<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Essentials and non-essentials: Observations</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/10/essentials-and-non-essentials-observations/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/10/essentials-and-non-essentials-observations/</link>
	<description>Making Theology Accessible</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 01:53:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Dudley Davis</title>
		<link>http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/10/essentials-and-non-essentials-observations/comment-page-1/#comment-6273</link>
		<dc:creator>Dudley Davis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2009 02:51:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/?p=1284#comment-6273</guid>
		<description>Michael said &quot;Most of you believe that the doctrine of sola Scriptura is necessary to believe for orthodoxy (2), although many also marked it as important, but not essential (3). There was even a couple of you who believed that if you did not believe in sola Scriptura that you were damned to hell! Ouch . . . All Catholics: you had better pray a couple HMs that they are wrong.&quot;

I am an ex roman catholic and now a Reformed Presbyterian Protestant. I converted because by Gods grace my eyes were opened. However I do not believe that those roman catholics who do not accept sola scriptura will go to hell.

I can tell you that I now I totally believe that the Bible alone is the infallible authority in all matters of faith and practice and that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. I also now believe Predestination, then, is the biblical teaching that God predestines certain events and people to accomplish what He so desires.

Anyone standing for the sovereignty of God as well as the sufficiency of Scripture cannot do other than to renounce the roman pope and roman Catholicism. You can not profess a belief in the authority of the Bible alone as the only authority if you continue to submit to the pope and the roman catholic position of tradition and scripture and sometimes papist teachings which contradict the truths set out in the Gospel of Christ.

Rom. 8:29, &quot;For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren;
3.	Rom. 8:30, &quot;and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.&quot;

I also now believe that I was granted Gods special grace because I sought to have my eyes opened to the truth.

Eph. 1:11, &quot;also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.&quot;

I also now believe that people choose God only because He has first predestined them. I also have come to believe that predestination and/or election does not effect our salvation. Each person must respond to Gods action and grace.

1 Cor. 2:7, &quot;but we speak God&#039;s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom, which God predestined before the ages to our glory.&quot;

The simple truth about Roman Catholicism it denies the Protestant belief in Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. These two rallying points of the great Protestant Reformation are being reversed by men who cannot see the point. I believe we are still in the battle today. I cannot help but hope that the Lord would bring conviction and courage to those who are His own as He did for me.

Dudley</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michael said &#8220;Most of you believe that the doctrine of sola Scriptura is necessary to believe for orthodoxy (2), although many also marked it as important, but not essential (3). There was even a couple of you who believed that if you did not believe in sola Scriptura that you were damned to hell! Ouch . . . All Catholics: you had better pray a couple HMs that they are wrong.&#8221;</p>
<p>I am an ex roman catholic and now a Reformed Presbyterian Protestant. I converted because by Gods grace my eyes were opened. However I do not believe that those roman catholics who do not accept sola scriptura will go to hell.</p>
<p>I can tell you that I now I totally believe that the Bible alone is the infallible authority in all matters of faith and practice and that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. I also now believe Predestination, then, is the biblical teaching that God predestines certain events and people to accomplish what He so desires.</p>
<p>Anyone standing for the sovereignty of God as well as the sufficiency of Scripture cannot do other than to renounce the roman pope and roman Catholicism. You can not profess a belief in the authority of the Bible alone as the only authority if you continue to submit to the pope and the roman catholic position of tradition and scripture and sometimes papist teachings which contradict the truths set out in the Gospel of Christ.</p>
<p>Rom. 8:29, &#8220;For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren;<br />
3.	Rom. 8:30, &#8220;and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.&#8221;</p>
<p>I also now believe that I was granted Gods special grace because I sought to have my eyes opened to the truth.</p>
<p>Eph. 1:11, &#8220;also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.&#8221;</p>
<p>I also now believe that people choose God only because He has first predestined them. I also have come to believe that predestination and/or election does not effect our salvation. Each person must respond to Gods action and grace.</p>
<p>1 Cor. 2:7, &#8220;but we speak God&#8217;s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom, which God predestined before the ages to our glory.&#8221;</p>
<p>The simple truth about Roman Catholicism it denies the Protestant belief in Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. These two rallying points of the great Protestant Reformation are being reversed by men who cannot see the point. I believe we are still in the battle today. I cannot help but hope that the Lord would bring conviction and courage to those who are His own as He did for me.</p>
<p>Dudley</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: britphil</title>
		<link>http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/10/essentials-and-non-essentials-observations/comment-page-1/#comment-6272</link>
		<dc:creator>britphil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:16:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/?p=1284#comment-6272</guid>
		<description>Ranger

