Dear Pilgrim,

Thanks for expressing your ideas so succinctly.

However, the fact that whenever others disagree with you particular theological position they are referred to as 'heretical', I find a little irksome.

I expected you to first attack the credentials of the author, but you gave me no respite. It's alright I am getting used to being called names on this forum. I am not going to check back through all the threads but I have been called a 'heretic' (that surely sums up all the others Arminian, Charismatic, Semi-Pelagian etc. Jesus did warn that we should not expect a bed of roses, instead a bed of nails. <look my U2 references coming through.)

Personally, I see not harm in questioning every creed written by man, (regardless of whether they claim divine inspiration or not.) To honestly question one's creed is not a deed punishable by death, though it might resort in cremation (not literal) by those who hold hard, maybe too hard to what is written about the Scriptures, for the Scriptures themselves are creed. Often the tampering that happens is harmful, but most times it is a desire to get to the marrow, the meaning, the Spirit of the text that often finds, one pitted against another in a wrestling match. The history books of the Church are filled to the brim with these....'Luther vs Erasmus' 'Whitfield vs Wesley' out of these polar opposites in some cases we might learn to trust the written word of God a little more and the interpreters a little less. By all means do not dispense of creedal statements, but never allow one self to be fooled that a 21 year old catechism adequately covers the full scope of divine revelation. The matter that Scripture is historical and progressive leads us to some understanding that we are learners, not teachers all, for the teacher will be exposed to greater judgment (by God). Only because the oracle is always in trouble, always mocked, always ridiculed for saying, 'It say this, or this is what is written therefore, etc.' The tragedy is when what is written by man, be it Athanasius of Alexandria or Tatian, or St Jerome, or Erasmus or whoever, ... John Michael Talbot or the new Pope, to regard such as divine scripture is to commit grossest of error. I do not reject the fact that Scripture is the word of God. I however cannot accept that it is all the things that God has said, John alludes to this fact.

The danger of rejecting Romes Apocryphal writings, and love for it's fathers writings, and saints, and mystic etc and then accomodating protestant writers is hypocrisy and for such it is no wonder that we still stand gaurded against the citadels of Rome, could she be burning because we have raised our skirts just a little too much and not gone for the core of the matter, namely that if one has not the Spirit of Christ, we are none of his. < I deviated to respond to your hex over me.

Okay, I agree about the way Froese has written, he might have brought actual references to j.c's writings, as does Sudduth. It would have made matters less complicated, for many offer commentary upon what Calvin, Luther, Augustine and others who were under the wings of mother church. <notice my lack of caps, please.

If you are going to substantiate your position would you please refer to Calvin's writings with direct quotes so I may view the context.

(Mr) Froese did say that he was only constructing his paper in a way to explain what he was thinking. I suggest you read the article with less of a militant scout mode and more of an open minded thinker who is endeavouring to understand another person way of perceiving what has been perceived in one way, this is how we grown. Surely, you know this by now ?

I will not check back for you exact references to John Calvin, but needless to say it is clear you disagree and I don't. I think there is much to be learned from Calvin that many assuming a traditional position have become a little like stuck record. Time for me to bump this one.

Bump,