text:
I have now documented twice (one / two) how Jason Engwer deliberately picks and chooses what he will deal with, when in a debate. I showed this not just in two exchanges with me, but also two with Catholic apologist Bryan Cross, in December 2009. Out of the four attempts, Jason averaged a 20% rate of citing his opponents' words in order to refute them; ignoring 80%.
He and his cronies at Tribalblogue keep wanting to deny that there is anything inadequate about this odd methodology, and continue to assert that most of my argumentation is skipped over because it is meaningless and has no content. Well, that may be (I happen to think -- as one would expect! -- it is not the case). But I have always been an advocate of letting readers decide where the truth lies, in any given controverted matter, by being able to read both sides (to utilize their critical faculties and judgment a bit). You already have gotten both sides of the debate Jason and I had, on my blog, since I cite 100% of his words, and did so in all six of our recent exchanges (Parts 1-4 / part 5 / part 6). So readers can see who argued what, back-and-forth.
In my last installment dealing with this ridiculous business, I came upon a nifty method to show exactly how Jason picks-and-chooses: by highlighting in red the words that he selects from his opponent, to grapple with. In the case I documented already (with Bryan Cross), he was up to an extraordinarily high rate (by his low dialogical standards) of 37% response. It will be a lot more fun to see what it looks like, to document his 12% and 13% response rates, in my own case. Then readers can decide if all the stuff he ignored was indeed worthless and unworthy of any reply, or not. You read; you decide. I'll give you the entire documented facts of what was ignored, so an informed judgment can be made.
I will cite, then, my new words only (omitting citations of Jason and of my own past words), from the following two posts:
Dialogue With Protestant Apologist Jason Engwer on the Rule of Faith in the Church Fathers, Part One (Papias)
Papias, Scripture, and Tradition (Round Two): Dialogue With Protestant Apologist Jason Engwer / Sadly Typical End of Discourse With Anti-Catholics
Where Are "Apostolic Succession" And "Authoritative Tradition" In Papias? (20 January 2010)
The "Anomalies" of Papias (20 January 2010)
Note that I even followed his agenda; his particular argument he wished to pursue. Papias (a very early Church father about whom we know very little) was only dealt with in a tiny portion of my papers. This is what Jason considered a "reply": concentrating on someone I hardly dealt with at all. Jason chose to hone in on him, thinking he had a good case there (precisely, I think, because we know so little!). I played along, citing 100% of his words and giving some reply to every argument he made. But even then he dealt with only 12% and 13% of my words. You can now see exactly what he deemed as worthy of response. The words of mine that he cited to reply to will be highlighted in red:
* * * * *
Well, we'll see about that as we go along.
That's because his position on this business of the rule of faith in the fathers entails it, as I will be happy to elaborate upon and clarify. I don't make any serious charge lightly, and readers may rest assured that when I do, that I have very good reason to do so: a rationale that I can surely defend against scrutiny and/or protest (as indeed I am doing presently).
That comes as no surprise. But my "now" was primarily intended in a rhetorical / logical sense, not a chronological one, anyway. But in a larger sense it is part of Jason's overall approach (which is not without self-contradiction, which I was partially alluding to there): what I call the "slippery fish" or "floating ducks at the carnival sideshow" approach. Protestants of a certain type (nebulous evangelicals, primarily: I still have no idea even what denomination Jason attends; perhaps he will be so kind as to inform me) reserve the right to criticize Catholicism endlessly; yet if we dare to dispute their arguments and ask if they have anything superior to offer, it's often the moving or unknown target runaround. Or there is the retreat into obfuscation: Jason's own specialty.
First, we hear from these circles that the fathers believe in sola Scriptura, period (I will have more on this below). Then we are blessed with a more clever, subtle argument: that they didn't believe in sola Scriptura per se, but that, nevertheless, what they did believe (whatever it was, in many variations), is definitely closer to Protestantism than to Catholicism. This has been Jason's general approach through the years, as I understand it. Now we enter into a third phase, so to speak: the fathers didn't always believe in sola Scriptura, but it doesn't matter, because times were different, then, and different times demand a changing rule of faith. The moving target . . .
Mostly what matters to Jason is how he can poke holes in what he (sometimes falsely) believes to be Catholic belief.
He picks and chooses what he thinks will hurt the Catholic historical case. Jason's method is nothing if it is not that. But he's highly selective and the "grid" that he tries to fit all of this data into is incoherent and changes to suit his polemical needs at any given moment.
Catholics agree with many, if not all of these points. But how Jason goes on to apply this in his analysis will eventually involve a self-contradiction that isn't present in the Catholic view of history and development of doctrine.
Of course. Both sides agree on that.
This is where the differences emerge. Catholics believe there was one rule of faith that consistently developed. It is what we call the "three-legged stool": Scripture-Church-Tradition (as passed down by apostolic succession). There is a great deal of development that takes place over time: especially when we are looking at the earliest fathers (Papias lived from c. 60 to 130, so he was actually in the apostolic period for a good half of his life). But the rule of faith did not change into anything substantially or essentially different.
Papias had the Scripture of the Old Testament and he even had much of the New Testament even at that early stage, as the Gospels and Paul's letters were widely accepted as canonical, very early on. Therefore, Papias could indeed have lived by sola Scriptura as the rule of faith. There is no compelling reason to think that he could not have done so, simply due to his living in a very early period of Christian history.
The position that Jason is staking out: that Papias wouldn't have lived by sola Scriptura, and indeed, that he didn't have to, for the Protestant historical position to make sense, entails not a consistent development, but an essential break: there was one rule of faith in the earliest periods, and then suddenly, with the fully developed canon of Scripture, another one henceforth.
Needless to say, this is merely yet another arbitrary Protestant tradition: a tradition of men: just as sola Scriptura itself is. There is nothing in the Bible itself about such a supposed sea change. The Bible teaches neither sola Scriptura, nor this view of tradition at first, and then sola Scriptura after the Bible. But these are cherished Protestant myths, despite being absent altogether in Holy Scripture.
There are complexities in individuals and exceptions to the rule (of faith), but there is also a broad consensus to be observed and traced through history, as we see with all true doctrines. Jason wants to assert both a radical change and the absence of a consensus. At the same time he denies the interconnectedness of all these related concepts having to do with authority, as I have noted in my previous critique.
In any event, he dissents from some of the allegedly best lights in Protestant research about the rule of faith in the fathers; for example, the trilogy of books about sola Scriptura by David T. King and William Webster (Vol. I (King) / Vol. II (Webster) / Vol. III (King and Webster), where it is stated (bolding my own):
The patristic evidence for sola Scriptura is, we believe, an overwhelming indictment against the claims of the Roman communion.
(Vol. I, 266)
Such statements manifest an ignorance of the patristic and medieval perspective on the authority of Scripture. Scripture alone as the infallible rule for the ongoing life and faith of the Church was the universal belief and practice of the Church of the patristic and medieval ages.
(Vol. II, 84-85)
When they [the Church Fathers] are allowed to speak for themselves it becomes clear that they universally taught sola Scriptura in the fullest sense of the term embracing both the material and formal sufficiency of Scripture.
(Vol. III, 9)
Sales pitches for the trilogy on a major Reformed booksite (Monergism Books) echo these historically absurd assertions (bolding my own):
It reveals that the leading Church fathers' view of the authority and finality of the written Word of God was as lofty as that of any Protestant Reformer. In effect, Webster and King have demonstrated that sola Scriptura was the rule of faith in the early church.This is the standard anti-Catholic-type boilerplate rhetoric about sola Scriptura and the fathers. At least it is consistent (consistently wrong). But Jason dissents from his colleagues and wants to play the game of having a relativistic rule of faith: not in play from the beginning of Christianity, but only set in motion later. This allows him to play the further game of denying that Papias' views are consistent with Catholic dogma and our rule of faith, while not having any responsibility of showing that it is consistent with a Protestant view.
--Dr. John MacArthur, Pastor/Teacher of Grace Community Church, Sun Valley, CA
William Webster and David King have hit the bull's eye repeatedly and with great force in their treatment of sola Scriptura. The exegetical material sets forth a formidable biblical foundation for this claim of exclusivity and the historical argument illustrates how the early church believed it and traces the circuitous path by which Roman Catholicism came to place tradition alongside Scripture as a source, or deposit, of authoritative revelation.
--Dr. Tom Nettles, Professor of Historical Theology, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY
(on the book page for Vol. I)
[Description]: In this Volume, William Webster addresses the common historical arguments against sola Scriptura, demonstrating that the principle is, in fact, eminently historical, finding support in 'the unanimous consent of the fathers.'
The authors show, with painstaking thoroughness, that sola Scriptura is the teaching of the Bible itself and was central in the belief and practice of the early church, as exemplified in history and the writings of the Fathers.
--Edward Donnelly, Minister of Trinity Reformed Presbyterian Church, Newtownabbey, and Professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological College, Belfast, Northern Ireland
King and Webster have utterly destroyed that position by showing that the consent of the fathers teaches the doctrine of sola Scriptura.
--Jay Adams, co-pastor of The Harrison Bridge Road A.R.P. Church in Simpsonville, South Carolina, founder of the Christian Counseling and Educational Foundation of Laverock, Pennsylvania
In painstaking detail, Webster and King systematically dismantle the unbiblical and ahistorical assertions made by modern Roman Catholic apologists who all too often rely on eisegetical interpretations of the Bible and 'cut and paste' patrology.
--Eric Svendsen, Professor of Biblical Studies at Columbia Evangelical Seminary
[The Forewords of this volume (II) and Vol. I were written by James White]
(on the book page for Vol. II)
[Description]: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the principle is illegitimate because, she claims, it is unhistorical. By this she means that sola Scriptura is a theological novelty in that it supposedly has no support in the teaching of the early Church. Roman apologists charge that the teaching on Scripture promoted by the Reformers introduced a false dichotomy between the Church and Scripture which elevated Scripture to a place of authority unheard of in the early Church. The Church of Rome insists that the early Church fathers, while fully endorsing the full inspiration of the Old and New Testaments, did not believe in sola Scriptura. . . .
The documentation provided reveals in the clearest possible terms the Church fathers' belief in the material and formal sufficiency of Scripture. By material sufficiency we mean that all that is necessary to be believed for faith and morals is revealed in Scripture. Formal sufficiency means that all that is necessary for faith and morals is clearly revealed in Scripture, so that an individual, by the enablement of the Holy Spirit alone, can understand the essentials of salvation and the Christian life. Page after page gives eloquent testimony to the supreme authority that Scripture held in the life of the early Church and serves as a much needed corrective to Rome's misrepresentation of the Church fathers and her denigration of the sufficiency and final authority of Scripture.
(for the book page of Vol. III)
He always has that "out" (which is rather standard Protestant anti-Catholic apologetics): "but that ain't me / us." It's like a wax nose that can be molded to any whim or desire. Papias ain't Protestant but (and here is the important part) he certainly ain't Catholic (!!!) -- so sez Jason Engwer. Yet I have shown (and will continue to demonstrate) that his views are perfectly consistent with the Catholic rule of faith, taking into account that he is very early in history, so that we don't see full-fledged Catholicism. We see a primitive Catholic rule of faith: precisely as we would and should suspect.
Jason thinks he contradicts our view because (as I discussed in my Introduction to the previous four-part series) he expects to see the Catholic rule of faith explicitly in place in the first and second century: whereas our view of development, by definition, does not entail, let alone require this. Thus, he imposes a Protestant conception of "fully-formed from the outset" that he doesn't even accept himself, onto the Catholic claim.
It depends on what one means by different: different in particulars; different in time-frames (David had no NT or revelation of Jesus); difference in amount of development, etc. What was in common was that all accepted "the word of God" (both written and oral) as normative for the Christian faith, but not in the sense of sola Scriptura.
Jason can hem and haw all he likes. The fact remains that he has expressly denied that Papias would have believed in sola Scriptura. But the standard anti-Catholic historical argumentation is what I have documented: "Scripture alone as the infallible rule for the ongoing life and faith of the Church was the universal belief and practice of the Church of the patristic and medieval ages" (William Webster); "they universally taught sola Scriptura . . . embracing . . . formal sufficiency of Scripture" (David T. King and William Webster). So which will it be? There are three positions to choose from:
1) Papias was one of the fathers who "universally" held to sola Scriptura.
2) Papias didn't hold to sola Scriptura, but also didn't espouse a rule of faith consistent with Catholicism.
3) Papias didn't embrace sola Scriptura, and his rule of faith was consistent with Catholicism.
#1 is the standard boilerplate anti-Catholic Protestant position, as I have shown above. #2 is Jason's pick-and-choose "cafeteria patristic" view, that contradicts #1. #3 is my view and the Catholic view.
