Regeneration/Born-Again

[Contarini]

sandusky:

Edwin, the two speak for themselves.

Christ fulfilled the law: the moral, and the ritual/sacrificial.

As I stated in an earlier post, it is the ritual/sacrificial that is abrogated; the moral law is still in effect and still binding; however, no one can keep it perfectly, that is why no salvation comes through law, but grace.

Actually, that ritual/moral distinction is standard Catholic theology. It doesn’t “pose a problem” at all. Perhaps I haven’t been following this thread carefully enough. You and Bene appear to be saying that there is no continuity between the Covenants–that the New Covenant is completely new and is not a fulfillment or transformation of the Old. You’re distinguishing between ritual and moral, fine. But even the ritual laws pointed to Christ and were fulfilled in Christ. Otherwise what was the point? Furthermore, it’s obvious that Christ did establish new rituals for Christians to observe. Obviously they function differently than the rituals of the Old Law. But there is also continuity. I don’t see how Hebrews contradicts this.

Furthermore, Jesus does not say in Matt. 5:17 that He only fulfilled the moral law. The traditional (patristic/medieval) view is that Christ fulfilled the different kinds of law in different ways (medieval commentators produce long lists of these ways). He fulfilled the moral laws by teaching their true meaning and bringing them to perfection. He fulfilled the ceremonial laws by enacting the reality they prefigured. But that is still a fulfillment/transformation, not a simple abolition. I don’t know if we disagree on this point or not.

Is the point at issue whether baptism and Eucharist are fulfillments of the ceremonies of the Old Law? I don’t see how Hebrews helps you here at all. If Hebrews’ “abrogation” refers to Christ’s fulfillment of the ceremonies through His death and resurrection (as it surely does), and if baptism and Eucharist are memorials of Christ’s saving work (as they surely are, whatever else we may think about them), then you can’t deny logically that they have a certain relation to the ceremonies of the Old Law. I don’t see what this argument is about, frankly.

As for keeping the Law perfectly–of course we don’t (at least in my view–I’ll let the Catholics argue for themselves on this one). Even John Wesley said that he sinned against the perfect law of love every day. We all need forgiveness. But that does not mean that the moral law ceases to be the guide for our lives.

No need for a sacrifice or offering of sin the writer of Hebrews says; from where does the sacrifice of the mass come?

It is a memorial of Christ’s one sacrifice, which makes that sacrifice present to us. Again, we can argue about how this happens–I have problems with traditional Roman Catholic language on this point myself. Charles Wesley spoke of Christ “pleading” His one eternal sacrifice in the presence of God, and of the Eucharist as our reception of the benefits of that eternal offering (in the hymn “Victim Divine”).

No need for sacrifice, no need for a priesthood to offer a sacrifice; from where does the Catholic priesthood come?

From the elders of the early Church, who led the community in the sacrifice of thanksgiving by which we receive the fruit of Christ’s one eternal sacrifice. I agree that the medieval priesthood came to be thought of as fundamentally different from the universal priesthood of all believers, and that this had disastrous consequences. The Reformation was a very healthy corrective in this regard.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

bene7:

The reason being, Law and Grace cannot co-exist.

Are you suggesting that people under the Old Covenant were not saved by grace?

Actually, based on what you’ve just said above, I don’t think you’ve actually studied the Biblical Covenants and what each one states.

Perhaps he simply hasn’t studied (or has studied and rejected) modern dispensationalist interpretation of the Covenants.

I mean you have your own romantic idea of what a Covenant is, but it doesn’t conform to God’s Word which actually reveals those Covenants and His desired purpose for them.

It doesn’t conform to Mr. Scofield’s or Mr. Darby’s interpretations of God’s Word, true enough. Why should it?

You even deny what the writer of Hebrews explicitly states regarding the abolition of the “Old” Covenant (Mosaic) as a rule of life, based on your own romantic definition of a covenant.

No, based on the clear words of Jesus in Matt. 5:17.

Besides, I have not heard RedBandito say that we should still live according to the Mosaic Covenant. Did I miss something?

Edwin

 

[gardenswithkids]

sandusky:

You ask, how is regeneration initiated?