Thanks for your comments.  As a struggler with the complete inerrancy /infallibility doctrines towards Scripture they are of great help.  I think I may be with you on the reasoned/limited inerrancy score,  although I may be of a disposition which leans towards a more limited view of inerrancy.  I shall have a read of Dan’s post because I think he is a really good guy who writes some great stuff.  I was also glad to hear that you intimated that it may not be essenitial for orthodoxy, which makes me feel a whole lot better and whole less more heretical!  Like yourself I tend hardly to use the term at all, as I think it can be both misleading and confusing.

Wonders for Oyasa.

I I had noticed, and was fascinated to see, reading through all the threads that you were completely devoid of number ones!  Does this mean you have a phobia of the singular!   I was pretty horrified when I read mine back that I had half a dozen ones, and was beginning to worry that I may be far more of a conservative funadmentalist than I ever dreamt or feared,  only to comfort myself by discovering that in the that I had as many, if not more 4,5 and 6s, including in the area of inerrency/infallibilty, which would get me quickly booted out of most fundamentalist circles!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ranger</p>
<p>Thanks for your comments.  As a struggler with the complete inerrancy /infallibility doctrines towards Scripture they are of great help.  I think I may be with you on the reasoned/limited inerrancy score,  although I may be of a disposition which leans towards a more limited view of inerrancy.  I shall have a read of Dan’s post because I think he is a really good guy who writes some great stuff.  I was also glad to hear that you intimated that it may not be essenitial for orthodoxy, which makes me feel a whole lot better and whole less more heretical!  Like yourself I tend hardly to use the term at all, as I think it can be both misleading and confusing.</p>
<p>Wonders for Oyasa.</p>
<p>I I had noticed, and was fascinated to see, reading through all the threads that you were completely devoid of number ones!  Does this mean you have a phobia of the singular!   I was pretty horrified when I read mine back that I had half a dozen ones, and was beginning to worry that I may be far more of a conservative funadmentalist than I ever dreamt or feared,  only to comfort myself by discovering that in the that I had as many, if not more 4,5 and 6s, including in the area of inerrency/infallibilty, which would get me quickly booted out of most fundamentalist circles!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Talacker</title>
		<link>http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/10/essentials-and-non-essentials-observations/comment-page-1/#comment-6271</link>
		<dc:creator>Talacker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:32:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/?p=1284#comment-6271</guid>
		<description>I first time I shrugged it off as a typo. The second time, a mere nuisance. Thereafter, it became grating.

Quit = stop doing something
Quite = distinguishingly

Sorry. I&#039;m a pedant.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I first time I shrugged it off as a typo. The second time, a mere nuisance. Thereafter, it became grating.</p>
<p>Quit = stop doing something<br />
Quite = distinguishingly</p>
<p>Sorry. I&#8217;m a pedant.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wonders for Oyarsa</title>
		<link>http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/10/essentials-and-non-essentials-observations/comment-page-1/#comment-6270</link>
		<dc:creator>Wonders for Oyarsa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2008 03:29:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/?p=1284#comment-6270</guid>
		<description>Michael,

I broke the trend by having no 1&#039;s at all... Perhaps if the language were softened, a 1 being something that without which one is in serious danger of damnation (rather than assurance of), I could track with it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michael,</p>
<p>I broke the trend by having no 1&#8217;s at all&#8230; Perhaps if the language were softened, a 1 being something that without which one is in serious danger of damnation (rather than assurance of), I could track with it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GoldCityDance</title>
		<link>http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/10/essentials-and-non-essentials-observations/comment-page-1/#comment-6269</link>
		<dc:creator>GoldCityDance</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:54:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/?p=1284#comment-6269</guid>
		<description>Michael,

