When Did Rome Go Wrong?

[rinnie]

Actually I did not do that in that case. I did not say that “the Church” did this, because I know that these apologists are acting on their own initiative.

Please do respond to what I am actually saying. I respect your sincerity and zeal, but the conversation becomes a lot longer and more involved than it needs to be because you keep responding to things that I never said.

I do think that this tendency on the part of Catholic apologists stems from the things that the Catholic Church *does *teach about itself. In short: because I see the Church as an actual, visible body of people, I don’t make the absolute, ontological distinction between the Church and its members that Catholics appear to do.

Edwin

Gotta ya. Now taken from that, you see what I see, but you cannot see it right? (only you could understand what I am saying here)

I hope.

You cannot accept what I see, but you are beginning to understand what I see. Right?

 

[rinnie]

So you’re saying that the leaders of the Catholic Church teach various things, and you check them against Tradition and Scripture to see if they are true. If your own judgment leads you to believe that they are true, then you accept that they are teachings of the Church. If it doesn’t, then you don’t?

I don’t necessarily have a problem with this, but it’s much more “Protestant” than what I usually hear from the Catholics on these forums, and I want to make sure that it’s what you are actually saying.

Edwin

No I am not saying that at all, and when I asked you to show me a various teaching you have never given me one yet.

I have tried as simply as I could to explain to you that when the Church defines any Scripture and explains it according to the power of the Holy Spirit thats it, it never changes.

But you still for some reason cannot understand the difference between a Teaching and Discipline:shrug:

If the Pope says we are going to go back to not eating meat on Fridays this is a church discipline and yes I have to accept this.

He has a reason for this. And if we give up meat on Fridays as a Church Discipline we know that by obeying this we gain some kind of Spiritual Reward may I dear say, that can bring us closer to God.

The Pope has this authority to extend this discipline for God because God gave him authority to bind on earth as in heaven. But the Pope has never said this is an official teaching and this discipline will never change. This is a discipline he has a right to do now. If he chooses. He can end it when he feels its time. Or never end it.

But if it becomes an OFFICIAL TEACHING thats it its forever. But you cannot seem to see the difference between the 2.

 

[rinnie]

No, I want you to say that the Church screwed up. I want you to say that the Church *is *a visible body of people rather than just some kind of mystical reality that occasionally speaks through the people.

That’s fine, but that’s not the point. The point is: is only the formal teaching the act of the Church, or is everything that the visible body of Catholics does an act of the Church?

Again, not the point. The point is that when, say, the Jerusalem Council made decisions on behalf of the whole Christian community, that was an act *of the Church. *And it would have been an act of the Church even if they had made the wrong decision.

Yes, that’s what you claim.

But you don’t *teach it, *either. Exsurge Domine does *not *express the fullness of the truth about how Catholics should treat heretics.

With all due respect, I still don’t think you have grasped what my criticism is. I’m not saying that the sins of Popes prove Catholicism false. I’m saying that when Popes or Councils took either doctrinal or disciplinary decisions on behalf of the visible body of Catholic Christians, *or *when certain beliefs or practices were tacitly accepted throughout that body even without a formal decision, these actions or beliefs must be ascribed to the Church whether they were good or bad.

Please, if you’re going to respond to me, respond to this. I’m not talking about a Pope getting drunk or having a mistress. I’m talking about collective, official actions and/or commonly accepted beliefs and practices.

Edwin

And again Edwin I will never say the Church screwed up because the Church is Jesus. I can say that the leaders on earth may have screwed up, but they are not the Church Jesus is.

 

[rinnie]

Edwin I got a idea. You answer me this. If you can.

Okay Paul was persecuting the Church on earth was he not? Okay now we both agree (I hope) that Paul knew he was persecuting the CC.

Now Jesus said Saul Saul why are you persecuting ME? Now Jesus did not say Saul why are you persecuting MY CHURCH he said ME. Now if he said the Church Saul would have known right off the bat that it was Jesus talking do you not agree?

Now he said it is ME JESUS the ONE you are persecuting. Now The CC teaches that Jesus and his Church are one. Do you see the scripture Now?

Saul was persecuting JESUS, the CC. Jesus said I am the CC the person you are persecuting. Now Saul had to be blind to be able to see. He did not say why are you persecuting my Church, He said plain as day ME!!

It was only then when Saul saw the light. He saw that the CC was not a Church it was Jesus himself. That is why he converted to the faith and became a Apostle. He did not become a part of A CHURCH, he became a Part of CHRIST.