The Catholic response is baptism…

This Catholic and others responded the grace of God. If you read the rest of this thread which dealt with the original topic, you’ll see we believe baptism flows from God’s grace and our faith, as it also pours out grace and faith. I am open to reading what you believe on this, but please stop trying to tell us what Catholics believe.

 

[Philthy]

sandusky:

Justification is always by faith, and faith alone.

James 2:24

sandusky:

The Law and the Gospel of Christ cannot co-exist, the law must disappear before the Gospel (Gal 4:30ff).

As Bene7 said, the O.T. is obsolete. That is the ritual aspect of the law. The moral law is still binding, but no one can keep it, otherwise, justification would be by Law (Gal 3:19-22).

Just out of curiosity, aren’t the 10 commandments part of the old covenant and still in effect?

Phil

 

[sandusky]

Kendy:

Once one believes, should one be baptized?

Kendy

Yes.

Look at the examples in Acts, most follow a basic, repent, believe, be baptized formula.

The important point is that baptism cannot save you, nor are you regenerated in baptism, but by the H.S.

 

[sandusky]

Philthy:

Just out of curiosity, aren’t the 10 commandments part of the old covenant and still in effect?
Phil

They are a part of the moral law, condensed into two commandments by the Lord in the N.T., and they are still in effect and are still binding on the believer to obey.

 

[wpr]

Church Militant:

wpr, the correct answer is indeed “faith”, don’t know why they did yours different. Baptism is valid of course because of your intention.
From the CCC:
Faith and Baptism

1253 Baptism is the sacrament of faith.[54] But faith needs the community of believers. It is only within the faith of the Church that each of the faithful can believe. The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop. **The catechumen or the godparent is asked: “What do you ask of God’s Church?” The response is: “Faith!” ** (LINK)
Pax tecum,

I appreciate the clarification. I was going by memory. I’m still sure (all three couples) replied “Baptism”. I’m now certain we all gave the wrong answer. I’ll make this point to our Baptismal Ministry Heads so we get it right in the future.

Thanks!

 

[Contarini]

sandusky:

Yes.

Look at the examples in Acts, most follow a basic, repent, believe, be baptized formula.

The important point is that baptism cannot save you, nor are you regenerated in baptism, but by the H.S.

But Scripture never says that. Scripture never sets baptism up against regeneration by the Holy Spirit the way you are doing. This is your human tradition and not the Word of God.

Edwin

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Kendy:

Is it possible that you are eternal saved, but simply not living your Christian life fully?

Regenerated Christians are most likely not living their Christian life fully. It is rare that we have Christians of this sort on earth, but it is possible by the grace of God.

Yet, St. John tells us there as sins that are mortal, and sins that are not mortal. Saved Christians can commit mortal sin, and if the do, then like St. Paul said to the “sons of God” in Galatians, they “**have been severed from Christ.” **Thus, these were once saved Christians severed from Christ due to their mortal sin.

Severed from Christ, they can do nothing but what St. Paul says they are doing practicing the “deeds of the flesh.” They must again be converted (Gk “epistrepho”) like Peter. If they die impenitent of the mortal sin, they would indeed, not inherit the kindgom of God. St. Paul warns these once saved “sons of God”: “those who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (5:21).

So, no, the Galatians Paul writes to are not eternally saved Christians who are simply practicing venial sins who are guaranteed eternal glory in God’s kingdom. To conclude such a thing is completely contrary to what St. Paul writes. Why warn someone to repent or they will not inherit the kingdom of God if that was not true?

 

[wpr]

Redbandito:

This simply is not accurate. For starters, you are just begging the question. Okay, so let’s say I agree with you understanding of this passage, “Hence, also, He (Jesus) *is able to SAVE FOREVER those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them” *(Heb. 7:25)." That still leaves the question. WHO are those who draw near to God through Him? It also leaves the question as to whether this is a one-time event or if it needs to be continued. This verse can only be used to support your thesis by already assuming what you are trying to prove. In other words, this does not support your thesis. I agree that those “who persevere til the end will be saved”, but since you “don’t even know what will happen tomorrow”, it is extremely presumptuous to assume you are one of them. This is the start of the circular argument that you will make, whereby you will claim that “if one has truly been saved, he won’t go astray”. Which again, begs the question, because then the only way I can prove I am saved is by not going astray, which takes a lifetime. Secondly, it brings up the argument of when a person who has been a Christian for a long-time does depart the faith, what happens. Some will attempt to wiggle their way out by stating, “He is just back-slidden, but he will come back”. But, what if he doesn’t? “He is still saved.” So, God takes away man’s free will after re-generation? You could also make the logical conclusion that if a man dies in a "back-slidden state, that he won’t be “saved”. But, if that is the case, then you have effectively refuted your own propositions of both OSAS and an absolute assurance of salvation. The other way is to say, “he was never saved anyway”. Thereby bringing the question of absolute assurance of salvation into question. In other words, if one guy can honestly believe he is “saved” and then later depart from the faith, why do I think it is so impossible for me?