Exactly. From what we can tell, James White wouldn't say that. Webster and King and Svendsen and John MacArthur wouldn't. Why is it, then, that they aren't out there correcting Jason? He disagrees with them (Papias doesn't teach sola Scriptura) just as much as he does with me (Papias doesn't hold to a primitive version of the historic Catholic rule of faith; he contradicts that). He's betwixt and between. He needs to go back to King's and White's and Webster's books to get up to speed and get his evangelical anti-Catholic act together.
Thanks for the great link.
Cool. And what position did he take, choosing from #1, #2, and #3 above? I was able to read pp. 21-38 on amazon, and discovered that Bauckham tries to make a big deal of the distinction between oral history and oral tradition, with the former directly relying on eyewitness accounts (of the sort that Papias tried to collect). Bauckham's stance, then, is a subtler version of #2. He seems to be trying (by repeated, almost mantra-like emphasis) to undermine a Catholic notion of oral tradition without saying so in so many words.
But he doesn't prove at all that Papias' approach is inconsistent with the Catholic three-legged stool rule of faith. Of course we would expect Papias to seek eyewitness accounts, since he lived so early. How in the world that is construed as somehow contrary to Catholic tradition is, I confess, beyond me. The following distinctions must be made and understood:
View of Tradition I:
I. 1) Legitimate tradition relies on eyewitness testimony only.
I. 2) Once the eyewitnesses die, then there is no longer true [binding] tradition to speak of.
View of Tradition II:
II. 1) Legitimate tradition relies primarily on eyewitness testimony where it is available.
II. 2) Legitimate tradition after eyewitness testimony is no longer available continues to be valid by means of [Holy Spirit-guided] unbroken [apostolic] succession, so that the truths originated by eyewitnesses continue on through history.
Jason and Bauckham appear to be asserting I. 1. But I. 2 does not necessarily follow from what we know of Papias' views. We know that he collected eyewitness testimony. We don't know that he would say that was the only tradition that was legitimate. In other words, it is the claim of exclusivity that involves the prior assumption brought to the facts. The Catholic view is Tradition II, which is perfectly consistent with what we know of Papias, or at the very least not ruled out by what we know of him.
The biggest problem with Tradition I is that it is not biblical. It contradicts what the Bible teaches. St. Paul, after all, was not an eyewitness of the life of Jesus (though he did have a post-Resurrection encounter with him that remains possible to this day). Yet he feels that he can authoritatively pass on Christian apostolic traditions (1 Cor 11:2, 23; 15:3; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6, 14). Thus, whoever learned Christian truths from St. Paul did not receive them from an eyewitness. Paul had to talk to someone like Peter to get firsthand accounts (or Bauckham's "oral history").
He was passing on what he himself had "received" from yet another source (1 Cor 11:23; 15:3; Phil 4:9; 1 Thess 2:13). He even specifically instructs Timothy to pass on his (oral) traditions to "faithful men," who in turn can pass them on to others (2 Tim 2:2). So just from this verse we see four generations of a passed-on tradition (Paul: the second generation, Timothy, and those whom Timothy teaches). This tradition is not even necessarily written by Paul or anyone else (Rom 10:8; Eph 1:13; 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 1:13-14; cf. Heb 13:7; 1 Pet 1:25). There is no indication that the chain is supposed to end somewhere down the line.
Secondly, even Papias, according to Eusebius, didn't claim to talk to the apostles, but only to their friends:
2. But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means declares that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows by the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their friends.
7. And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, confesses that he received the words of the apostles from those that followed them, . . .
(Ecclesiastical History, III, 39, 4)
That makes Papias a third-hand witness; not even second-hand (someone who talked to apostles).
This doesn't rule out apostolic succession; to the contrary, it is a perfect example of it. He talked to people who knew the apostles. His testimony was third-hand. He "received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their [the apostles'] friends." What is that if not succession? It is more or less independent of Scripture. Papias' rule of faith was:
Apostles and apostolic doctrine ---> friends of the apostles ---> Papias
But the Protestant methodology and rule of faith is:
Apostles and apostolic doctrine ---> Scripture ---> Papias and everyone else
He says that Jerome understood Papias as referring to access to living witnesses as his preferred mode of collecting information. But as I have already shown, I think, this in no way is inconsistent with Catholic tradition. It's plain common sense. What Jason doesn't mention, however, is Bauckham's observation right after citing Jerome, translating Papias:
Jerome here seems to take Papias to mean that he preferred the oral communication of eyewitnesses to the written records of their testimony in the Gospels.
(p. 28)
And that sounds distinctly unProtestant and contrary to sola Scriptura, doesn't it? If we're gonna mention one aspect of St. Jerome's thought (even if it is falsely thought to bolster some anti-Catholic line of reasoning), why not the other also, even if it doesn't fit in with the game plan? Get the whole picture, in other words.
Again, the trouble with this is that Eusebius specifically says (twice) that Papias only knew friends of the apostles: not they themselves. So one of is key premises is unfactual. And then we have Paul espousing authoritative fourth-hand tradition in Scripture. In any event, Bauckham appears to contradict himself:
Bauckham I: "what Papias thinks preferable to books is not oral tradition as such but access, while they are still alive, to those who were direct participants in the historical events - in this case 'the disciples of the Lord.' . . . when Papias speaks of 'a living and abiding voice,' he . . . speaks quite literally of the voice of an informant - someone who has personal memories of the words and deeds of Jesus and is still alive . . . "
Bauckham II: "Even in Hierapolis it was on his personal contact with the daughters of Philip that he set store. What mattered to Papias, as a collector and would-be recorder of Gospel traditions, was that there were eyewitnesses, some still around, and access to them through brief and verifiable channels of named informants."
Which is it?: Eyewitnesses or those who knew eyewitnesses? Once one starts going down the chain to third-hand, fourth-hand or later generations of witnesses, one is squarely within oral tradition. It's something other than eyewitness testimony. Protestants have been rejecting, for example, St. Ignatius, as too "Catholic" (therefore corrupt), for centuries. They thought the books with his name weren't even authentic for a long time, till they were indisputably proved to be so. Now they are authentic, but still disliked by Protestants because they are already thoroughly Catholic.
In other words, the traditions that he teaches are rejected, no matter how proximate they are to the apostles. St. Ignatius (c. 35 - c. 110) was born a generation earlier than Papias. He may possibly have known St. John, or known of him through St. Polycarp (c. 69 - c. 155). But does that impress Protestants? No; not if they are intent on rejecting any doctrine that has the slightest "Catholic" flavor in it. Anti-Catholicism is the driving force: not some great goal of getting close to apostles via those who talked to them or to those who knew them.
It is more valuable, in evidential or strictly historiographical terms. But this is no argument against Catholic tradition. It simply notes one special, early form of apostolic tradition.
Sure it was. This is apostolic tradition. Much ado about nothing . . . Jason will try to kill it off by his "death by a thousand qualifications" methodology, but it won't fly. Nothing here (in the case of Papias) causes our view any problems whatsoever. The only problems are whether (in the Protestant paradigms) one wants to claim Papias as one of the fathers who supposedly "universally" believed in sola Scriptura, or to deny that he did so, as Jason does. The contradiction arises in Protestant ranks, not between Papias and Catholic tradition.
Thanks for that valuable information.
It's perfectly consistent with our notion, and we continue to think oral tradition is authoritative, whereas Protestants have ditched it: in direct contrast to what the fathers thought about such things.
It will do just fine!
No. Jason was accused of that because he arbitrarily decides that sola Scriptura kicks in later on and not from the first (itself a wacky Protestant tradition, and not biblical at all). He has a "jerky," inconsistent view of Church history. But the Catholic view is a smooth line of development.
Exactly. More truisms . . .
He followed the latter in a primitive form. What he believed is no different in essence from what Catholics have believed all along, and from what I believe myself, as an orthodox Catholic. But it's sure different from what Protestants and Jason believe. Even he concedes that, and is half-right, at least.
Which is a species of ours . . .
My goal was to show that Papias is not a counter-example to Catholic tradition. I think I have succeeded in showing that, if I do say so.
One doesn't have to go through every fine point and distinction at any given time. There is an oral element here that is different from sola Scriptura. The Jason method won't work (i.e., note any distinction or exception whatever to be found, and then thrown that in the Catholic's face as a supposed disproof). It hasn't worked in the past, and it is failing again now.
I don't believe in that (used to), but the Catholic Church has not proclaimed many eschatological beliefs as dogma. Our position is not to uncritically accept any given father's view on anything, but to look at the consensus.
The point being that if Jason wants to drop scholars' names, then he can at least cite some of it rather than making his readers go look up everything. He didn't even link to the amazon book, where, fortunately, I could read the section he referenced. He cites it now; but that bolsters my point. He could have done that before, rather than just dropping names.
I didn't know it was too hard for Jason to click on a mouse (take all of a third of a second to do that "work") or to do a simple word search within articles. I am providing instant access to support for some point I am making if I cite past articles and link to them.
Second Paper: Jason Replies to 13% of My New Words and (Roughly) Arguments
What means? If he was talking to Philip's daughters, that was part of the tradition. What else would it be? Homer's Odyssey? Betting on chariot races? It's primitive Christian apostolic tradition being passed down: "delivered" and "received," just as St. Paul uses those terms. Jason can't get out of the obvious fact by nitpicking and doing the "death by a thousand qualifications" game that he has honed to a fine art.
The two are not mutually exclusive at all. Now, routine historiographical investigation (because of historical proximity to the apostles), is pit against tradition, as if one rules out the other. The NT is good history; it is also good tradition. The twain shall meet: believe it or not.
He demonstrated the rule of faith in how he approached all these matters. This is how he lived his Christianity: his standard of authority. That's the rule of faith. Nothing about Scripture Alone here: even Jason admits that, because he accepts a "herky-jerky" notion of the rule of faith being one thing early on and then magically transforming into something else later on. That's not development; it is reversal: the very opposite of development.
Why should any Christian believe anything that he hears (from the Bible or whatever)? Why should Papias believe Philip's daughters or other close associates of the apostles? Why should Jason question everything to death? Why can't he simply accept these things in faith? Why does he have to play around with every father he can find, to somehow make them out to be hostile to Catholicism (if not quite amenable to Protestantism)? Why can't he see the forest for the trees? Why does he keep arguing about Papias, when even he admits that he didn't abide by sola Scriptura? Why doesn't he then explain why the rule of faith supposedly changed? Why doesn't he show us from Scripture that it was to change later on? If he can't do that, then why does he believe it? Would it not, then, be a mere tradition of men? If Protestants can arbitrarily believe in extrabiblical traditions of men, then why do they give Catholics a hard time for believing traditions that are documented in the Bible itself?
See, I can play Jason's "ask 1000 questions routine: to muddy the whole thing up beyond all hope of resolution" game. I came up with twelve rapid-fire questions. I'm proud of myself! It's kind o' fun, actually, but you do have to type quite a bit and strain your brain to come up with a new hundred questions for any given topic at hand, so that nothing can ever be concluded, as to any given Church father believing anything. Of course I rhetorically exaggerate, but I trust that those who have been following this, get my drift.
Cardinal Newman himself describes Jason's overly skeptical methodology, hitting the nail on the head:
It seems to me to take the true and the normal way of meeting the infidelity of the age, by referring to Our Lord's Person and Character as exhibited in the Gospels. Philip said to Nathanael "Come and see"—that is just what the present free thinkers will not allow men to do. They perplex and bewilder them with previous questions, to hinder them falling under the legitimate rhetoric of His Divine Life, of His sacred words and acts. They say: "There is no truth because there are so many opinions," or "How do you know that the Gospels are authentic?" "How do you account for Papias not mentioning the fourth Gospel?" or "How can you believe that punishment is eternal?" or, "Why is there no stronger proof of the Resurrection?" With this multitude of questions in detail, they block the way between the soul and its Saviour, and will not let it "Come and see."
(Letter of 11 January 1873, in Wilfred Ward's The Life of John Henry Cardinal Newman, Vol. II, chapter 31, p. 393)
I'm not saying Jason is skeptical of Jesus. It is an analogical point. He applies the same method that the skeptics Newman describes, use: only applied to patristic questions.
Probably so (but this is self-evident). I didn't see anyone (let alone myself) making a literal list of what is and what isn't.
Correct. All we're saying is that his methodology does not fit into the Protestant rule of faith. Why is this still being discussed when Jason has already conceded that, and has moved on to another tack in trying to account for that fact?
At this early stage, there will be anomalies and vague things. Newman's theory incorporates those elements within itself. Hence he writes in his Essay on Development of the "Fifth Note of a True Development—Anticipation of Its Future":