But when he made a mistake Christ did not make a mistake, Paul did. His mistake did not make Christ any less Christ then the Pope or bishops sinning making Christ any less Christ.

I hope some how some way I helped, even if a little:blush:

 

[Contarini]

Edwin I got a idea. You answer me this. If you can.

Okay Paul was persecuting the Church on earth was he not? Okay now we both agree (I hope) that Paul knew he was persecuting the CC.

Now Jesus said Saul Saul why are you persecuting ME? Now Jesus did not say Saul why are you persecuting MY CHURCH he said ME. Now if he said the Church Saul would have known right off the bat that it was Jesus talking do you not agree?

Now he said it is ME JESUS the ONE you are persecuting. Now The CC teaches that Jesus and his Church are one. Do you see the scripture Now?

Saul was persecuting JESUS, the CC. Jesus said I am the CC the person you are persecuting. Now Saul had to be blind to be able to see. He did not say why are you persecuting my Church, He said plain as day ME!!

Good point, but it works in favor of my argument that the Church is the actual people. When Paul was persecuting Christians, he wasn’t persecuting Official Teaching. He was grabbing individual church members and hauling them off to jail. And Jesus says, “When you do that you are persecuting me.” So obviously the Church is not to be identified with Jesus “plain and simple,” as you claimed. You are not “plain and simply” identified with Jesus. (If you think that, I’m afraid you are a heretic, as your fellow Catholics will tell you.) You are part of Jesus’ body, so that when you are persecuted Jesus is being persecuted. That’s exactly the point I’m making. The Church is a body of actual, living, breathing, sinful, fallible people, and yet Jesus says that these people are part of His Body and are identified with Him! You’re trying to express this mystery, but you’re actually taking the mystery out of it by boiling it down to “the Church only acts when Jesus speaks infallibly through Church leaders.”

Edwin

 

[rinnie]

Good point, but it works in favor of my argument that the Church is the actual people. When Paul was persecuting Christians, he wasn’t persecuting Official Teaching. He was grabbing individual church members and hauling them off to jail. And Jesus says, “When you do that you are persecuting me.” So obviously the Church is not to be identified with Jesus “plain and simple,” as you claimed. You are not “plain and simply” identified with Jesus. (If you think that, I’m afraid you are a heretic, as your fellow Catholics will tell you.) You are part of Jesus’ body, so that when you are persecuted Jesus is being persecuted. That’s exactly the point I’m making. The Church is a body of actual, living, breathing, sinful, fallible people, and yet Jesus says that these people are part of His Body and are identified with Him! You’re trying to express this mystery, but you’re actually taking the mystery out of it by boiling it down to “the Church only acts when Jesus speaks infallibly through Church leaders.”

Edwin

You got to go deeper. You said he was persecuting People he was not persecuting Official Teaching? Oh No? Then why did he do it? Just to kill People then, or was it so the People could not continue Official Teaching.

Which again you just kinda put yourself in the Boiling Pot. You admitted its was official teaching. Ah HA!! We call that infallible Teaching! See you just proved the infallible teaching of Jesus.

 

[rinnie]

Good point, but it works in favor of my argument that the Church is the actual people. When Paul was persecuting Christians, he wasn’t persecuting Official Teaching. He was grabbing individual church members and hauling them off to jail. And Jesus says, “When you do that you are persecuting me.” So obviously the Church is not to be identified with Jesus “plain and simple,” as you claimed. You are not “plain and simply” identified with Jesus. (If you think that, I’m afraid you are a heretic, as your fellow Catholics will tell you.) You are part of Jesus’ body, so that when you are persecuted Jesus is being persecuted. That’s exactly the point I’m making. The Church is a body of actual, living, breathing, sinful, fallible people, and yet Jesus says that these people are part of His Body and are identified with Him! You’re trying to express this mystery, but you’re actually taking the mystery out of it by boiling it down to “the Church only acts when Jesus speaks infallibly through Church leaders.”

Edwin

And again I disagree because if the Church was not what The Advocate the Holy Spirt like God said then we would be in big trouble.

But because Jesus sent us the Advocate to lead us into all truth we know the advocate is the Holy Spirit and NOT US.

If so then we would not need the Church which is the Holy Spirit leading us, If we are the Church ourself as you claim we could do it all ourself!