Then you will say, “you don’t believe in the grace of God”. To which I will respond, “I do believe in the grace of God, but I also believe in free will”. You will end by re-stating your thesis which is, “** All true believers are saved through faith in Christ, i,e., believing what He accomplished FOR THEM on the cross. They are kept BY HIM for all eternity because He continually works for them in Heaven as their High Priest.” **Again, this is not necessarily something I disagree with. However, I will restate my thesis, which is that you are just begging the question by assuming that you are one of “THEM”. You will disagree, and of course we will have not gotten anywhere.

Amen Red!

There are over 60 Biblical passages that Sandusky has to ignore or twist to come to his conclusion of OSAS. That is imputed irrevocable justifcation and it’s counter part hyper-predestineation.

 

[sandusky]

Contarini:

But Scripture never says that. Scripture never sets baptism up against regeneration by the Holy Spirit the way you are doing. This is your human tradition and not the Word of God.

Edwin

I agree with you. I am saying that baptismal regeneration is the Catholic view. The Catholic believes that rebirth comes through the act of baptism. Scripture does not say that. Scripture says that regeneration comes through the washing of regeneration by the H.S. That is not baptism, but a washing by the Spirit.

In Jn 3:5, Jesus referred not to literal water, but to the need for “cleansing” (e.g., Eze 36:24-27). When water is used figuratively in the O.T., it habitually refers to renewal or spiritual cleansing, especially when used in conjunction with "spirit: (Nu 19:17-19; Ps 51:9, 10; Is 32:15; 44:3-5; 55:1-3; Jer 2:13; Joel 2:28-29). Thus, Jesus made reference to the spiritual washing or purification of the soul, accomplished by the H.S. through the Word of God at the moment of salvation (cf Eph 5:26; Titus 3:5), required for belonging to His kingdom. That is not literal water washing.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

sandusky:

You miss the whole point of Galatians

Yet you failed to understand Paul was warning ONCE SAVED Christians that they may not inherit the kingdom of God.

Prove your opinion by Scripture or you simply give me “traditions of Calvinist men.”

Paul himself tells us they are “sons of God…baptized in Christ.” The words Paul uses prove these are SAVED Christians. Yes, they did inded “fall from grace” which means they once were “in grace!!!” They fell by Judaizing and by returning to the “deeds of the flesh,” both of which are mortal sins which severe a SAVED Christian from Christ, as PROVEN by Paul’s actual words, despite your false opinion.

You haven’t even attempted addressed the Scripture I quoted because it clearly disproves the false theory of “once saved, always saved.” Even “Bible only” Protestants reject this erroneous teaching. Your “evidence” is so unconvincing that you can’t convince other “Bible only” Christians. This should make it plain to any with good sense that it is complete rubbish.

 

[Contarini]

sandusky:

I agree with you. I am saying that baptismal regeneration is the Catholic view. The Catholic believes that rebirth comes through the act of baptism. Scripture does not say that. Scripture says that regeneration comes through the washing of regeneration by the H.S. That is not baptism, but a washing by the Spirit.

In Jn 3:5, Jesus referred not to literal water, but to the need for “cleansing” (e.g., Eze 36:24-27). When water is used figuratively in the O.T., it habitually refers to renewal or spiritual cleansing, especially when used in conjunction with "spirit: (Nu 19:17-19; Ps 51:9, 10; Is 32:15; 44:3-5; 55:1-3; Jer 2:13; Joel 2:28-29). Thus, Jesus made reference to the spiritual washing or purification of the soul, accomplished by the H.S. through the Word of God at the moment of salvation (cf Eph 5:26; Titus 3:5), required for belonging to His kingdom. That is not literal water washing.

