

[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 4/23/2005 3:30p).]

inquisition?

PurdueAG - Right on.

notafraid - Right answer.

Discuss and debate, yes. Condescension and namecalling - NO...