It has been set down above as a fifth argument in favour of the fidelity of developments, ethical or political, if the doctrine from which they have proceeded has, in any early stage of its history, given indications of those opinions and practices in which it has ended. Supposing then the so-called Catholic doctrines and practices are true and legitimate developments, and not corruptions, we may expect from the force of logic to find instances of them in the first centuries. And this I conceive to be the case: the records indeed of those times are scanty, and we have little means of determining what daily Christian life then was: we know little of the thoughts, and the prayers, and the meditations, and the discourses of the early disciples of Christ, at a time when these professed developments were not recognized and duly located in the theological system; yet it appears, even from what remains, that the atmosphere of the Church was, as it were, charged with them from the first, and delivered itself of them from time to time, in this way or that, in various places and persons, as occasion elicited them, testifying the presence of a vast body of thought within it, which one day would take shape and position.
We find exactly this sort of thing in Papias. His view is consistent with a Catholic one, that would be far more developed as time proceeded; but not consistent with the Protestant sola Scriptura.
How about the existence of the Old Testament? Or is that no longer considered Scripture by Protestants these days, or adherents of sola Scriptura. We'll have to start calling it sola NT, huh? How about the Gospels and most of Paul's letters, which were accepted as canonical very early: well within Papias' lifetime?
That's not what Eusebius stated. But even if he was, no problem whatever, because I showed (following Eusebius' account) how he also accepted tradition from secondhand witnesses, and that St. Paul refers to fourth-hand reception of apostolic tradition. But of course, that is a part of my paper that Jason conveniently overlooked, per his standard modus operandi of high (and very careful) selectivity in response. We mustn't get too biblical in our analyses, after all. Here is my section (to refresh Jason's memory; perhaps he didn't see it) where I provided St. Paul's approach to tradition (inspired Scripture, after all):
As far as I am concerned, this data alone refutes Jason's position. But he ignored it. He never mentioned Paul once in his current reply. You, the reader, don't have to ignore the Bible, and can incorporate actual relevant biblical data into your informed opinion.
I have often observed in Jason's replies, and have complained about, his method of picking and choosing what he likes (and/or is able) to reply to, thus allowing him to ignore sections that he may have difficulty answering (or where he may have to work too hard to answer, etc.). The present effort is no exception. I thought it was time (especially since Engwer comrade "Whopper" "Whopper" Hays has accused me of systematically avoiding answering Jason), to document the actual objective facts of how much he ignores in any given writing of an opponent that he is grappling with.
The number of words in my previous reply (minus my citations of Jason's words and re-citations of my own past words from his reply; i.e., I am adding up only the black-colored words; also, I skip the final section that was responding to other critics) was 4002.
Jason in this present reply only cites, however, 489 of my own words from the last paper, in order to launch into his present counter-reply.
So we see that he has deliberately chosen to deal with a mere 12% of the total words of my argument: skipping huge, essential parts of it altogether, as if they weren't even there. But I have included and dealt with all of his words and offered some sort of substantive reply (agree or disagree) to all of them, here, and in all five previous papers. I grant my opponents the respect of at least dealing with their total argument, not conveniently skipping over anything and everything that I arbitrarily prejudge as not worthy of reply (or too difficult or embarrassing to reply to). Now, which method is the more impressive and intellectually solid of the two: comprehensiveness or hyper-selectivity?
Right. I gave an elaborate argument, point-by-point, just as I am doing now.
That's right, but Jason has failed in his attempt to prove that anything in Papias is fundamentally at odds with the Catholic view on the rule of faith. Where has he done this? It just isn't there. I haven't seen it. Maybe Jason will travel to Israel and find a new stone tablet that seals his case: primary evidence. Anything is possible. I'd urge him to keep optimistic and not to despair: something, somewhere may prove his anti-Catholic case vis-a-vis Papias once and for all. I won't hold my breath waiting for it, though . . .
I don't know. I'd have to go back and see what I said, in context. I'm too lazy to do that (doin' enough work as it is). But I know that I already adequately explained it, so I recommend that he go read it again (so that he doesn't need to ask me what I meant).
Here we go with the word games . . . As Ronald Reagan famously said to Jimmy Carter, "there you go again . . ." I was referring, of course, to the Christian era, not Adam and Eve, etc.
Very good observation, Jason! But who needs apostles or Scripture, anyway, when you're able to talk directly to God?
Exactly. What this has to do with anything is beyond me, I confess.
No, because Protestants tend to collapse "word of God" to Scripture alone, when in fact, in Scripture, it refers, many more times, to oral proclamation. This is the whole point: Scripture all over the place refers to an authoritative tradition and an authoritative Church. Scripture doesn't teach that it alone is the infallible authority. Sola Scriptura ain't biblical.
Great. I interacted with his arguments, and saw some inconsistencies in them. Implicitly he is opposing, in a way, those Christian traditions that stress tradition, in his pitting of oral history against oral tradition, as I already noted. I say it is "both/and" -- not "either/or."
His position shows no semblance of a Protestant view in the first place, but it is not at all contrary, or even different from the Catholic view. It's simply a primitive Catholic rule of faith: exhibiting exactly what we would expect to see under the assumption of Newmanian, Vincentian development.
Until we see anything that suggests otherwise, which we haven't, that is a perfectly solid position to take.
How is what he did contrary to apostolic succession? It isn't at all. Papias was a bishop, who received Christian tradition from friends or relatives of the apostles. This ain't rocket science. There is nothing complicated about it: much as Jason wants to obfuscate.
Of course I have. Here is what I said the second time around (his past words in purple):
Contrary to what Dave claims, there is no "explicit espousal of apostolic succession" in Papias. And the "living and abiding voice" Papias refers to is a reference to proximate and early testimony that was soon going to die out.
This doesn't rule out apostolic succession; to the contrary, it is a perfect example of it. He talked to people who knew the apostles. His testimony was third-hand. He "received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their [the apostles'] friends." What is that if not succession? It is more or less independent of Scripture. Papias' rule of faith was:
Apostles and apostolic doctrine ---> friends of the apostles ---> Papias
But the Protestant methodology and rule of faith is:
Apostles and apostolic doctrine ---> Scripture ---> Papias and everyone else
The theme Papias is referring to is taken from, among other sources, the historiography of his day. As Bauckham notes, Jerome's rendering of the passage in Papias indicates that he understood Papias as Bauckham does (pp. 27-28).
He says that Jerome understood Papias as referring to access to living witnesses as his preferred mode of collecting information. But as I have already shown, I think, this in no way is inconsistent with Catholic tradition. It's plain common sense. What Jason doesn't mention, however, is Bauckham's observation right after citing Jerome, translating Papias:
Jerome here seems to take Papias to mean that he preferred the oral communication of eyewitnesses to the written records of their testimony in the Gospels.(p. 28)
And that sounds distinctly unProtestant and contrary to sola Scriptura, doesn't it? If we're gonna mention one aspect of St. Jerome's thought (even if it is falsely thought to bolster some anti-Catholic line of reasoning), why not the other also, even if it doesn't fit in with the game plan? Get the whole picture, in other words.
This is another annoying constant in debates with anti-Catholics: one is forced to simply repeat things three, four, five times or more, because the anti-Catholic seems unable to process them, even after five times. It's as if one is writing to the wind. Three strikes and you're out.
Fair enough. But if we grant this, of course it has no effect on my position: that his views are consistent with the Catholic rule of faith. Either way, it works the same: if he knew the apostles, it was apostolic succession (just more directly). If he didn't, it was still apostolic succession, since that is an ongoing phenomenon. Moreover, as I reiterated again above, Paul refers to apostolic succession from fourth-hand sources. So it is valid apart from necessarily knowing an apostle personally. And knowing one does not, therefore, rule out apostolic succession. It is completely harmonious with it.
St. Paul didn't think so, as I have shown: not in terms of accurate transmission of apostolic tradition.
We go back as far as we can, and we do make judgments as to relative trustworthiness of sources.
What St. Ignatius taught (real presence, episcopacy, etc.) was universal in the early Church, unlike the two things above. Huge, essential difference, but nice try, Jason. The arguments get increasingly desperate. My friend, Jonathan Prejean, made a great comment today on another blog, that has relevance here:
What I would find far more troubling, were I a Protestant, is the new patristics scholarship of the last 40 years, which convincingly demonstrates that, while giving nominal adherence to the ecumencial creeds, Protestants have done so according to the same defective interpretation as the heretics. The modest claims of papal authority, which in any case are not refuted by what you cited (and I've read them), are trivial compared to the fact that the Protestant account of salvation and grace is fundamentally opposed to the Christian account of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. The physical presence (i.e., real presence according to nature) of God in the Church and its necessity for salvation is unanimously agreed by all Catholic and Orthodox Christians, echoing St. Cyril of Alexandria, the great "Seal of the Fathers." Yet Protestants deny it, making the spiritual resemblance to God merely moral (hence, imputed justification) and not physical.
That's a Nestorian account of salvation, plain and simple. And the historical evidence about the heterodoxy of Nestorianism has been piling up over the last couple of decades (see, e.g., J.A. McGuckin, Paul Clayton) after some scholarship suggesting that Nestorius might have been orthodox (mostly based on Nestorius's own erroneous claims; see, e.g., F. Loofs), and therefore, that Calvin's identical beliefs might have been as well. But that has been crushed even more convincingly than the admittedly excessive claims of some Catholics about papal infallibility, and it is a much more serious error in any case. This is why I stopped even bothering with these debates, at least until I saw David [Waltz] wavering, because Newman's prophetic words about being "deep in history" were absolutely vindicated by the neo-patristic scholarship. Protestants today have no hope of being orthodox in the historical sense; they have to redefine orthodoxy to be broad enough to include what they believe (see, e.g., D.H. Williams).
Great. J. N. D. Kelly (also an Anglican patristics scholar) thought that St. Ignatius "seems to suggest that the Roman church occupies a special position" (Early Christian Doctrines, 1978, 191). Brent writes (cited by Jason in his linked previous paper):
Ignatius doesn't make any reference to apostolic succession as later defined by men like Irenaeus and Cyprian and by groups like Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.
This is exactly what we would expect under a thesis of development. Obviously he wouldn't write as explicitly about apostolic succession as it was "later defined." This poses no difficulty for us whatever. It is only a difficulty if one (as Jason habitually does) constructs a straw man of what Catholic development in the late first and early second century supposedly was (far more developed than we should reasonably expect).
The primitive state of development that we expect to find in St. Ignatius is reflected in a Brent remark such as "The low Trinitarianism in Ignatius' letters supports an early date." He also had a "low ecclesiology" because he was so early. But even Jason agrees (in the same former post) that St. Ignatius already in his time had a rather robust Catholic ecclesiology:
I agree with Brent that Ignatius seems to have been trying to convince other churches to adopt or retain his preferred form of church order, involving a monarchical episcopate, thus explaining why he mentions the subject so much in his letters. However, I suspect that the monarchical episcopate was already more widespread than Brent suggests. The truth probably is somewhere between Brent's concept of Ignatius as an innovator and the view that all of the early churches had a monarchical episcopate all along. (Brent prefers not to use the term "monarchical episcopate" when discussing Ignatius' view, but I'm using it in a broad sense, which I think is more common, to refer to having a single bishop who leads the remainder of the church hierarchy.)
It's tough to meet associates of the apostles these days; sorry, Jason. If he builds me a time machine, I'd be more than happy to go talk to them. Probably couldn't afford a ticket, though . . .
The tradition continues being accurately transmitted after the eyewitnesses die out, as St. Paul believed. That's sufficient for me. Jason prefers Brent to me; I prefer St. Paul's opinion on tradition and succession to his.
Yes on both counts, as explained. But the word "explicit" was relative insofar as someone that early can only be so explicit. "Direct" would have been a better term to use in retrospect, because of the meaning of "explicit" in discussions having to do with development of doctrine. I trusted that readers acquainted with the broad parameters of the discussion would understand that, but sure enough, Jason didn't, and so keeps trying to make hay over this non-issue. No doubt he will classify this very paragraph as special pleading or sophistry, but most readers will understand that it is simply clarification of a phrase used.
But since that particular belief isn't a dogmatic one in the first place, it is quite irrelevant. No Catholic is obliged to believe it, or much of anything else in eschatology, as I understand. No one is saying that any given father is infallible, so if he is wrong on that one item, this causes no problem to our view.
He got some things wrong. So what? One could collect a huge bucket of seaweed and other marine items from the sea and discover that a pearl was also part of the collection. The pearl is "transmitted" along with the rest. Not everything in the bucket is equally valuable. Again, this is no problem for us whatever. The real problem is Protestant rejection of beliefs virtually universally held by the fathers, such as, for example, the real presence or baptismal regeneration.
Since we don't hold individual fathers to be infallible, this is much ado about nothing.
The Church in due course makes all sorts of judgments as to what is authentic tradition and what isn't. Jason knows this, but he mistakenly thinks he has scored some sort of point here, so he runs with that ball.
I have done my best to explain. I trust that open-minded readers can be persuaded of some things, and that my efforts are not in vain, in that sense.


