Without Me You Can Do Nothing

[skypair]

Would the Apostle Paul qualify as a Jewish scholar? He wrote, in his letter to the Romans, "For the wages of sin is death..." and "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

If infants were not born with original sin, infants would not die, for the penalty of sin is death. Paul did not say that the penalty for being born with the propensity to sin was death; he said it was actual sin. Infants do die, sadly enough, confirming that they too pay the penalty for being born with sin.

If what you say is true, then ALL infants would die. Pls get serious, Bob.

And you will note that Paul says death came because all men have sinned -- not because they are sinners from birth.

skypair

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Skypair: If what you say is true, then ALL infants would die.

HP: Let me clarify for the listener the connection that has been made in the past on this thread. It was clearly implied that a proof of original sin was the fact that even infants die.

The problem with making this connection is as follows. It is believed by those holding to original sin that it is a universal principle affecting every child born into this world. If that is true, and physical death is the penalty for that corruption, then the penalty, in this case being death, would of necessity be universal upon infants as well. Such is simply not the case. Not all infants die, therefore one can only conclude that the reason why infants die cannot be anything universal in nature such as original sin.

Does anyone find a flaw in the logic employed by either those holding to the notion that the death of infants point to the reality of original sin in infants besides myself, and from what I read, Skypair? Does anyone see a fallacy with the logic I set forth in this post in connection with the notion of original sin being established by the death of infants?

 

[Pastor_Bob]

OK BR. Now tell us about the deaths of Enoch and Elijah...Have or will, according to Scripture, these seen or will see death as we know it?

Elijah will see death in Revelation 11.
Those taken in the Rapture will "die" as they change from mortals to immorality. (I Cor. 15:53)

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Pastor Bob: Elijah will see death in Revelation 11.

HP: That is indeed a possibility although Scripture does NOT state who the two witnesses are. If I believed as you do, that would be my conjecture also.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

So you recite things you don't understand?

All the time. I would guess you do to. I quote John 3:16 and I don't understand how God could love the world enough to send His Son. I quote Romans 5:8 and I don't understand how Christ could love me even while I was a sinner.

Is that a good thing for a pastor to do?

I believe that it is, yes.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Pls get serious, Bob.

I assure you, friend, I am serious as I can be about this and every other discussion I engage in here on the Baptist Board.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

In these debates there is no unbiased moderator to judge the fairness of the way one handles direct questions of the other, so seriousness in these debates is a very subjective idea based on ones observations, which I admit are always as they might appear to another.

One of the ways I judge the seriousness of the other is directly associated with the questions they are willing to directly answer. When we observe one skirting or otherwise refusing to answer direct questions concerning a text or ones views, how does that show one is serious about allowing the text to reveal its context and the true intents of the author?

I have asked several times about the righteous in chapter 58. I have never heard a single response from Pastor Bob in relationship to them. I have never heard a response as to the relationships that exist between the righteous and David himself, and with the wicked he addresses in the first part of the chapter. I asked the following questions that I believe are indeed pertinent to this discussion.

“Is there one daring soul on this list that would be so kind as to tell us where in the world the righteous spoken of come from in this chapter, and why David would have desired his own teeth to be smashed in his mouth as an infant, and why he would have desired that he would have ‘passed away’ in a miscarriage due to the ‘original sin’ of himself as an infant? If all are born in original sin, and this passage is supporting that notion, where are the righteous hailing from that are rejoicing at the just desserts of every child ever born including themselves as God is called upon to smash their teeth in their mouths and destroy them??? Are we being careful and serious with the Word of God?”

Would you be so kind as to at least attempt to answer these questions? If not, would you tell us why they are not pertinent to the discussion if in fact we are in serious pursuit of the truth?

 

[Pastor_Bob]

I have asked several times about the righteous in chapter 58. I have never heard a single response from Pastor Bob in relationship to them.

First, I feel no obligation to respond to any questions when my previous answers are continually rejected and explained away by those dogmatically clinging to pre-conceived ideas.

Second, I stated earlier that I do understand the primary interpretation of this chapter, which is David reproving the wicked judges who pervert justice. I also understand that this has application, which, when cross-referenced with other passages (Ps. 51:5 the NIV's rendering of this verse is quite easy to understand, Rom. 5:19, Eph. 2:1-3) support the fact that, since Adam, all men are born with a sin nature and are sinners by birth but also sinners by choice. To believe otherwise indicates a disbelief in the literal account of Adam and his fall. Infants die, not because of individual sins; they die because of imputed sins.

