I think the criticism is because she criticized Obama for using dual teleprompters. So, to avoid being a hypocrite, she has resorted to writing on her hand. The people I know who write on their hands aren’t the most altogether people.

Yup.

And I’m glad you found a way to make the water heater fit.

I still think that men would rather share life with a woman who is emotionally and intellectually their comparative equal. I have met a small number of men who wanted to be “the making of” their wives but it’s too daunting a task for the vast majority.

Part of the reason I don’t watch TV is that I can’t stand how anyone is portrayed. I don’t think the sin of overvaluing women occurs very often in our society.

Topic: Give up the Ghost!

I was Googling up on my search with tongues, etc and decided to stop by and take a look around in here! I noticed two things, your 2010 requests and at one time you had been really interested in the subject of tongues! I’m leaving you with somethings I hope you’ll ponder on about for a long time! This comes from my interpretation of God after my experience with tongues and interpretation. Discernment ended up being my greatest gift and it comes from our minds not a gift of the spirit! God, is not a spirit! The word of god,all our experiences with god, has comes from a spirit! Not God! Test all spirits and that means testing the holy spirit! I did and you eventually come to this conclusion that your worshiping a spirit, that’s not God to me! I’m and ex-christian who gave up the ghost!

I do have lots of options here, but theology comes before comfort so I’m not sure Anglican is the best choice.

http://www.facebook.com/internetmonk?v=wall

http://www.catholicnews.com/photos/09hp0573.htm

But you knew that already.

I don’t know what your options are. I enjoyed the Anglican service I attended a few months ago.

This is the time of year when funeral homes make available to churches calendars for the coming year and, most often, significant days and seasons are printed on them. So you might consider picking up one of those free calendars from the back of a church.

“For the Life of Me” – I like that. Peace.

You wrote:

“If Irenaeus had failed to define “tradition”, we would be left to believe that “tradition” is extra-biblical teaching. But Irenaeus DID define what he was writing about…”

Even though the content of what Irenaeus said is all contained in Scripture, surely the precise words he uses in the rule of faith are not. This implies that the rule of faith is an interpretation of Scripture–a reformulation of the content of Scripture in different words. Irenaeus also seems to think this interpretation is authoritative, ie. it is to be believed because of the authoritative people he claims to get it from through Apostolic succession. We are conscience-bound to believe this interpretation of Scripture because it is an authoritative interpretation, received from authoritative interpreters–not just because we can infer it from Scripture accurately.

So I can agree that Irenaeus sees all the content of tradition contained in Scripture. But this doesn’t imply Sola Scriptura. After all, Sola Scripturaists have to say that all interpretations of Scripture are equally lacking in authority. Irenaeus doesn’t think this.

Your quote from Basil about not appealing to custom actually supports the authority of tradition. Notice that Basil thinks that appealing to custom on his (non-heretical) side is sufficient for him to believe in his Orthodox views. Why does he move to an appeal to Scriptural proof then? Because he wants to persuade his opponents, who share Scripture in common with him as an authority and a source of knowledge. He is appealing to common ground, not denying the authority of the Church’s interpretations of Scripture (which he affirms). And Basil’s attitude toward those that interpret Scripture differently than the Fathers seems to be that they deny the authority of the Fathers:

“To refuse to follow the Fathers, not holding their declaration of more authority than one’s own opinion, is conduct worthy of blame, as being brimful of self-sufficiency.” Basil, EpistleTo the Canonicae, 52:1

I don’t see how your quote from Augustine demonstrates what you are trying to prove. Augustine also seemed to think that the Church’s interpretation of Scripture is authoritative:

“To be sure, although on this matter, we cannot quote a clear example taken from the canonical Scriptures, at any rate, on this question, we are following the true thought of Scriptures when we observe what has appeared good to the universal Church which the authority of these same Scriptures recommends to you.” Augustine, C. Cresconius I:33

Your Athanasius quote, like your Irenaeus quotes, only shows that Scripture and Tradition have the same content–not that Tradition is just a human, fallible, non-authoritative interpretation of Scripture. On the contrary, St. Athanasius says