Jesus never told us the Advocate would come to each of us and lead us. Jesus said the Advocate would come as the Church to lead us into all truth. The CHurch, the pillar of all truth. Are you the Pillar of all truth. Its in the bible. The Church is the Pillar of all truth not us,

 

[wisdomseeker]

And again I disagree because if the Church was not what The Advocate the Holy Spirt like God said then we would be in big trouble.

But because Jesus sent us the Advocate to lead us into all truth we know the advocate is the Holy Spirit and NOT US.

If so then we would not need the Church which is the Holy Spirit leading us, If we are the Church ourself as you claim we could do it all ourself!

Jesus never told us the Advocate would come to each of us and lead us. Jesus said the Advocate would come as the Church to lead us into all truth. The CHurch, the pillar of all truth. Are you the Pillar of all truth. Its in the bible. The Church is the Pillar of all truth not us,

correct. protestants like to separate the Church from Jesus, the Word from the Church, the Church from Jesus, and goes on and on…why do they do that? because they are not in the Church. since they are separated from the Church, they want separate everything else.

 

[PRmerger]

But it would be legitimate for the Muslim to say, “I recognize that *you *think you can believe in three persons and one God, but I reject that distinction.”

You are saying that you don’t see a distinction at all (between orthodoxy and orthopraxy). I find that disingenuous. Or perhaps its just a display of obduracy. You’re like those dwarves in Lewis’ The Last Battle who keep getting shown flowers, proving they’re not in the barn, yet they keep insisting, “Nope. That’s manure you’re giving me.”

 

[Contarini]

No I am not saying that at all, and when I asked you to show me a various teaching you have never given me one yet.

I didn’t mean “varying from Scripture/Tradition,” but simply that the leaders of the Church say a bunch of things!

However, I have repeatedly given the example of late medieval teaching on persecution. I have shown that a General Council mandated the persecution of heretics; that the greatest medieval Catholic theologian specifically endorsed the death penalty; and that Pope Leo condemned Luther as unorthodox in part because Luther rejected the death penalty for heretics. And yet I am told by Catholics on this thread that this wasn’t a “teaching of the Church.”

I have tried as simply as I could to explain to you that when the Church defines any Scripture and explains it according to the power of the Holy Spirit thats it, it never changes.

But you still for some reason cannot understand the difference between a Teaching and Discipline

Well, you don’t understand it the way most of your fellow Catholics do, because you think the teaching on women’s ordination is a discipline! I understand the distinction fine. But it’s irrelevant for the point I’m making. You keep repeating something I’m not challenging (indeed, there’s no point challenging it because it’s tautologous–of course something taught by the power of the Holy Spirit will not turn out to be false), instead of addressing what I am actually saying. When I begged you in the nicest possible way to do so, you said that you couldn’t because you would lose your faith:shrug:

But if it becomes an OFFICIAL TEACHING thats it its forever. But you cannot seem to see the difference between the 2.

I’m pointing out that there are things that looked like official teachings at the time, which now Catholics say never were official teachings. But my main point isn’t whether something is an Official Teaching or not. You can define that any way you like–it is meaningless to a non-Catholic. What matters is that you don’t admit that “the Church” is acting except in the case of an official teaching.

So for instance in the case of disciplines, like eating meat or clerical celibacy (not, however, women’s ordination, which your hierarchy insists is a doctrine). Is it or is it not correct to say “the Church once required Latin-Rite Catholics to abstain on all Fridays, but now allows episcopal conferences to substitute another penance except on Fridays in Lent.” (If you think I got the details of the discipline wrong, please let’s not get into that, because the point is whether we can say that “the Church” imposes the discipline–OK?) In other words, I understand perfectly well that the discipline can be changed. I’m asking if the discipline can be ascribed to the Church. It seems from your previous arguments that you think it can’t. That’s the point at which I’m saying that your position creates an “invisible Church” with little relationship to concrete reality.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

You are saying that you don’t see a distinction at all (between orthodoxy and orthopraxy).
I find that disingenuous. Or perhaps its just a display of obduracy.