No, you don’t understand what I was saying. Sorry I wasn’t clearer. You’re treating any reference to the role of the Holy Spirit in regeneration as if it excluded the role of water baptism. Scripture knows nothing of this either/or. You assume that the “water” of John 3:5 is purely figurative. But you didn’t give any evidence for this. Your “human tradition” teaches you that if regeneration is the work of the Spirit then it cannot be ascribed to the sacrament of water baptism. This is not what Scripture teaches. According to Scripture, regeneration is solely the work of the Holy Spirit and it comes through baptism. That was also the uniform teaching of the early Church.

Edwin

 

[sandusky]

Contarini:

No, you don’t understand what I was saying. Sorry I wasn’t clearer. You’re treating any reference to the role of the Holy Spirit in regeneration as if it excluded the role of water baptism. Scripture knows nothing of this either/or. You assume that the “water” of John 3:5 is purely figurative. But you didn’t give any evidence for this. Your “human tradition” teaches you that if regeneration is the work of the Spirit then it cannot be ascribed to the sacrament of water baptism. This is not what Scripture teaches. According to Scripture, regeneration is solely the work of the Holy Spirit and it comes through baptism. That was also the uniform teaching of the early Church.

Edwin

Then we disagree on that Edwin.

 

[sandusky]

Contarini:

Actually, that ritual/moral distinction is standard Catholic theology. It doesn’t “pose a problem” at all. Perhaps I haven’t been following this thread carefully enough. You and Bene appear to be saying that there is no continuity between the Covenants–that the New Covenant is completely new and is not a fulfillment or transformation of the Old. You’re distinguishing between ritual and moral, fine. But even the ritual laws pointed to Christ and were fulfilled in Christ. Otherwise what was the point? Furthermore, it’s obvious that Christ did establish new rituals for Christians to observe. Obviously they function differently than the rituals of the Old Law. But there is also continuity. I don’t see how Hebrews contradicts this.

Yes, all of the O.T. law pointed to Christ, and were fulfilled in Christ. My point is that the sacrificial part of the law is gone, thus God’s destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. There is no more sacrifice to be offered, only a sacrifice to be remembered.

Contarini:

Furthermore, Jesus does not say in Matt. 5:17 that He only fulfilled the moral law. The traditional (patristic/medieval) view is that Christ fulfilled the different kinds of law in different ways (medieval commentators produce long lists of these ways). He fulfilled the moral laws by teaching their true meaning and bringing them to perfection. He fulfilled the ceremonial laws by enacting the reality they prefigured. But that is still a fulfillment/transformation, not a simple abolition. I don’t know if we disagree on this point or not.

I agree, and again, the sacrifice is finished. No more sacrifice.

Contarini:

Is the point at issue whether baptism and Eucharist are fulfillments of the ceremonies of the Old Law? I don’t see how Hebrews helps you here at all. If Hebrews’ “abrogation” refers to Christ’s fulfillment of the ceremonies through His death and resurrection (as it surely does), and if baptism and Eucharist are memorials of Christ’s saving work (as they surely are, whatever else we may think about them), then you can’t deny logically that they have a certain relation to the ceremonies of the Old Law.

Yes, there is a relation, but, as with the old law, baptism and the Eucharist do not save, Catholic theology says they do.

Contarini:

As for keeping the Law perfectly–of course we don’t (at least in my view–I’ll let the Catholics argue for themselves on this one). Even John Wesley said that he sinned against the perfect law of love every day. We all need forgiveness. But that does not mean that the moral law ceases to be the guide for our lives.

Along with Wesley, I too, sin against the perfect law of love every day.

Contarini:

It is a memorial of Christ’s one sacrifice, which makes that sacrifice present to us. Again, we can argue about how this happens–I have problems with traditional Roman Catholic language on this point myself. Charles Wesley spoke of Christ “pleading” His one eternal sacrifice in the presence of God, and of the Eucharist as our reception of the benefits of that eternal offering (in the hymn “Victim Divine”).