Can you tell us the sample size when you&#039;re done tallying the results? If the size is small, the differences may not be statistically significant after all. Thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michael,</p>
<p>Can you tell us the sample size when you&#8217;re done tallying the results? If the size is small, the differences may not be statistically significant after all. Thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ranger</title>
		<link>http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/10/essentials-and-non-essentials-observations/comment-page-1/#comment-6268</link>
		<dc:creator>Ranger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:20:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/?p=1284#comment-6268</guid>
		<description>Those holding that inerrancy is essential for salvation (or even for orthodoxy) should read Dan Wallace&#039;s discussions on the topic...or consider the things George Ladd wrote about it.  Or consider the many, godly and conservative scholars who hold to a limited inerrancy (which I feel most laity would not consider inerrancy since the definitions are so nuanced and do allow for certain errors).  I even think most people when they think of inerrancy don&#039;t mean the &quot;reasoned inerrancy&quot; that Michael holds.  To be honest, they probably don&#039;t even mean something as strict as the Chicago Statement (which does allow for certain apparent errors, such as numerical data, etc.).  As such, although I personally would say I hold to a reasoned or limited inerrancy, I think the term can be somewhat misleading and therefore I don&#039;t use it in discussions about my beliefs unless asked directly.

I know we&#039;ve talked about it on this board before, but here is a link to Dan&#039;s excellent discussion of the topic:  https://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=4200</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Those holding that inerrancy is essential for salvation (or even for orthodoxy) should read Dan Wallace&#8217;s discussions on the topic&#8230;or consider the things George Ladd wrote about it.  Or consider the many, godly and conservative scholars who hold to a limited inerrancy (which I feel most laity would not consider inerrancy since the definitions are so nuanced and do allow for certain errors).  I even think most people when they think of inerrancy don&#8217;t mean the &#8220;reasoned inerrancy&#8221; that Michael holds.  To be honest, they probably don&#8217;t even mean something as strict as the Chicago Statement (which does allow for certain apparent errors, such as numerical data, etc.).  As such, although I personally would say I hold to a reasoned or limited inerrancy, I think the term can be somewhat misleading and therefore I don&#8217;t use it in discussions about my beliefs unless asked directly.</p>
<p>I know we&#8217;ve talked about it on this board before, but here is a link to Dan&#8217;s excellent discussion of the topic:  <a href="https://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=4200" rel="nofollow">https://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=4200</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eclectic Christian</title>
		<link>http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/10/essentials-and-non-essentials-observations/comment-page-1/#comment-6267</link>
		<dc:creator>Eclectic Christian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:53:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/?p=1284#comment-6267</guid>
		<description>Ditto 1 &amp; 2.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ditto 1 &amp; 2.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Glenn Leatherman</title>
		<link>http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/10/essentials-and-non-essentials-observations/comment-page-1/#comment-6266</link>
		<dc:creator>Glenn Leatherman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:23:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/?p=1284#comment-6266</guid>
		<description>The original post -  &quot;What are the Essentials for Christianity: A Test of Unity and Diversity&quot; cannot be found. I was looking for this the other day to help someone develop a taxonomy of beliefs, but could find it.  I think it would be helpful if you reposted it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The original post &#8211;  &#8220;What are the Essentials for Christianity: A Test of Unity and Diversity&#8221; cannot be found. I was looking for this the other day to help someone develop a taxonomy of beliefs, but could find it.  I think it would be helpful if you reposted it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Valdimir</title>
		<link>http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/10/essentials-and-non-essentials-observations/comment-page-1/#comment-6265</link>
		<dc:creator>Valdimir</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Oct 2008 16:27:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/?p=1284#comment-6265</guid>
		<description>Where do you take the test?  Links don&#039;t work.

Vladimir</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Where do you take the test?  Links don&#8217;t work.</p>
<p>Vladimir</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