text: Essie Naughty Nautical Nail Lacquer ($8.00 for 0.50 fl. oz.) is a vibrant, medium-dark green-teal with soft, white sparkle. MAC Ocean Dip is darker, no shimmer. Illamaqua Venous is more muted, no shimmer. Zoya Zuza is more shimmery. See comparison swatches. The formula was good; the color was mostly opaque after two coats with the barest bit of the nail line coming through when there was a lot of light in the room. It dried down to a glossy shine, and the sparkles are still somewhat visible even at a distance. The consistency wasn't too thick or too thin, so I didn't have any trouble applying even layers of the polish. I normally get seven days of wear with minor tip wear with Essie's formula.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Use SilverFast to scan photos, line art, film negatives, and other printed documents, while getting the highest quality scans possible from your scanner.
"Now you have food photography? It doesn't get any better than that. I now do freelance graphic design for a restaurant and am asked to do their food shots. The timing is so perfect. Thank you." —Alele T.
more from our members »


text:
Tuscarawas News Detail
Nationally Renowned Photo Editor to Visit Kent State, March 5Posted Feb. 22, 2013
Jim Colton, the nationally renowned and recently retired photography editor of Sports Illustrated,will visit Kent State University's School of Journalism and Mass Communication (JMC) at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, March 5, in the FirstEnergy Auditorium of Franklin Hall.
Colton will discuss the growing impact of sports photography on journalism and will offer a multimedia presentation featuring scenes and stories from the 2012 Summer Olympics. He will share his experiences and advice with photo journalism students and faculty.
The presentation is free and open to the public. Kent State students will tweet live from the event using the hashtag #coltonatjmc.
Colton's appearance underscores JMC's emerging focus on sports photography and sports journalism. This academic year, JMC added a sports photography class to respond to strong student interest. Colton's appearance is also part of JMC's Diversity Speakers Series.
A 40-year industry veteran, Colton retired from Sports Illustrated in 2012 after 15 years as photo editor. He began his journalism career in 1972 at the Associated Press. Five years later he joined Newsweek as director of photography. Colton has been honored as one of the 100 most important people in photography by American Photo magazine. He was the Jury Chairman for the World Press Photo Contest in 2005 and received an International Photography Awards "Lucie" for Picture Editor of the Year in2007. He was named the Magazine Picture Editor of the Year in 2008 by the National Press Photographers Association and was the recipient of the "Focus"award for Lifetime Achievement by the Griffin Museum in 2010.
"Having Mr. Colton here at JMC will help us fulfill our mission of exposing students to successful professionals who represent diversity in the industries we serve,"said JMC Director Thor Wasbotten.
"Thereis nothing like the advice of an editor who has 'been there' and seen the work of the very best. It is impossible to fathom the photographs Colton's eyes have seen," said David LaBelle, coordinator of JMC's photojournalism program."Charged with editing work from the best sports photographers and biggest sporting events, Colton's decisions were seen by millions weekly. When he talks about pictures, every student would do well to listen with both ears and both eyes."
Media Contact: Jennifer Kramer, APR, email@example.com, 330-672-1960