I am not familiar with that hymn, and it is not in my hymnal, but I will look for it. I do not agree that the Eucharist is a reception of benefits, but a remembrance of Christ’s death for us. The reception of benefits is appropriated by faith in His death, and what it accomplished.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

**

itsjustdave1988:

Kendy,

**

I believe Catholicism teaches that faith is consequent with regeneration or justification. In the Rite of Baptism, the adult or the godparent is asked, “What is it that you ask of the Church?” The answer is “Faith.”

I am so hesitant to correct Dave, but I recall from the Baptism of my daughter just 2 months ago we responded “Baptism”.

Yet at the same time a profession of faith is made. A series of questions are asked using the Crede as the basis. I’d say that may qualify for the “profession of faith”.

By the way…I really like the post you made using ACTS. I learned much from it.
wpr,

I may be wrong, but the last baptism I attended responded “Faith.”

Nevertheless, my answer is based upon the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states:

CCC 1253
Baptism is the sacrament of faith. But faith needs the community of believers. It is only within the faith of the Church that each of the faithful can believe. The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop. The catechumen or the godparent is asked: “What do you ask of God’s Church?” The response is: “Faith!”

Baptism certainly requires faith, but not necessarily the faith of the an adult recipient, but most certainly the faith of others, like a godparent…

As I stated earlier, the Son of God forgave the paralytic of all his sins due to the faith of his friends. Infants who do not yet have the faculties to have faith or at least they cannot express it it ways appearant to us, can be baptized because it is a sacramental prayer of the faithful community.
**
However, John the Baptist “leaped for joy” upon his Mother being filled with the Holy Spirit upon hearing the voice of our Lord. I would not discount that an infant, even within the womb, can have faith poured out upon them as a gift of God.

 

[wpr]

bene7:

I’m saying having an accurate understanding of the literal Biblical Covenants causes one to have a more correct understanding of God’s Word, and that of salvation itself. It’s what true Christianity is based on: Divine Revelation.

Blessings,
Bene

Wait a minute! I thought all I had to do according to you is profess faith and in an instant God will irrevocably impute rightiousness upon me? I have to understand properly the OC relation (or lack thereof) to the New?

I wonder, do I have to show that faith through a life of obediance? If so, how do I know I’ve been obediant enough to prove my faith? Is there a minimum? Can I ask you for your approval?

If I don’t live a life of satisfactory obediance or outright reject the Gospel (turn to Islam for example) was my imputed rightiousness never imputed? How can I be sure the imputation has occurred?

Does a life lived according to Christ’s calling spontaneously combust from my faith? Or do I have to make concious choices in what I do and how I treat my fellow man?

Bene; do I have believe as you do or can I beleive in God’s grace (as you do) and for safety sake assume it is not imputed and live a life seeking to love my neighbor to the best of my ability, always keeping in mind that I am sinfull and in need of repentance?

Sorry my friend, your way seems arrogant to me. Rather non-biblical as well.

 

[sandusky]

itsjustdave1988:

Yet you failed to understand Paul was warning ONCE SAVED Christians that they may not inherit the kingdom of God.

You have absolutely no way of proving that statement whatsoever. You must rely on your traditions to do so.

No pastor stands before, or writes to his congregation with the salutation good morning believers, and unbelievers. The assumption is always that those being addressed are believers. You need to learn to read the scripture correctly.

Let’s look at some biblical definitions of the true believer.

The true believer is predestined, called, justified, glorified. All are past, or aorist, active, indicative. The predestination, calling, justifying, glorifying will not be rescinded. That is the present state of the true believer.

The true believe is predestined to adoption, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, will not perish, and cannot be taken out of the Father’s hand, will not be cast out, will be raised up on the last day, has an inheritance that will not fade away, and that is reserved in heaven, and is kept by God for that inheritance (Eph 1:5; John 5:24; 10:28, 29; 6:37, 40; 1 Pet 1:4, 5). All of the language contained in those statements is absolute and irrevocable. God is not an Indian giver.

Do you believe that Jesus and the apostles have the authority to make those absolute statements, itsjustdave1988? Or, are Jesus and the apostles wrong?

itsjustdave1988:

Paul himself tells us they are “sons of God…baptized in Christ.” The words Paul uses prove these are SAVED Christians. Yes, they did inded “fall from grace” which means they once were “in grace!!!” They fell by Judaizing and by returning to the “deeds of the flesh,” both of which are mortal sins which severe a SAVED Christian from Christ, as PROVEN by Paul’s actual words, despite your false opinion.