I have expressed this position many times in this thread. This is my last word on the subject.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Pastor Bob: First, I feel no obligation to respond to any questions when my previous answers are continually rejected and explained away by those dogmatically clinging to pre-conceived ideas.

HP: Certainly no one is under any obligation to respond to another’s questions, but why would one desire to participate in a debate forum just to ignore the others questions? As I stated earlier, Pastor Bob has refused to address my questions and refuses to address the words of David in the remainder of the chapter, and has done nothing to harmonize the first part of the chapter with the middle and latter part. I have rejected his responses due to the fact he chooses only to support the presupposition of original sin when he has done nothing meaningful to substantiate that position by showing how his position is in line with the rest of the chapter and the clear distinction between the wicked and the righteous.

Certainly you have every right to end the discussion as you say you have, but you have weakened your position by ending it as you have done. It shows clearly your lack of concern to look at this chapter from the apparent and stated context of the author, choosing rather to massage a couple of verses into support for the dogma of original sin. Pastor Bob, why would you state that it is I that I am ‘dogmatically clinging to preconceived notions?’ Since you leveled that charge, why don’t you share with the list my dogmatic position and show us how I am using this chapter to substantiate in any way such a ‘dogmatic position’ as you say I hold to?

Pastor Bob: Second, I stated earlier that I do understand the primary interpretation of this chapter, which is David reproving the wicked judges who pervert justice.

HP: If this is what you think the primary interpretation really is, how in the world can you say that David, as a Jew, is establishing a universal principle of original sin when Jews never have believed any such motion as Augustinian original sin implies? Why do not you limit the scope of verse 3 to the wicked judges you admit he is addressing?

Pastor Bob: I also understand that this has application, which, when cross-referenced with other passages (Ps. 51:5 the NIV's rendering of this verse is quite easy to understand, Rom. 5:19, Eph. 2:1-3) support the fact that, since Adam, all men are born with a sin nature and are sinners by birth but also sinners by choice.

HP: You fail to realize the precarious predicament you place yourself in. You speak of ‘choice’ while you eliminate the very essence of choice by maintaining that man is born sinful and as such in no wise could ever do anything other than sin. By denying contrary choice, you establish nothing short of necessitated fatalism. 'Choice' to do what? You have said nothing that supports ‘choice,’ but rather only parrot the necessitated notion that one only does as one is predestined to do and that alone, i.e., to sin and that continually.

Pray tell us what cross referencing does to support the notion of original sin between Ps 51 and Ps 58 when one speaks of the sinful act in which David was conceived by his mother and the other speaks of wicked judges?

Pastor Bob: To believe otherwise indicates a disbelief in the literal account of Adam and his fall. Infants die, not because of individual sins; they die because of imputed sins.

HP: There is not one Scripture that states in any way that the sins of another are imputed to someone else. Even Wesley admitted to that fact. We would do well to do the same. If you still feel differently, show us the clear passage of Scripture that would state such a thing.

Infants die for many physical reasons. Certainly all physical depravity is due to sin, but for you to say that sin is imputed to them and that imputed sin is the reason why they die is to go far beyond the testimony of reason as well as Scripture. You show no distinction between physical consequences of sin and sin itself. You make the same mistake as did Augustine, when he reasoned from his heathen understanding that sin lied in the constitution of the flesh and not in the will. You confuse the sensibilities and the will of man.

Sin is not a disease; it is the willful choice of selfish disobedience against a known commandment of God.

 

[bound]

Your whole presupposition, in many of your threads, that 'Augustine is the Bad Guy' is so laden with the Hellenist Polemic that I find it disingenuous to label a fellow poster with 'heathen understanding'.

Seriously are you so enamored by 'modern' Orthodox Polemics to not see your own hypocrisy here? Come on now.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Bound: Your whole presupposition, in many of your threads, that 'Augustine is the Bad Guy' is so laden with the Hellenist Polemic that I find it disingenuous to label a fellow poster with 'heathen understanding'.

Seriously are you so enamored by 'modern' Orthodox Polemics to not see your own hypocrisy here? Come on now.

HP: The issue is not who is the bad guy, it is truth. Augustine simply is one prominent figure in Church history that has infected the truth with error in a most critical area. With his heathenistic philosophy that sin lies in the constitution of the flesh and not in the will. It has corrupted the issue of sin and what it consists of, wrongfully establishes guilt where there is none and destroys the import of the freedom of the will and individual responsibility. He created a system of thought that has but one end, and that is fatalistic determination.