text:
9 Best Bites in Winslow, Bainbridge Island, Near Seattle, WA
On Bainbridge Island just across Puget Sound from Seattle, I scoured the streets and sampled the food to find places to recommend—which include an old-time diner, a new-style restaurant, a French bistro, a local coffee roaster, and what some say is the best ice cream shop in the country. Here are my picks. More


text:
Quick Links
Shop All Jewelry
NLZ10671 In Stock
Beautiful attention to detail makes this vintage style filigree sterling silver Hamsa pendant truly special. With a center, 4mm stone, outlined by surrounded by delicate silver filigree work, this Hamsa necklace is beautiful and functional. This 1 inch protective Hamsa hand will not only protect your spirit, but also your style! You won't have bad fashion luck with this beautiful vintage style Hamsa necklace. Wear it with our Hamsa bracelet for extra protection, or with a simple pair of sterling silver earrings for an understated, yet beautifully trendy look.
Eve's Addiction.com wants you to be a happy customer. We want you to be completely satisfied with the sterling silver jewelry that you receive from us, as we only sell high quality silver and cubic zirconia cz jewelry. We do understand that you may not like your purchase for some reason.
You may return or exchange your jewelry within 60 days of purchase if you are not satisfied with it. The jewelry must be returned in its original condition for a refund or exchange. Engraved, personalized, photo, monogram, name and initial, chocolate and clearance items are not returnable or exchangeable.