You prove nothing, but assume.
itsjustdave198:

You haven’t even attempted addressed the Scripture I quoted because it clearly disproves the false theory of “once saved, always saved.” Even “Bible only” Protestants reject this erroneous teaching. Your “evidence” is so unconvincing that you can’t convince other “Bible only” Christians. This should make it plain to any with good sense that it is complete rubbish.

Oh, please. You must ignore clearly stated in no uncertain terms certainties to arrive at your conclusion.

Those definitions of the true believer I have given are only a few. Paul was addressing those in the Galatian church who truly believed, as well as those who did not. To deny that is silly.

There were those in Galatia who were considering turning away from the Gospel of grace to the Gospel of works. It is to those that Paul’s admonitions are addressed; no true believer will ever turn away from Christ, because it is the Lord, and the Father who keep him.

On the one hand, you believe that one does not merit salvation, and that it is a gift from God. On the other hand, you think that one can be bad enough to lose that which one does not deserve; that makes no sense; it is faulty and erroneous reasoning.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

sandusky:

I agree with you. I am saying that baptismal regeneration is the Catholic view.

Hmmmm… from a Lutheran web page:

Baptism, we believe, is one of the miraculous means of grace (together with God’s written and spoken Word) through which God creates and/or strengthens the gift of faith in a person’s heart (see Matt. 28:18-20; Act. 2:38; John 3:5-7; Act. 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21; Titus 3:5-6; Gal. 3:26-27; Rom. 6:1-4; Col. 2:11-12; 1 Cor. 12:13).

Although we do not claim to understand how this happens or how it is possible, we believe (because of what the Bible says about baptism) that when an infant is baptized God creates faith in the heart of that infant. This faith cannot yet, of course, be expressed or articulated, yet it is real and present all the same (see e.g., 1 Peter 2:21; Acts 2:38-39; Titus 3:5-6; Matt. 18:6; Luke 1:15; 2 Tim. 3:15; Gal. 3:26-27; Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:11-12; 1 Cor. 12:13). This faith needs to be fed and nurtured by God’s Word (Matt. 28:18-20), or it will die. Those who have been baptized, but who no longer believe, will not be saved. (By the same token, those who truly believe and yet have not had opportunity to be baptized [like, for example, the thief on the cross] will be saved.)

Seems like “Bible only” Protestants believe in baptismal regeneration as well.

The Catholic believes that rebirth comes through the act of baptism.

More accurately, Baptism, in fact all the Sacraments, are merely instruments of God. God has indeed established the Sacraments so that they faithful can pray in the manner pleasing and established by him, and so that we have a real sign of the grace conveyed by Him. However, God is not bound by his Sacraments and, as such, God can certainly convey his grace extra-sacramentally if that be His Will.

Catholicism teaches that nothing man does can obligate God to give us grace. Nothing. Thus, justification is a free gift. We can cooperate with God all we like, and even then, our act of cooperation does not *obligate *Godto give us His gratuitous grace. Otherwise, it would not be a gratuitous gift, would it?

Instead, men of faith pray with the complete understanding that what we pray for does not *oblige *God in any way. It is only by faith and love for God that we have hope. We can, by faith, have hopeful confidence in God answering our prayer, but such is not a condign obligation, but any answer to our prayers come solely from His love and mercy.

According to Catholic teaching, the final cause of justification is the honor of God and of Christ and the eternal life of men. The efficient cause of justification is the mercy of God, and the meritorious cause of justification is Jesus Christ, who as mediator between God and man, has made atonement for us and merited the grace by which we are justified. (cf. Dr. Ludwig Ott, *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, *pg 251).

Baptism is a sacramental instrument, and can only be called a instrumental cause. Similarly, Jesus used the instrument of mud to cure the blind man, but the curing didn’t come from mud, but from the grace of God.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

sandusky:

You have absolutely no way of proving that statement whatsoever. You must rely on your traditions to do so.

Actually Bene7 agreed with me, and I doubt he relied upon my tradition.