Free Republic

From TKS

10 pm update
11/07 10:11 PM
Wondering if the exit polls were way off, are the calls still using their concept of "key precincts"? Or are they looking for data incoming from far and wide?

Anyway. It looks like a long night, lots of close races. That last surge in the Republicans direction gave them a fighting chance in a lot of races they had been trailing, but a fighting chance is not the same as victory. We're going to have to wait up late and see; it's possible that the GOP ends up coming just short.

FL-13, KY-4, VA-2 - the GOP is getting some important holds; the "Blue Tidal Wave" is not likely to occur. But the Democrats may be getting on the other end of that 10 to 20 range I was looking at. Maybe more, we will see.

But some bad news - Nancy Johnson looks like she's going down in CT. Other CT races look real close.

But now I'm hearing from sources different vibe on Foley's seat, now it's looking better for the GOP.

From JKS

"VA Senate is all but in the bag."
11/07 09:29 PM
At least one well-connected Republican — not Obi Wan — seems very confident about Allen finishing on top in Virginia. I see it as very very close.
They don't buy the CNN and ABC call on Cardin. The early numbers have Steele up, and they have a lot of absentees that won't get counted for a while. That's based entirely on exit polls, which are wrong.

Northup looks like a loss, and that might be a sign of a bad night.

I'm told that Michael Barone — the guy who was the first to say the exit polls were bad in 2004 —just said the exit polls gave the Democrats 6 to 8 points this year. Puts a lot of those Senate races into the neck-and-neck category.

The CNN call on Rhode Island is based on exit polls. Ignore the call, watch the actual numbers coming in tonight.

That's not to say Whitehouse won't win; just that it's likely to be close and they ought not rely on exit polls.

http://www.newlifechurch.org/pressrelease110606.pdf

Dear New Lifers and friends of New Life Church,

This is the press release from the Board of Overseers that will be released to the media this afternoon. We want you to know first what the actions of the overseers are going to be.

Please continue to pray for Pastor Ted and his family and let's all continue to stand strong together for the kingdom of God. We will get through this together. Remember, New Life Church has never been a man, or a building or anything else--we are a family.

Pastor Ross

November 4, 2006
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
New Life Church
Colorado Springs, Colorado

We, the Overseer Board of New Life Church, have concluded our deliberations concerning the moral failings of Pastor Ted Haggard. Our investigation and Pastor Haggard's public statements have proven without a doubt that he has committed sexually immoral conduct.

The language of our church bylaws state that as Overseers we must decide in cases where the Senior Pastor has "demonstrated immoral conduct" whether we must "remove the pastor from his position or to discipline him in any way they deem necessary."

In consultation with leading evangelicals and experts familiar with the type of behavior Pastor Haggard has demonstrated, we have decided that the most positive and productive direction for our church is his dismissal and
removal.

In addition, the Overseers will continue to explore the depth of Pastor Haggard's offense so that a plan of healing and restoration can begin. Pastor Haggard and his wife have been informed of this decision. They have agreed as well that he should be dismissed and that a new pastor for New
Life Church should be selected according to the rules of replacement in the bylaws.

That process will begin immediately in hopes that a new pastor can be confirmed by the end of the year 2006. In the interim, Ross Parsley will function as the leader of the church with full support of the Overseers.

A letter of explanation and apology by Pastor Haggard as well as a word of encouragement from Gayle Haggard will be read in the 9:00 and 11:00 service of New Life Church.

I did not say that attention to the scriptures precludes devotion to prayer. I think perhaps you may be assuming an either/or where I never posited anything of the sort.

Why don't you expound it for me, ignotant as I am.

Again,

both/and not either/or

both/and not either/or

Thanks sionsar.

These are not notes. This is an actual liturgy created for the 30th anniversary of the ordination of Women in ECUSA for use in the diocese of Newark. If you go to the source article at Stand Firm you will see a link to the actual document. Elizabeth Keaton was one of the three women who crafted this desecration. It was used and is, from what I understand, currently being used throughout the diocese throughout the month of Sept.

Historically speaking the problem arises when the Supreme Court ceases to interpret the constition in accordance with the original intent of the authors. When that happens the Court ceases to apply law and begins to create law, many times contradicting the constitution itself.