I’m saying

1. That the distinction between orthodoxy and orthopraxy doesn’t really correspond to the distinction between things “the Church does” and things “members of the Church who happen to be Popes or bishops acting in their official capacity do.” Popes and Councils and Doctors of the Church all said for centuries that heretics should be handed over to the secular authority, and that the appropriate punishment for the secular authority to impose was death. It wasn’t that the Church said “don’t persecute heretics” (or said nothing at all), and members of the Church did something different. Nor was this simply a matter of policy. You can get around IV Lateran that way, maybe, but both Aquinas and Leo show that it was considered doctrine. When you say “it’s heresy to say that this practice is against the will of the Spirit” you *are *making a doctrinal claim about the practice. So the distinction won’t save you. I’m also saying, now you mention it, that
2. I think the distinction is dubious in the first place, because it implies that the Church is the true Church as long as it teaches the right things even if it doesn’t do any of them. If the Church had doctrines on the books giving a correct theology of the Eucharist, but every Pope and bishop and priest for centuries was a Satanist who celebrated nothing but Black Masses, could we really say that Satan had not prevailed over the Church? I think not. And finally I’m saying that
3. Whatever is the case with orthodoxy and orthopraxy, the distinction between “things the Church does” and “things that leaders of the Church do in their official capacity, or that most members of the Church do over a long period of time with the explicit or implicit acquiescence of those in authority” is a groundless one, invented solely in orde to defend the claims of your Communion at points where they are very hard to defend.

Now you can call this obduracy or anything you like. But what I’m interested in is whether you actually have any arguments against it. You seem to think that if you simply utter a magic formula I’m morally obligated to agree. This is nonsense. A Protestant can say “we aren’t really divided because we are spiritually one” and you don’t just submit. You don’t grant that the Protestants believe in the unity of the Church just because they say they do. You point out that this “spiritual unity” business is a dodge invented by Protestants to cover up the fact that they don’t have real unity. At least I hope you do that, because that’s what it is. But you have your dodges too!

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Well you are involved aren’t you?

Marginally.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Edwin,

I note your comments.I care little for them however! I would rather yourself and the other poster continue playing your games on your own and leave me out of them!

Can’t do, seamus. You’re confusing the children.

BTW, who was Aristobulus’ son -in-law?

GKC

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

I didn’t mean “varying from Scripture/Tradition,” but simply that the leaders of the Church say a bunch of things!

However, I have repeatedly given the example of late medieval teaching on persecution. I have shown that a General Council mandated the persecution of heretics; that the greatest medieval Catholic theologian specifically endorsed the death penalty; and that Pope Leo condemned Luther as unorthodox in part because Luther rejected the death penalty for heretics. [SIGN]And yet I am told by Catholics on this thread that this wasn’t a “teaching of the Church.” [/SIGN]

Well, you don’t understand it the way most of your fellow Catholics do, because you think the teaching on women’s ordination is a discipline! I understand the distinction fine. But it’s irrelevant for the point I’m making. You keep repeating something I’m not challenging (indeed, there’s no point challenging it because it’s tautologous–of course something taught by the power of the Holy Spirit will not turn out to be false), instead of addressing what I am actually saying. When I begged you in the nicest possible way to do so, you said that you couldn’t because you would lose your faith:shrug:

I’m pointing out that there are things that looked like official teachings at the time, which now Catholics say never were official teachings. But my main point isn’t whether something is an Official Teaching or not. You can define that any way you like–it is meaningless to a non-Catholic. What matters is that you don’t admit that “the Church” is acting except in the case of an official teaching.

So for instance in the case of disciplines, like eating meat or clerical celibacy (not, however, women’s ordination, which your hierarchy insists is a doctrine). Is it or is it not correct to say “the Church once required Latin-Rite Catholics to abstain on all Fridays, but now allows episcopal conferences to substitute another penance except on Fridays in Lent.” (If you think I got the details of the discipline wrong, please let’s not get into that, because the point is whether we can say that “the Church” imposes the discipline–OK?) In other words, I understand perfectly well that the discipline can be changed. I’m asking if the discipline can be ascribed to the Church. It seems from your previous arguments that you think it can’t. That’s the point at which I’m saying that your position creates an “invisible Church” with little relationship to concrete reality.

Edwin

Its isn’t Edwin. Oh Edwin you are making something so simple so Hard on yourself,

Scripture Edwin How do we define Scripture. That is Teaching Edwin. The Apostles were the only ones who could define scripture.

Let me put it this way, If you say that scripture says one thing and I say it says another we must have someone with AUTHORITY to tell us the truth.

Who is that Authority? The Advocate Edwin, the Holy Spirit. Who did God promise the Advocate to? The Apostles at Pentecost. He promised them that when it comes to the word of God they cannot be wrong. They will receive that teaching straight from the Holy Spirit himself.

