Dear Mr. White:

Thank you for taking the time to respond to me with your letter of 12/23/96. I most certainly will pick up both books hopefully within the next few weeks. I will "comment on your comments" in the same numbered fashion so as to "keep it simple."

1. On Apostolic succession in the Fathers: Thank you for your references to Clement and the Didache; I will look carefully at both concerning the plurality of elders.

2. On a heavy reliance on "Tradition" in the Fathers: I do not understand how this can be disputed. Do you disagree with Kelly's view of this in Early Christian Doctrines? The fact that you so readily admit what I find in the Fathers concerning communion and baptism, yet dispute this, leads me to believe that you must know something I do not? (This is not sarcasm. I am very serious. I am a complete "novice" who only seeks to honestly understand Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox issues, especially as related to the early Church and the Fathers.)

3. On Mary: As with #1 above, thank you for the information on the intimate association with monasticism. What is a good source for more on this historical link? Also, did any "Church Fathers" not defend the "ever virgin" doctrine? Thanks also for pointing out the obvious fact that I never thought about: why wasn't Mary "venerated" when she was still alive in the flesh? Good point!

4. Liturgical worship and the centrality of the Eucharist: You agreed here. But let me ask you, does Peter Gillquist (and others) have any basis for claiming that God's people today must follow the same prescribed rituals?

5. Baptism and 6. Real Presence: On both of these you agreed. How do you view these sacraments in this light?

7. On a NT "Priesthood" in the Fathers: My source here was Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, which contains several references in this regard, not to mention making much use of "priest" to describe ministers in the early Church. Again, I am an "amateur," and my study has only started. Any enlightenment here would be appreciated.

When I speak of "concessions ...," please understand; Scripture is the final authority for me. But certainly if a practice of doctrine seems to have been universally held by those who knew the Apostles or came just after, my interpretation of Scripture (if in conflict) deserves reexamination. This is not to say that such "collective witness" equals immediate acceptance! My apologies if my statement was taken this way. To give one example of what I meant: I had always reluctantly held that baptism was "just a symbol," although in the back of my mind I always wondered about some of the more difficult passages. My reading in the Fathers so far has caused me to reevaluate this position. I do not believe the Fathers to be "God-breathed" as the Scriptures are, but neither do I believe that modern believers should just ignore pre-Reformation Church history. I most definitely reject the "ransom to Satan" theory and, once again, you have made an excellent point. (However, didn't this view originate with the Alexandrian school and Origen?)

I appreciate your time, and I will definitely send a copy of Gillquist's response if one is forthcoming. Are you preparing anything on Eastern Orthodoxy? Also, how did the "iconoclasts" (in my view, the correct party) get "shot down" in Church history? Are there any good sources specifically refuting the use of icons?

In Christ Jesus,

William S. Kilgore

TO PREVIOUS LETTER