The same thing happens in the Church...hence the Reformation

Yes, you are correct. That was a misstatement on my part. For Romans and Orthodox, I think, one is declared righteous only when one is righteous whereas for an evangelical, one is declared righteous on the basis of the alien righteousness of Christ.

Please point them out.

Tax Relief,

Thank you for that article, but I think it betrays a deep misperception/misunderstanding of the doctrine in question. Here is Hodge's definition of Sola Scriptura

http://www.mbrem.com/bible/solahodge.htm

No Tax Relief,

That was Luther's definition. Sola Scriptura has always meant that there is only one not two infallible sources of divine revelation. It has NEVER meant that the bible is to be read exclusively and individually.

The RC has held formally since before Trent (though it was articulated clearest at Trent) that there are two sources of infallible revelation: the 1. bible and 2. Tradition as defined infallibly by the Church.

you seem to be reacting against the Radical Reformers' twisting of Sola Scriptura rather than the magisterial reformer's articulated doctrine.

Tax Relief,

Sola Scrptura is indeed Anglican. Here's an article I wrote about the subject a few weeks ago:

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/comments/is_sola_scriptura_anglican/


I was informed this week that "true Anglicans" do not hold to the doctrine of sola scriptura (scripture alone) and what is more; that the very idea of sola scriptura is antithetical to everything Anglican. This came as a great surprise to me as I both hold quite firmly to sola scriptura and, at the same time, consider myself to be a fairly true Anglican, if a bit on the evangelical side.

Moreover, I am not alone. I think there are a lot of Anglicans who hold to the same doctrine, some consciously and some unaware.

How can this be?

First I think I should explain what sola scriptura is not. It does not mean that the bible negates tradition, reason, science, or common sense.

As even a cursory glance at the orthodox side of the magisterial Reformed movements (Calvinism and Lutheranism) will show, classical teaching and human reason is highly treasured. There is a rich and multifaceted “tradition” of Reformed scholars from Calvin and Luther to the present, each generation building on the other. Some even refer to the Calvinist tradition as a sort of “reformed scholasticism” likening it to the intricacy and depth of medieval scholasticism.

Now that we know what sola scriptura is not we ought also to ask: what is it and is it rightly placed within the sphere of Anglicanism?

The doctrine of sola scriptura holds that the bible is the only infallible source of revealed truth. “Scripture alone” is infallible.

This assertion does not carry the corollary; that God has limited his revelation to the scriptures. One can both hold firmly to sola scriptura and at the same time believe that God speaks through the Church, the councils, holy tradition, nature, reason etc.

In other words, sola scriptura does not assert that the scriptures are the only source of revelation. It does assert that the scriptures are the only infallible source of revelation. Therefore, because it is the only infallible source of revelation, the bible is the sole norm by which all other authoritative norms are normed. Another way to say this is to say that because the bible is the lone infallible source, tradition and reason must be judged in light of the scriptures.

The best way to understand this doctrine and to understand how it fits within the realm of Anglican thought is to compare it with the Roman Catholic doctrine on the one hand and that of the radical reformers on the other.

At Trent the Roman Catholic Church embraced formally the two source theory of special revelation that she still holds today. Both holy writ and holy tradition are considered infallible sources of divine revelation. The teaching office of the Church, the magisterium, is charged with interpreting these two infallible sources for the faithful. Sometimes, like when the pope speaks from the chair of Peter or “ex-cathedra,” the Church interprets these two infallible sources infallibly and adds to infallible tradition. My Roman Catholic readers are invited to correct me if I have missed something here.

The Reformers objected that the Church can err and has erred in the past. While God does reveal his will to the Church, no human being, no council, no magisterium can infallibly define doctrine.

On the other side of the divide stand the radical reformers. These took sola scriptura to extremes. Not only does the bible stand as the norm by which all other norms must be normed, but it stands as the definitive precedent and model for all institutions, secular and religious. In other words, for many of the radical reformers nothing could be permitted or established in Church or state unless a biblical model or precedent could be found. Many of the Puritans followed this extreme form of sola scriptura.

Anglicans, especially evangelical and/or reformed Anglicans, have embraced a more moderate form of sola scriptura as a “via media” between Rome and the radical reformers. All things must be tested in light of the biblical witness, but not all things must conform to biblical precedent. In other words, change is possible, "new things" can happen in the church, so long as the new things do not contradict the eternal Word of God.