Now why did he do that? Because as he tells us in scripture People will come and distort the word of God. So he gave us the Church the advocate to lead the Apostles into all Truth so the truth cannot be distorted.

Thy shall not kill?

An eye for an eye?

We could argue for hours that we can kill. no we can’t, yes we can, no yes no yes. Do you see what I am saying. Scripture says both. So if it was you and I without the CHurch which is the Holy Spirit guiding the leaders we would never truly know who is right.

Now lets hit the rites and make it short and simple. Here it is. In the latin rite it is for Priest who shall not marry. That is why they are in the latin rite God called them to that rite.

If they are to marry but be a Priest they are not called to that rite. ITs quite simple. The latin rite does not forbid marriage in the CC. Just in the RCC. ITs a rite.

But if I was to go to a Catholic Priest and here is in communion with Rome, and he would give me lasts rites or whatever its all cool. Its valid. The Church never said that a Priest could not marry. Only the certain rite did. Do you understand that?

 

[seamusmohr]

I would say that’s an artificial distinction to make in dealing with this time period. When a king declares his own national church and confiscates the international church’s property and makes all the bishops sign an oath of loyalty to him, of course it’s supremely social and political as well as religious.

Henry did not declare his own national church! The Church had been in Britain from very early after the Cruxifiction as I read it. The name Church of the English appeared about 750AD, then again in 1215 and all throughout the middle ages! In that time Britain, or England had been in communion with the pope, as Bishop of Rome. because he had been declared Primate of the West, [not by divine right, I might say ,] by the Ecumenical Councils, he was recognised in that position also! I think it was the Council of Nice that declared the Bishop of One See has no right of interference in the See of another bishop!All the English did was to point this fact out and the papacy sulked! That the Tudors stole Church property is very true, but remember the Popes did as much and on a large scale.
**“Can you show me in this great City of Rome anyone, who would receive you as pope if they had not received gold or silver for it.” S.Bernard.
**
“The entire world knows how profitable this fable of Christ has been to us and ours,”
Alledged.}
Pope Leo X. [Orthodox Pub.on Myth of Papal Infallibility]

It seems you’re maintaining that Canterbury was never (or only occasionally) in communion with Rome prior to the Reformation. If so that’s a completely unhistorical fanatsy barring some vast conspiracy among professional historians.

 

[rinnie]

And yes if disciplines must be obeyed by us. But if you do not belong to the Roman Rite you don’t have to abide by the disciplines of it.

Like yes during Lent it is still the same no Meat on Friday during lent. Its not been lifted.

But my Dad still never ate meat on Friday ever. Rather it was lifted or not. But that was his dedication to God his whole life. The Pope can come back right this moment and say okay you can eat meat on Fridays now.

Tell me Edwin do you eat meat on GOOD FRIDAY? It not Why. It was never a commandment or Church Teaching.

 

[Nicea325]

correct. protestants like to separate the Church from Jesus, the Word from the Church, the Church from Jesus, and goes on and on…why do they do that? because they are not in the Church. since they are separated from the Church, they want separate everything else.

One cannot have the Word of God alone,minus His Church. That is heretical. Both go hand-in-hand not apart from each other. One cannot say: Well I only follow the Bible and do not need any church. False premise.

 

[GKC]

You are saying that you don’t see a distinction at all (between orthodoxy and orthopraxy). I find that disingenuous. Or perhaps its just a display of obduracy. You’re like those dwarves in Lewis’ The Last Battle who keep getting shown flowers, proving they’re not in the barn, yet they keep insisting, “Nope. That’s manure you’re giving me.”

Not barn. A Stable. Crucial concept. Manure was not mentioned, the flowers were referred to as filthy stable litter, and a thistle.

I know, I know. But I like details. And Edwin is not a dwarf, refusing to be taken in.