Laden me with whatever polemic you so desire but it does not detract from the truth that Augustine is indeed the author of the doctrine of original sin, and that such a dogma was never part of the corpus of doctrine held to by the church prior to his entry. Every definition of sin in Scripture plainly teaches that sin is not a disease, but rather is a judgment of God for the voluntary act of disobedience to a known commandment of God. Scripture plainly teaches us that every man is responsible for his own sin and not that of another, and God holds man accountable accordingly. No man is held accountable for doing that which he has no knowledge of or power of contrary choice. Sorry Bound, if you think that is heathen philosophy you are as mixed up as Augustine ever was.

 

[bound]

Bound: Your whole presupposition, in many of your threads, that 'Augustine is the Bad Guy' is so laden with the Hellenist Polemic that I find it disingenuous to label a fellow poster with 'heathen understanding'.

Seriously are you so enamored by 'modern' Orthodox Polemics to not see your own hypocrisy here? Come on now.

HP: The issue is not who is the bad guy, it is truth. Augustine simply is one prominent figure in Church history that has infected the truth with error in a most critical area. With his heathenistic philosophy that sin lies in the constitution of the flesh and not in the will.

And Neo-Platonist Emmanationism isn't Heathen Philosophy? Have you become blind by your own rhetoric?

In the beginning, the corrupting and God-opposing angel overthrew the virtue of man- the work and image of God, the possessor of the earth. So Satan has entirely changed man's nature into his own state of wicked enmity against his Maker. For it was created, like his own, for perfect sinlessness... [Satan did this so] he could make man guilty in God's eyes and set up his own supremacy. ~ Tertullian (c. 197, W), 3.80.

It has corrupted the issue of sin and what it consists of, wrongfully establishes guilt where there is none and destroys the import of the freedom of the will and individual responsibility. He created a system of thought that has but one end, and that is fatalistic determination.

In our posts, I have pointed out a line of thought from Cyprian, Ambrose to Augustine as well as shown the Councils which have accepted and approved the teaching of Original Sin. Then I offered a later Orthodox 'Theologian' Simeon who taught Original Sin. What have you done but post rhetorical claims?

Please offer us your sources.

Every soul, then, by reason of its birth, has its nature in Adam until it is born again in Christ. Morever, it is unclean all the time that it remains without this regeneration. And because it is unclean, it is actively sinful. ~ Tertullian (c. 210, W) 3.220

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Bound: In our posts, I have pointed out a line of thought from Cyprian, Ambrose to Augustine as well as shown the Councils which have accepted and approved the teaching of Original Sin. Then I offered a later Orthodox 'Theologian' Simeon who taught Original Sin. What have you done but post rhetorical claims?

Please offer us your sources.

HP: I have respect for education, and in particular an education dealing in historical facts and issues. Let the reader also understand that I am by no means addressing the whole of the arguments, proofs, and historical examples that Bound has brought to the table with this one post. Just the same, I see a clear problem with at least some of the approach Bound utilizes. True, he quotes many sources, but ‘sources’ alone do not mandate the truth is on display. He has also not established any descending line of thought consistent with the novel idea introduced into the Church by Augustine concerning his invention, the doctrine of original sin. Let me illustrate.

Bound utilizes words such as ‘nature’ mentioned by those antecedent to Augustine in the novel way that Augustine used the word nature in conjunction with the idea of original sin. Just because one, other than Augustine, uses the word ‘nature,’ that does not mandate that one has the same definition in mind or that one is at one with the idea that nature is always speaking of a nature consistent with the way Augustine viewed and utilized the word nature in conjunction with original sin.

Secondly, when Bound uses sources such as Augustine or other ECF, one has to keep in mind that they are often if not all deeply enamored with their specific frame of mind and their own view of others, right wrong or indifferent. To illustrate, consider Pelagius in light of the words of his detractor, Augustine. If you believe that Augustine was correct in his appraisal of the views of Pelagius, or that Augustine, coming from his clearly heathen philosophical position, would be a fair judge of the positions of Pelagius, you are either completely deceived or naïve at best. There were two things that placed the views of Augustine above those of Pelagius, and that was the power and position weilded by Augustine. Why do you think it took several attempts before Augustine could stack the deck in favor of himself and in opposition to Pelagius before he could have Pelagius denounced? Was not Pelagius completely exonerated at least two or three times before Augustine’s power and influence finally won out?