All other sources of revelation must be tested in light of the bible, the one infallible source, but there is room for dynamic change within biblical limits. Whatever does not contradict the scriptures is not forbidden by them.

Within this framework, tradition and reason stand as secondary sources of revelation and thus, secondary sources of authority. They are not negated, but they are subject to the biblical witness. As Richard Hooker wrote:

What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that first credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after these the voice of the Church succeedeth... (Laws, Book V, 8:2; Folger Edition 2:39,8-14),

Likewise, we read in article 20 of the Articles of Religion:

The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in the Controversies of Faith; and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of the Scripture, that it be repugnant to another…

And in article 34:

It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries , times, and men’s manners, so that nothing be ordained against God’s Word. Whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly and purposefully, doth openly break the Tradition and Ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority ought to be rebuked openly…

Both articles and the passage from Hooker show that sola scriptura; the dogma that scripture alone, as the infallible source of revelation, is the norm by which all other norms must be normed, stands at the center of classic Anglican thought and teaching.

It is not correct, therefore, to label contemporary efforts to test the most recent ecclesial novelties by the bright light of the biblical revelation as an emergence of “neo-Puritanism.” Rather, a more correct and appropriate label might be, “mere Anglicanism.”

There are Anglo-Catholic Episcopalians and Evangelical Episcopalians. I am evangelical. I could not go to Rome. I hold to too many of the sola's. I would not go to a mainline reformed body, but likely the PCA or Orthodox Pres.

I think we may be going in circles. Of course there is more than gnosticism in the mix of heresies at the heart of ECUSA. But gnostic thought is one of them at the very root. The specific idea that "love" and "spirit" can be utterly distinguished from biological bodies is a gnostic idea. That such a distinction may be used as a rationalization for sexual liscenciousness is a gnostic application of that distinction. This is clear.

Does this make Gene Robinson et al textbook 2nd century Greek gnostics? No. As you point out. They have abandonded the utter anti-material philosophy of the early gnostics. Does this mean that the argument they make for seperating sex from spirit is less gnostic, no. It is an exact reproduction of a gnostic line of thought based on the very same gnostic principles. soul v. body, flesh v. spirit etc...

Yes,

There was an ascetic and a libertine form of gnostic. The ascetic was far more common, but the libertine also popped up here and there. Some argue that Paul is dealing with a Christian form of libertine gnosticism in corinth, hence his emphasis on the importance of the body throughout the letter.

The ascetics proposed that since the flesh was evil, it is something to escape from and the desires of the flesh are to be destroyed by mortification.

The libertines proposed that the flesh is meaningless and thus what you do with the flesh is meaningless. If you want to have sex with your step-mother (1 Cor 5) that's fine, it really doesn't matter. The spirit matters. THe flesh is passing and meaningless. Thus everything is permissable (1 Cor 6:12; 10:23) and nothing is harmful.

In both cases the bodily resurrection makes no sense, because who really needs a body anyway?

That was also a recurring theme in Johnsons article. Biology is meaningless. Whereas in the scriptures, your biological body is the temple of the Lord (1 Cor 6:12-20)

Perhaps there is such a trend because the homosexual agenda (at least the "spiritual" part of it IS gnostic)

Are you familiar with gnosticism? It posits a core utter dichotomy between flesh and spirit, the first being evil or lesser, the second good or higher. This is precisely the approach of the ECUSAn left when it comes to sexuality. What you do with your body is unimportant because the "essence" or spirit of Christianity is a form of disembodied "love". classic gnostic stuff there. I've studied the gnostics pretty thoroughly. My association of this with gnosticism is correct.

" respects the faith man places is his own rationalization over faith in Christ."

No friend. I believe the Ascension is true because it is recorded in God's Holy Word. But that does not mean apologetics are unnecessary. The question Spong raises is a difficult one for many. I think my explanation directly addresses Spong and reaffirms the truth of God's Word for doubting minds.

The only biblical warrant for divorce is adultery or abandonment by a non-believing spouse. It is simply not to be permitted in any other case. Is there forgiveness restoration and grace availible for divorcers and divorcees? Absolutley. But in this case it was never sought. It was a case of willfull, premeditated, and consistent rebellion. If you think I was going to let him come into the church and partake of the Lord's body and blood in the presence of the wife he abandoned, I don't have the authority to subvert God's word and order in that way.