GKC, Lewis collector

 

[PRmerger]

I’m saying

1. That the distinction between orthodoxy and orthopraxy doesn’t really correspond to the distinction between things “the Church does” and things “members of the Church who happen to be Popes or bishops acting in their official capacity do.” Popes and Councils and Doctors of the Church all said for centuries that heretics should be handed over to the secular authority, and that the appropriate punishment for the secular authority to impose was death. It wasn’t that the Church said “don’t persecute heretics” (or said nothing at all), and members of the Church did something different. Nor was this simply a matter of policy. You can get around IV Lateran that way, maybe, but both Aquinas and Leo show that it was considered doctrine. When you say “it’s heresy to say that this practice is against the will of the Spirit” you *are *making a doctrinal claim about the practice. So the distinction won’t save you. I’m also saying, now you mention it, that
2. I think the distinction is dubious in the first place, because it implies that the Church is the true Church as long as it teaches the right things even if it doesn’t do any of them. If the Church had doctrines on the books giving a correct theology of the Eucharist, but every Pope and bishop and priest for centuries was a Satanist who celebrated nothing but Black Masses, could we really say that Satan had not prevailed over the Church? I think not. And finally I’m saying that
3. Whatever is the case with orthodoxy and orthopraxy, the distinction between “things the Church does” and “things that leaders of the Church do in their official capacity, or that most members of the Church do over a long period of time with the explicit or implicit acquiescence of those in authority” is a groundless one, invented solely in orde to defend the claims of your Communion at points where they are very hard to defend.

Now you can call this obduracy or anything you like. But what I’m interested in is whether you actually have any arguments against it. You seem to think that if you simply utter a magic formula I’m morally obligated to agree. This is nonsense. A Protestant can say “we aren’t really divided because we are spiritually one” and you don’t just submit. You don’t grant that the Protestants believe in the unity of the Church just because they say they do. You point out that this “spiritual unity” business is a dodge invented by Protestants to cover up the fact that they don’t have real unity. At least I hope you do that, because that’s what it is. But you have your dodges too!

Edwin

What you’re saying is that if “leaders of the Church do in their official capacity, or that most members of the Church do over a long period of time with the explicit or implicit acquiescence of those in authority”, make a bad decision, it is a reason not to become Catholic. Bad Catholics = Bad Church and you don’t want to join it.

We are saying, “So what if there’s bad Catholics?” (In the sense of it being an excuse not to convert)

Sometimes we suffer the wrongs imposed upon us by authority, out of charity. Jesus did that, right? Didn’t Jesus even tell his disciples to do as the fallible Pharisees taught, but not to do what they did? Even though the Pharisees were not infallible, they sat upon the seat of Moses (cf. Matt 23:2). Thus, by that authority, they were to be obeyed, until such time that God established his eternal Church upon the rock of Peter (cf. Matt 16:18)
Originally posted by itjustdave1988 here

And more:

Thus, we are bound to the lawful commands of lawful superiors, so long as they act in accord with their God-given authority, whether we agree with them or not.

As a military man, I have no difficulty submitting to very stuped superiors. I understand that they are my superior, not because they are always right, but because they were commission and appointed by lawful authority. I often suffer to submit to the will of another, even though I believe they are wrong. Being wrong is not the same as being contrary to God’s will.

*For example, wasn’t Moses often going the “wrong” direction, away from the promised land while wandering in the desert? There were many who didn’t want to submit to him anymore (Korah, cf. Num 16). Yet, even though Moses was headed the wrong way, he was being navigated by God every step of the way. We cannot always understand why God navigates his holy people in divergent directions. But the response of the faithful is the “obedience of faith” spoken of by St. Paul in the Epistle to the Romans, even if we can’t understand why.

Ask your Protestant friends if they believe it is God’s will that a child obey his parents. Is so, why? Are the parents infallible? Or is it because all authority comes from God, and that the authority possessed by the father as superior to the son is God-given? And disobedience to God-given authority is not in accord with God’s will, not in accord with the virtue of charity?*

 

[Contarini]

Its isn’t Edwin. Oh Edwin you are making something so simple so Hard on yourself,

Rinnie,

You are welcome to that opinion. But unless you are willing to take what I am saying seriously, you really can’t help me out. And I would like to be helped out. I’d like to have more clarity on these issues than I have–though after 15 years I’m increasingly despairing about the possibility of this.

And your position doesn’t seem simple to me at all.

None of what you say addresses what I am saying. We’ve been round this often enough. Unless you are willing actually to address the objection that I have, instead of telling me that I’m making things too hard and trying to substitute all sorts of simpler objections that don’t bother me at all.

I don’t want to sound patronizing, but it seems to me that you have a very simple and beautiful faith and you can’t see why it isn’t as simple to everyone as it is to you. Well, God didn’t make us all alike–He gave me the kind of brain that sees the complications in things. And I have to honor Him by using that brain as faithfully as I can.

God bless,

Edwin