Anyone can readily see that if one does not fully engage the resources God grants to us as individuals and think through some of these issues on our own instead of just believing the testimony of others concerning someone they despise, they are bound to repeat the same tragic errors and misjudgments of those they are repeating.

Every generation is under obligation to examine carefully the beliefs of the past, to assure ourselves that we are not just regurgitating the error, or misunderstanding the statements, of past generations.

Our source, by the way, should be the Scriptures, Gods intuitive and outward revelation to man, utilizing every source God gives to us to divine truth. Every other source, council, decree, or creed should be considered suspect until they are judged in accordance to all revealed knowledge given to us by God.

I would like to believe that my source Bounds, is in accordance to the light God has granted to me through intuitive wisdom and Scripture.

 

[bound]

HP: I have respect for education, and in particular an education dealing in historical facts and issues. Let the reader also understand that I am by no means addressing the whole of the arguments, proofs, and historical examples that Bound has brought to the table with this one post. Just the same, I see a clear problem with at least some of the approach Bound utilizes. True, he quotes many sources, but ‘sources’ alone do not mandate the truth is on display. He has also not established any descending line of thought consistent with the novel idea introduced into the Church by Augustine concerning his invention, the doctrine of original sin. Let me illustrate.

Bound utilizes words such as ‘nature’ mentioned by those antecedent to Augustine in the novel way that Augustine used the word nature in conjunction with the idea of original sin. Just because one, other than Augustine, uses the word ‘nature,’ that does not mandate that one has the same definition in mind or that one is at one with the idea that nature is always speaking of a nature consistent with the way Augustine viewed and utilized the word nature in conjunction with original sin.

Secondly, when Bound uses sources such as Augustine or other ECF, one has to keep in mind that they are often if not all deeply enamored with their specific frame of mind and their own view of others, right wrong or indifferent. To illustrate, consider Pelagius in light of the words of his detractor, Augustine. If you believe that Augustine was correct in his appraisal of the views of Pelagius, or that Augustine, coming from his clearly heathen philosophical position, would be a fair judge of the positions of Pelagius, you are either completely deceived or naïve at best. There were two things that placed the views of Augustine above those of Pelagius, and that was the power and position weilded by Augustine. Why do you think it took several attempts before Augustine could stack the deck in favor of himself and in opposition to Pelagius before he could have Pelagius denounced? Was not Pelagius completely exonerated at least two or three times before Augustine’s power and influence finally won out?

Anyone can readily see that if one does not fully engage the resources God grants to us as individuals and think through some of these issues on our own instead of just believing the testimony of others concerning someone they despise, they are bound to repeat the same tragic errors and misjudgments of those they are repeating.

Every generation is under obligation to examine carefully the beliefs of the past, to assure ourselves that we are not just regurgitating the error, or misunderstanding the statements, of past generations.

Our source, by the way, should be the Scriptures, Gods intuitive and outward revelation to man, utilizing every source God gives to us to divine truth. Every other source, council, decree, or creed should be considered suspect until they are judged in accordance to all revealed knowledge given to us by God.

I would like to believe that my source Bounds, is in accordance to the light God has granted to me through intuitive wisdom and Scripture.

Once again I see a lot of 'claims' but not 'one' verse or passage from the Scriptures not one primary source as evidence. I simply see you criticizing the consensus of Christian History for Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism.

That is not evidence, that is rhetoric. Back up your claims...

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Bound: Once again I see a lot of 'claims' but not 'one' verse or passage from the Scriptures not one primary source as evidence.

HP: I believe I gave you some clear evidence. I spoke directly to the cause of the error I found in your posts and the thinking of many others. I drew attention clearly to the truth that just because the word ‘nature is utilized by an author that you cannot extrapolate that to mean ‘original sin’ in any Augustinian context. Sometimes God given intuitive reason is all one needs to see the light if in fact their heart is open to the truth.

 

[bound]

HP: I believe I gave you some clear evidence. I spoke directly to the cause of the error I found in your posts and the thinking of many others. I drew attention clearly to the truth that just because the word ‘nature is utilized by an author that you cannot extrapolate that to mean ‘original sin’ in any Augustinian context. Sometimes God given intuitive reason is all one needs to see the light if in fact their heart is open to the truth.