“But the Word of the Lord which came through the Ecumenical Synod at Nicea, abides forever.” Athanasius, Ad Afros 2 (c. A.D. 369)

This seems to mean that the Holy Ecumenical Council was infallible, and interpreted Holy Scripture with divine authority.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem’s statement that “For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures” also proves, at most, that the content of Tradition is all in Scripture–not that Tradition lacks its own inherent authority as an interpretation given by authoritative teachers. In fact, Cyril also says that if we abandon the Rule of Faith (which is an interpretation of Scripture) we abandon divine doctrine and are accursed. This implies that he thinks the Rule of Faith is an authoritative interpretation of Scripture.

All of this is to say that, while you have shown the Fathers did not have a Roman Catholic understanding of Tradition, they did not seem to have a Protestant understanding either, as the quotes I supplied seem to say. Rather, they thought Scripture was the sole infallible rule that provided the content of faith and practice, but some interpretations of Scripture are more authoritative than others (and in fact, some are infallible). This is the Orthodox (and also Anglo-Catholic) understanding of tradition called “Prima Scriptura”.

Thoughts?

You can see a discussion of these issues here on my blog: http://wellofquestions.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/church-authority-argument-4-sola-scriptura-vs-prima-scriptura-and-icons/

Simply stated…this summer was sheer hell. If the Roman Catholics are right and there is a purgatory…I’ve done my time. I also learned a lot and would not want to give up what I learned.

Thank you for commenting – and I’m sorry that I didn’t reply to the email that I heard you sent. I took the form right out of the site and just left my email address so it doesn’t happen again. I’m glad that I was told there was something wrong with the form. At this point, if you want to contact me for any reason, it’s fixed now.

If a believer prays this prayer, it does not exclude them from salvation. There are many different “conversion experiences” and to take one off the table is not correct.

(I’m not focusing on Paul Washer – I’m just writing to the content of the blog that I linked to.)

Does a person who does not have a true belief have a “false sense of security” if they prayed that prayer? Only if the church gives them one…and that’s on the church, not the prayer.

For a person to decide “who’s in and who’s out” on the basis of whether or not they prayed the prayer is bad…either way.

A person is not excluded from salvation because they didn’t pray the prayer or because they did pray the prayer. They’re excluded because God looks at the heart and God excludes them because of what they do or do not believe, not on the basis of their conversion experience.

If the pastor that wrote that blog post chooses to train the church to lead people a different way, that might be a good thing, depending on the method used.

But don’t exclude from salvation (the way the blog writer did) those prayed the prayer.

The “if you don’t do it my way you’re not saved” is a problem for me.

If you don’t do it “GOD’s” way you’re not saved and while we don’t see an example of the “sinner’s prayers”, we do see examples of people crying out to God in the conviction of their sin, asking for forgiveness.

In a way, excluding those who pray the prayer from salvation (fellowship?) reminds me of the “regulative principle”…if it’s not in the Bible you cannot do it.

Because starting your Christian walk with a prayer of confession and dedication is not going to rule out salvation – it’s the heart with which it’s done.

That’s why I said that “It’s the leading an unbelieving person in “the formula” for the sake of following the formula”

Piper is saying if you don’t love Jesus, you are not saved.

The writer of the blog I quoted said that if you pray the “sinner’s prayer” you’re not saved.

If you have a person who comes to you and says that they know they sinned and that they want to turn to Christ,

Is there a better way of starting your walk with Christ than a prayer of confession? Or is it “pray without ceasing, but don’t start that way?”

The “sinner’s prayer” does not rule out loving Jesus, it does not rule out discipleship.

If a church does not disciple a new Christian, that’s the fault of the church; it is not the fault of the words the new Christian used.

I agree that there may be a better way of explaining the process of salvation. But I don’t think that it’s “wrong” for new believers to confess their sin to God at their conversion.

And I do think it’s wrong to make a blanket statement (as the writer of the blog did) that people who have prayed this prayer are going to hell.

Because I think it’s a matter of the person’s heart that gives them their standing before God, not the words that they use.