text:
The Sea Life Pathfinder Panel by Anatex is both decorative and fun! Children can explore the ocean depths, with underwater artwork of sea animals, a coral diver, and a treasure chest. Guiding the pieces along the path, moving forward and backtracking, challenges the basic skills of logical thinking, eye-hand coordination, and visual tracking. Nine hand-painted wooden pathfinder pieces include: submarine, seahorse, turtle, crab, starfish, dolphin, whale, and 2 fish. The perfect combination of fun play and learning, with no loose pieces. A beautiful addition to any home, play area, waiting room, or doctors office!
- Ages 3+
- 24" x 24" x 4"
- Made in USA
- Wall mounting hardware included
- 10 lbs
Shipping Note: This item ships directly from the manufacturer within contiguous United States only. Cannot be shipped to AK/HI, PO boxes, US territories, or APO/FPO addresses.


text:
Tag: protecting kids online
Facebook and your child's safety
Angela Christoforos | May 22, 2013
The terrible tragedy of Nichole Cable's murder echoes what seems to be a common theme to teenage disappearances as of late. Facebook….Nichole's mother recalls her daughter leaving for the final time to meet someone she met online. So, how do parents make sure their kids stay safe? News Source 8 Reporter Angela Christoforos asked that […]


text:
You Who Came From the Stars Episode 4 Eng Sub
You Who Came From the Stars Episode 4 Eng Sub
A drama comedy about an outsider man who arrived on Earth 400 years prior throughout the seventeenth century Joseon Dynasty period, becoming hopelessly enamored with an up to date on-screen character.
Do Min Joon (Kim Soo Hyun) is an outsider who owns a close immaculate manifestation and improved physical capacities including his vision, listening to and speed. His character additionally happens to be a college educator and He looks 20. Despite the fact that he expects a negative view to remember people, yet he gets trapped in a sweet cherish story with performer Chun Song Yi (Jeon Ji Hyun).
You Who Came From the Stars Episode 4 Eng Sub
Previously known as: Man From the Stars / Love From Star
Genre: Romance, Comedy, Time travel
Episodes: 20 (To Be Confirmed)
Broadcast network: SBS
Broadcast period: 2013-Dec-18 to 2014-Feb-20
Air time: Wednesday & Thursday 22:00
Cast of You Who Came From the Stars ep 4
Jeon Ji Hyun as Chun Song Yi
Kim Soo Hyun as Do Min Joon
Park Hae Jin as Lee Hwi Kyung
Jo Seung Hyun as Lee Hwi Kyung
Yoo In Na as Yoo Se Mi
Na Young Hee as Yang Mi Yun
Uhm Hyo Sup as Chun Min Goo
Ahn Jae Hyun as Chun Yoon Jae
Hong Jin Kyung as President Hong
Kim Chang Wan as Jang Young Mok
Shin Sung Rok as Lee Jae Kyung
Lee Jung Gil as Lee Bum Joong
People around Yoo Se Mi
Lee Il Hwa as Han Sun Young
Oh Sang Jin as Yoo Yoo Suk
Yoo In Young
Jo Hee Bong
Kim Soo Hyun (2006)
Choi Min
Watch You Who Came From the Stars Episode 4 RAW Eng Sub-cooming soon


text:
STORYTIME for preschoolers will be held on Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 10 a.m. at the Yadkin County Public Library.
STORYTIME is an early literacy program specifically geared for preschoolers 2-5 years old. The theme for this week's program will be "Winter Fun," featuring the letter "W" and highlighting vocabulary.
All STORYTIME programs are free and open to the public. Make plans now to bring your child or grandchild for an entertaining and educational experience, with stories, music and crafts as we help get them "Ready to Read" with the "Every Child Ready to Read @ your Library" program.
NWRL will host their annual Traveling Photography Contest. Contest is open to all registered patrons of the Northwestern Regional Library system, with the exception of individuals whose primary source of income is photography. The fees for each entry are $5.00 for adults and $1 for youth with no limit on total number of entries.
Entries must be received no later than Friday, February 22, 2013 at any NWRL branch. A photography workshop will be held on Tuesday, March 19, 2013 at 5:30 pm, followed by the opening reception at 6:45 pm. For more information about the contest or to pick up an entry form, please visit your NWRL branch.
Due to interest and high volume of usage, the library is pleased to announce that NWRL will renew their Ancestry.com Library Edition subscription, giving the public access for an additional year.
In January, the Yadkin County Public Library will resume an ongoing Genealogy Workshop on Thursdays at 1:00 pm. If you are interested in learning about researching your family history or need assistance with genealogy issues, make plans to attend our free workshop.
The library is holding a book sale in the front entryway. Like new hardcover books are available for $1.00, making them a great bargain and perfect gifts for the holiday season. All proceeds will be used to purchase new books.
The Yadkin County Public Library will be closing at 5:00 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012 and will be closed on Tuesday, January 1, 2013 in observance of the New Year's Day holiday. The library will reopen at 8:30 am on Wednesday, January 2, 2013. The Yadkin County Public Library is a member of the Northwestern Regional Library system, comprised of libraries in Alleghany, Stokes, Surry and Yadkin counties. The library's normal operating hours are as follows: Mondays and Thursdays 8:30 am – 6:30 pm and Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Fridays from 8:30 am – 5:30 pm.