It is apparent to me that you are not willing to really discuss these matters. You appear happy to reject offhand any argument by simple claims to the contrary. That is not an argument because the claims are unsubstantiated. If you are content to hold unsubstantiated claims then there is really nothing anyone can do for you to broaden the discussion. I believe this to be a grave error on your part and I would simply suggest to you that there is a consensus of thought running throughout Christian History which gives us guidance, even today, that our ideas and interpretations are not simply innovations. Call it a "Deposit of Faith" or a "Traditional Exegesis", if you will, but I am convinced that we are not " intellectual islands" but "members of the Body of Christ" and we are not left to our own means but incorporated into a larger relationship in Christ.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Bound: I would simply suggest to you that there is a consensus of thought running throughout Christian History which gives us guidance, even today, that our ideas and interpretations are not simply innovations. Call it a "Deposit of Faith" or a "Traditional Exegesis", if you will, but I am convinced that we are not " intellectual islands" but "members of the Body of Christ" and we are not left to our own means but incorporated into a larger relationship in Christ.

HP: Shall we test your theory with a little practical dose of reality? According the Handbook of Denominations” there are over a hundred sects of the Church of God alone. Which one, in the hundreds of denominations and there hundreds of flavors even within a single denomination, holds the truth? How can we practically approach the legion of ideas out there to tell which one is the one that is closest to the truth? Which one has the “deposit of faith’” you speak of?

I for one, have given up all hope of finding that one denomination or that one group with that deposit of faith, and believe it is my duty as a follower of Christ to study to show myself approved, and to follow the leading of the Spirit in my life to the best of my abilities, whether or not I can find one or any that agrees with me or not, or whether I am in agreement with Augustine or Wesley or none of the above. I will stand before God alone with my conscience and the Word of God as my judge. No man will be able to call any but Christ to his aide as we stand before Him and give an account for the truth we were given and the obligation to do with it as we honest believe God has commanded us to treat the truth.

You speak of ‘intellectual islands.’ Tell me Bound, was Augustine an intellectual island? I certainly believe he was in many ways. What about Calvin, or Wesley, or any of the other reformers and revivalists? They all seemed to go against the grain of what was taught by their predecessors to one degree or another. As for me, I will indeed listen to many of them and try my best to understand why they believed what they did, but when it comes to deciding what is the truth and what I decide to believe, I will examine all their theories and dogmas with the Word of God and conscience, trying my dead level best to ascertain the truth by every means God places at my disposal, and with all that is within me try to harmonize truth with truth as the Holy Spirit gives understanding.

I will assure you one thing, there is not any idea I can think of that is novel with me. Godly men have plowed the ground that I trod and have discovered every nugget of truth that I now hold, and far more I am certain. Just the same, I have not arrived at which truths to hold by any one system of thought nor by the writings of any singular man or women or denominational group. Certainly some have been far more influential than others, but just the same, God has used the writings and sermons of many men from many different walks of life and denominations and even some apart from any denomination to guide me in my quest for truth. If I am on an intellectual island, I am in good company indeed.:thumbs:

By the way, from or upon what island of truth do you hail from?

 

[bound]

The Ancient Christian Writers as Scriptural Exegetes:

The Fathers are "the most authentic commentators on Scripture, as being both nearest the fountain, and eminently endued with the Spirit by whom all Scripture was given... I speak chiefly of those who wrote before the Council of Nicea. But who would not likewise desire to have some acquaintance with those that followed them? With St. Chrysostom, Basil, Jerome, Augustine; and above all, the man of a broken heart, Ephraim The Syrian? Typical of the Father's reliance on Scripture was Cyril of Jerusalem, who wrote in his Fifth Catechetical Lectures: "It behoveth us not to deliver, no not so much as the least thing of the holy mysteries of faith without the holy Scripture."

Wesley was quick to concede that the ancient Christian writers made many occasional "mistakes. many weak suppositions, and many ill-drawn conclusions." Nonetheless, "I exceedingly reverence them as well as their writings.. because they describe true, genuine Christianity." "Some of these Fathers, being afraid of too literal a way of expounding the Scriptures, leaned sometimes to the other extreme. Yet nothing can be more unjust than to infer from hence 'that the age in which they lived could not relish or endure any but senseless, extravagant, enthusastic, ridiculous comments on sacred writ."

The exegesis of the church fathers is especially helpful in "the explication of a doctrine that is not sufficiently explained, or for confirmation of a doctrine generally received." When Wesley appealed alternatively to "reason, Scripture, or authority," the third of these criteria meant the ancient ecumenical creeds and councils and consensually received classical Christian writings.

