[George W. Bush]

Book description: And he shows that saint worship is not just a pious devotion that Christians can take or leave as they choose. Rather, it must be part of the faith of every Christian, for it serves as a critical safeguard against atheism, pantheism, and idolatry.

Many Baptists and Protestants do in fact study the struggles of the ancient churches against heretics and the corruption of the Word. It is as profitable to us as it is to members of Rome's churches.

But we don't worship or venerate those ancient Christians. Not even Athanasius or Augustine. BTW, you are aware that Calvin and all of us who subscribe to the doctrines of grace he expounded are doing no more than believing in those portions of Augustine's teachings which Rome rejects? So I don't believe in Saint Calvin or Saint Augustine. But I have considerable regard for their teachings on doctrine and don't pretend they were sinless or more immune to temptation or sin than I am.

Given the rise of modern heresy, no Christian should be without the counsel offered by those we commonly refer to as the Ante-Nicene Fathers of the ancient churches. For instance, I had cause recently to investigate Bishop Lucifer and the Luciferian sect as reactionaries to the forgiveness of those who participated even slightly in the Arian heresy. It's a sound study for any person. And the Luciferians didn't outlast their first generation. But then again, I know many Baptists who don't have a clue who Athanasius was. I bet I could find plenty of Catholics who don't either.

[dangus]

>> Many Baptists and Protestants do in fact study the struggles of the ancient churches against heretics and the corruption of the Word. It is as profitable to us as it is to members of Rome's churches....But we don't worship or venerate those ancient Christians. <<

Well, by the way that book's author is using the word, you do.

[gbcdoj]

BTW, you are aware that Calvin and all of us who subscribe to the doctrines of grace he expounded are doing no more than believing in those portions of Augustine's teachings which Rome rejects?

No, I'm not aware of that, since it's not true. Augustine recognized the existence of free will, of true merit on the part of the justified, even to the point of meriting eternal life, (cfr. On Grace and Free Will, for the first, throughout, for the second, chapters 18-21), the possibility of a failure to persevere on the part of some of the faithful and the consequent impossibility of an absolute certitude (without special revelation) that one will persevere (cfr. the The Gift of Perseverance, chapters 19, 21). Moreover, nowhere in his works do we find the doctrine of the "irresistible grace" (not to be confused with the idea of an infallibly efficacious grace, which he held and which is a legitimate belief among Catholics, cfr. the Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. "Controversies on Grace").

As the denial of these points and the affirmation of the irresistibility of grace constitute the major portions of the so-called "doctrines of grace" that we disagree with (we stand with you in rejecting semi-Pelagianism and Pelagianism, of course), I feel quite confident in claiming Augustine for the Catholic side - he is, after all, the great "doctor of grace" for us Catholics, too.

Admittedly, arguing over who is following Augustine's teachings is a bit pointless since, after all, you can always reply that you'd rather take scripture over what he said!