text:
Rosamond Henderson Park was born August 12, 1933 in Jumbo,to Harvey L. and Rosie N. (Maxey) Napier. She passed away peacefully in her sleep on October 16, 2012 in Dallas, TX., at the age of 79. Rose spent many years as the owner/operator of a wholesale jewelry company. She was a Realtor for Remax in Garland, TX., for several years prior to retiring. She had a flair for dress and loved bright colors and jewelry. While residing at Atria Assisted Living in Richardson, her friends often commented on her sharp dress and style. Rose had a keen sense of humor and loved to laugh.
Jesse Carl Joslin was born October 29, 1957 in Antlers. He passed from this life on October 18, 2012 in Wichita, KS. "Carl" is survived by Beloved Companion of 17 years Myra Belle Sorrell of the Home; son, Rev. John Jerome Werner of Boardman, OH, Sisters: Sally (Mike) Andrews, Pixie Wilson, Sarah (Randy)Westbrook and Brother Dennis Wilson and numerous nieces and nephews as well and other extended family members. He was proceeded in death by Mother, Anna Pearl Wilson, Step-Father, Clifton Wilson.
John Calvin Cockrill, 73, of Idabel passed from this life on October 7, 2012. He was born the youngest son of Calvin and Melvie Watson-Cockrill near Antlers. He lived in the Redland community at the time if his death. John was married to Nina Sure Henson-Cockrill on December 9, 1957. John and Nina have four children: Johnnie Sue Cockrill-Hill of Broken Bow; Nancy Cockrill-Worley of Prosper, TX.; Cindy Cockrill of Prosper, TX., Cindy Cockrill of Frisco, TX.; and Jeremy Cockrill of Frisco, TX. Nina proceeded him in death leaving their children to cherish his memory.
Dear Editor,
I would like to see an op-ed page in the paper. I have always found opinions, editorials and letter to the editor of great interest. I bet I'm not the only one.
This is a very good way to measure what is important to a community. This should be of great interest to the policy makers, people in political office and business people.
Your consideration is appreciated.
Butch of Antlers
- - - - - - -
Dear Butch,
The Santa Holiday Circus will be in Antlers at the Fair Barn on Saturday, November 17th to benefit our local southern chapter of Bikers Against Child Abuse (B.A.C.A.).
There will be two performances. One at 2:30 p.m. and the other at 4:230 p.m.
NATIONAL RED RIBBON WEEK® CONTEST IS NOW LIVE AT redribbon.org/contest
Mark Taylor, 10 yrs old from Moyers, killed his first 6 point deer on his first youth hunt with his Papal Stanley Clark in the county line area. His buck was 93 pounds. Proud parents are Nikki Merker and Keith Taylor.
Late Thursday afternoon, a young woman's white and orange kitten decided to play hide and seek inside the engine block of one of our customer's vehicles that was parked in front of the building on Main Street. She said she had just gotten the cat from a home where he was abused. Needless to say, the search was on to try to recover the scared critter before the vehicle was cranked over or he got spooked and darted into traffic.
Clayton police had a busy night when they answered a call dealing with domestic assault and battery.
Upon arrive at the residence, Assistant Chief Randall McGillvary noticed Arthur Seybold, male of Tuskahoma, asleep on the floor in the living room of the home. McGillvary advised the Chief of Police, Roger Erwin, that the City of Clayton had several outstanding warrants on him and then made contact with the woman who had made the initial call. Chief Erwin confirmed this and placed him under arrest.
Oklahomans for Responsible Water Policy (ORWP) will hold its' 2012 Annual Membership Meeting on Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. in Antlers.
This year the ORWP has lined up two water experts, Dr. Kyle E. Murray and Dr. Jonathan Fisher, to speak about surface and ground water issues in Oklahoma.


text:
Quick Links
Shop All Jewelry
BRB10071 In Stock
If you are looking for a unique way to wear a bangle bracelet, look no further! Our Ladies Stainless Steel Bangle Bracelet Set allows you to wear all 12 bracelets for the price of just 1. Stainless steel bangle bracelets are grouped together and intertwined within the other 2 groups of bangles, creating a fascinating effect on your wrist. The total weight of all 12 stainless steel bracelets is 99.8 grams and will be sure to compliment any outfit.
Eve's Addiction.com wants you to be a happy customer. We want you to be completely satisfied with the sterling silver jewelry that you receive from us, as we only sell high quality silver and cubic zirconia cz jewelry. We do understand that you may not like your purchase for some reason.
You may return or exchange your jewelry within 60 days of purchase if you are not satisfied with it. The jewelry must be returned in its original condition for a refund or exchange. Engraved, personalized, photo, monogram, name and initial, chocolate and clearance items are not returnable or exchangeable.


text:
Nick Diaz is 'not impressed' with GSP
Nick Diaz is 'not impressed' with GSP - Mixed Martial Arts NewsFollowing his hard earned defeat of Carlos Condit, UFC Welterweight George St-Pierre has a number of suitors for his fist.
Johny Hendricks asked for it, and said please. Four times.
UFC Middleweight champion Anderson Silva flew in from Brazil to want it from ringside.
And a suspended 170 pounder from Stockton apparently wants in too, despite the fact that his last outing he lost a unanimous decision to Condit for the interim welterweight title in February.
I am not impressed by your performance @GeorgesStPierre, Diaz tweeted minutes after GSP unified the welterweight title.


text:
|"For more ideas & free downloads, check out my blog Fabulous in First
I have been teaching 11 years and all 11 have been in first grade. I absolutely love teaching. I have always dreamed of being a teacher and feel blessed to be able teach 6 and 7 year olds.
I love to use hands on and inquiry based learning. I believe in making learning fun while still integrating and mastering the standards.
I've been nominated for Disney's Teacher of the year twice, as well as included in Who's Who Among America Teachers for two years.
I have a degree in Elementary Education grades K-8 from Miami University and a Masters in Reading from Xavier University.
Visit me at http://Fabulousinfirst.blogspot.com
PreK, Kindergarten, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, Homeschool, Staff, Not Grade Specific
English Language Arts, Balanced Literacy, Reading, Grammar, Spelling, Vocabulary, Specialty, Math, Algebra, Arithmetic, Basic Operations, Graphing, Measurement, Numbers, Social Studies - History, Other (Specialty), Geography, Other (ELA), For All Subject Areas, Literature, Professional Development, Economics , Character Education, Writing, Reading Strategies, Holidays/Seasonal, Back to School, Christmas/ Chanukah/ Kwanzaa, Winter, Valentine's Day, St. Patrick's Day, Spring, Products For TpT Sellers, Tools for Common Core, Summer, Informational Text, End of Year, Phonics