On the relation of Scripture and tradition: "The Scriptures are a complete rule of faith and practice; and they are clear in all necesary points. And yet their clearness does not prove that they need not be explained; nor their completeness, that they need not be enforced... The esteeming the writings of the first three centuries, not equally with, but next to, the Scriptures, never carried any man yet into dangerous errors, nor probably ever will." "The historical experience of the church, though fallible, is the better judge overall of Scripture's meanings than later interpreters." ~ all quotes taken from the works of John Wesley

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Bound: The Fathers are "the most authentic commentators on Scripture, as being both nearest the fountain, and eminently endued with the Spirit by whom all Scripture was given... I speak chiefly of those who wrote before the Council of Nicea. But who would not likewise desire to have some acquaintance with those that followed them? With St. Chrysostom, Basil, Jerome, Augustine; and above all, the man of a broken heart, Ephraim The Syrian? Typical of the Father's reliance on Scripture was Cyril of Jerusalem, who wrote in his Fifth Catechetical Lectures: "It behoveth us not to deliver, no not so much as the least thing of the holy mysteries of faith without the holy Scripture."

HP: The title to this thread is :Without Me Ye Can Do Nothing.” Reading your post one might form the conclusion that you believe that without the early Christian fathers we can 'understand nothing,' properly at least. You have given us several names. It would appear obvious to me, from the little exposure I have had reading them, that many seemed to fall off this theological cliff or another on many issues. Your argument seems to be if they lived closer to the time of Christ, and closer to the Fountain, that they should be better prepared to render the truth. That argument is flawed to the core. If they were better able to discern truth, which I do not believe to be the case with many of them, it was not because of the time frame they lived in, nor the closest one physically walked with Christ, (Judas as an example) but rather because their heart was open to truth and enlightened by the Holy Spirit. That same Spirit enlightens my heart, and your heart, as it did theirs.

False teachers and teachings abounded in the early years of the church as well as they do today. Case in point the Church at Corinth to name just one. Many of the churches did not even accept Paul as a true apostle and rejected his teachings. The ONLY way to judge anyone, whether or not they lived at the time of the first century or today, is by examining what they say against the Word of God, intuitive truths granted to man, and our conscience. All will stand in front of the bar of their conscience. We will be enlightened to the truth only as we are found walking in the light as He is in the light.

I am in no way saying that the writings of those men are to be rejected off hand, but that they were simply fallible men as all of us are, and by no means are to be taken above Scriptures as revealed to us by the Holy Spirit, just the same as we examine and test the writings or words of any man.

Older is not necessarily better. As we stand before God in judgment I for one will stand with my conscience, the Word of God and Christ as my Advocate. So will those men and so will all else that are born again. The admonition to all of us in every age is to test the words of men to see if in fact they are in line with the Word of God and let every man be assured in his own mind they know and understand the truth.

 

[bound]

HP: The title to this thread is :Without Me Ye Can Do Nothing.” Reading your post one might form the conclusion that you believe that without the early Christian fathers we can 'understand nothing,' properly at least. You have given us several names. It would appear obvious to me, from the little exposure I have had reading them, that many seemed to fall off this theological cliff or another on many issues. Your argument seems to be if they lived closer to the time of Christ, and closer to the Fountain, that they should be better prepared to render the truth. That argument is flawed to the core. If they were better able to discern truth, which I do not believe to be the case with many of them, it was not because of the time frame they lived in, nor the closest one physically walked with Christ, (Judas as an example) but rather because their heart was open to truth and enlightened by the Holy Spirit. That same Spirit enlightens my heart, and your heart, as it did theirs.

False teachers and teachings abounded in the early years of the church as well as they do today. Case in point the Church at Corinth to name just one. Many of the churches did not even accept Paul as a true apostle and rejected his teachings. The ONLY way to judge anyone, whether or not they lived at the time of the first century or today, is by examining what they say against the Word of God, intuitive truths granted to man, and our conscience. All will stand in front of the bar of their conscience. We will be enlightened to the truth only as we are found walking in the light as He is in the light.

I am in no way saying that the writings of those men are to be rejected off hand, but that they were simply fallible men as all of us are, and by no means are to be taken above Scriptures as revealed to us by the Holy Spirit, just the same as we examine and test the writings or words of any man.

Older is not necessarily better. As we stand before God in judgment I for one will stand with my conscience, the Word of God and Christ as my Advocate. So will those men and so will all else that are born again. The admonition to all of us in every age is to test the words of men to see if in fact they are in line with the Word of God and let every man be assured in his own mind they know and understand the truth.

Read the last two paragraphs as they address your post here.