text:
This is a guest post from Fixer Dave, a Google user who's disappointed about the latest developments in the Google land.
I chuckle when people tell me that they never use online services. "Read the EULAs" they tell me. They can do anything they want with your data, don't you know! Yes, I know, and I don't really care. You see, I've sold my soul to Google. I let them know everything about me, and, in return, they give me all these super-cool web-based applications that make my life so much easier. It's a pretty good deal, if you ask me. It's not like I'm some kind of secret agent or something. For the price of my online soul, I get the Google suite: Gmail, Picasa, News, Calendar, Notebook, Bookmarks, Docs... It's great, it really is.
Well, it was great; I'm not so sure anymore. Google has always been special to me, a "don't be evil" enterprise. They have wowed me, over and over again, with the cool free stuff they just keep pumping out. I mean, how can you not trust a company that gives you access to an amazing tool like Google Earth, for free? Google is, well, Google. You'd never equate them to the likes of RIAA, or Microsoft. But, a couple of things have come along to set me back, make me wonder about what's going on, and make me think again about this whole "don't be evil" thing.
The first thing that happened was that Google announced they were going to stop development of Google Notebook. Now, Notebook is a very, very cool application. With the browser plug-in installed, it lets you easily clip bits of web-pages into notebooks which they store online, for free. I find it immensely useful and promote it to everyone I know. It just works great; it's one of the best things Google ever did. But, if you want to try it out, well, you're too late. Google says I can keep my data, so they're not being evil about it, but no new users can sign up for the service. This shocked me in a way that's hard to explain. From the moment I first heard about Google, they've been innovating, expanding, doing new and wonderful things. A trip to the labs was like going to a candy store. But, this was the first time I've ever experienced them stop offering a service. Sure, they may have stopped other stuff, but this is the first time for me. Google stopped a service. Google stopped.
The next thing was a cryptic email about "Interest-Based" Adsense. That was another shock. I know Google tracks me as I browse the web; I can see it in my Google Web History page. I also have no doubt that they track a lot more than what they put up on this page. They know things about me that I've totally forgotten, and it doesn't bother me. But, having them package up these histories and then auctioning them off to advertisers does bother me, a lot actually. That's just a little bit evil, don't you think?
It bugs me because Google could have gone so many other ways, where they could increase their revenues without selling out the people that trust them. I can think of several ways that Google could have their users signing up for interest-based advertising, ways that would have people jumping at the opportunity to be part of something. Instead, Google went the way you would expect any other corporation to go in tough times. They're laying people off, shutting down innovation, and grabbing revenue the easiest way they can get it. It just doesn't seem like Google anymore; it's like there's been a coup and the bean-counters have seized control. I get the feeling that Google has become a corporate adult, with all the loss of innocence that entails. I'm not so sure that I can still trust them. I just don't know. While I'm not quite ready to pull back from the cloud, I'm starting to think that maybe I want my soul back.
Introducing the Search Analytics API
1 hour ago


text:
AUCTIONSbid on our best values - flexible travel dates required
- Valued Added Taxes
Bid On This Vacation
2 Guests
5 Nights
Inland View Room
- 2 double beds or 2 twin beds, 255 square feet
- Private balcony
Booking Conditions:
Price includes hotel taxes only.
Any applicable additional taxes, service charges, or resort fees will be payable to the hotel directly.
Package is subject to promotional rate availability and additional restrictions or conditions may apply.


text:
What is the concept of predestination? Are there different denominations that believe in predestination but have differences in what they believe about it? If so, what are the differences?
The concept of Predestination in so much as it speaks to the concept of Election is rooted in a couple of different passages in scripture. Romans 8:29-30 being the foremost. It basically says that he knew from the beginning who he was going to choose and he "Predestined" or choose them. There are many other passages that support this concept, outlined in this answer.
The question of whether he has predestined every event that will happen in the world is a slightly more contentious one. However, I believe quite strongly that he has indeed predestined every event that will happen. This does not mean that our actions are meaningless or that we should simply drift through life. Romans 8:28 (NIV) gets to the heart of this
As for denominations that believe in predestination to one degree or another. I know that Reformed traditions (Presbyterian, URC, CRC, Reformed Baptists and countless other "reformed churches") ascribe to some tenet of this belief.
I cannot speak to other traditions right off hand, but those who know of them are welcome to add them.
Single Predestination or Double Predestination?
Now before you start thinking "Aw, man! There are two of them?!?" Let me explain the difference:
Single Predestination:
God chooses us, solely by his grace, to go to Heaven. God does not choose people for Hell. If we go to Hell it is because of our own sinfullness.
Double Predestination:
God has chosen some people to go to Heaven, and some people to go to Hell.
Now that we know what they are, what does the Bible teach?
Ok, that seems to indicate that we are Predestined to Heaven, now what about Hell?
The Verdict:
Based off these verses, it seems clear to me that the Bible teaches Single Predestination and not Double Predestination.
God has predestined everything. Here's a simple explanation:
A man was put before two doors, and given the free will to choose a door. He chose one and opened it. Behind the door, it said, "Chosen from the beginning of time".
See, God knows what we will do and yet we are given the free choice. It's hard for our finite minds to understand this concept, as we are limited to what we perceive here and now.


text:
Viva Las Vegas
Apparently everyone over the age of 21 has been to Las Vegas at least once. Before last Thursday, that was not the case for me.
We flew out to Vegas early Thursday morning. My coworker Rob and I explored a little bit before eating lunch. Culture shock would be an understatement for what I experienced. (Good job sheltering me, Mom and Dad. Vegas is scary!).
Friday was a wash, literally. There was a lot of hurry up and wait. I can't say that I was expecting heavy rain in the desert, but that's what we got. NASCAR Nationwide Series (NNS) track activity was cancelled.
NNS cars finally made it onto the track on Saturday morning. The cars were initially set to qualify on Saturday, but with the rain cancelling Friday track activity, a practice session was scheduled instead.
When the green flag finally dropped for the Sam's Town 300, the No. 60 Ford Mustang was very good. Travis Pastrana worked his way up from 31st, to match his career-best finish of 10th.
On to Bristol this week! Attending college in Blacksburg, Va. makes Bristol a little more my speed than Vegas!


text:
Chef, host of Food Network's Sugar, and Home Hardware foodie Anna Olson visits the H&H office to demonstrate a hearty beef pot roast recipe with braised vegetables and fluffy dumplings. Enjoy this Canadian comfort dish for Sunday dinner or to warm up after a long day on the slopes. (Print out the recipe here.)
Kuraidori cookware available through Home Hardware


text:
The Best New Cars Make The Best Used Cars
Welcome to Rockingham Toyota Certified Used Vehicles, your source for hand-selected Pre-Owned automobiles on the Internet. We are a licensed, insured and bonded Auto Dealership in the state of New Hampshire. We received an A+ accreditation by the Better Business Bureau (BBB) complying with the Auto industry's standards and requirements.
12-month/12,000-mile Comprehensive Warranty
- Whichever comes first from date of Toyota Certified Used Vehicle purchase.
- The Comprehensive Warranty covers any repair or replacement of components which fail under normal use due to defect in materials or workmanship.
7-year/100,000-mile Limited Powertrain Warranty
- Whichever comes first from original date of first use when sold as new.
- Covers major engine, transmission components and all internally lubricated parts
- Offers Travel Protection that includes lodging reimbursement when more than 150 miles from home
- Provides Substitute Transportation reimbursement while your Toyota Certified Used Vehicle is undergoing repair
- It's transferable at no cost, for added resale value
1-year of Roadside Assistance
- From date of Toyota Certified Used Vehicle purchase.
- Covers most services, including flat tires, lockout service, jump starts, fuel delivery up to 3 gallons and towing for mechanical breakdown or collision.
- Reimbursement for towing to the nearest Toyota dealership
- Toll-free call for service, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
160-Point Quality Assurance Inspection
- Our goal is to ensure that every TCUV has that like-new look and feel that you would expect in a certified used vehicle.
- Our factory-trained technicians complete any necessary repairs and reconditioning before we call the vehicle certified.
- Every certified Toyota comes with a CARFAX® Vehicle History Report™ to ensure its worthy of the certification process. That means you can enjoy the peace of mind that comes with owning a Toyota Certified Used Vehicle.
Honored at more than 1,400 Toyota dealers in the U.S. and Canada, we've got you covered.


text:
Recent Press Releases
Sheboygan Public Education Foundation Awards Grants to Local Schools
The Sheboygan Public Education Foundation, a 501(C) 3 non-profit that raises funds for the benefit of Sheboygan public schools, recently approved the funding of 28 grants totally over $34,000 to our Sheboygan public schools. Grants were requested for curriculum, technology and humanitarian support. To date, the Sheboygan Public Education Foundation has provided more than $475,000 in grants to the Sheboygan community and to Sheboygan public schools.
Projects supported during the fall grant cycle include:
Projects supported during the fall grant cycle include:
- Cooper Elementary - Funding for Tier 2 & Tier 3 Intervention Reading Program, SMARTBoard Technology
- Early Learning Center – Classroom Carpet for the 4K/ELL program
- Farnsworth Middle School – SMARTBoard Technology for 8th Grade
- Horace Mann Middle School - iPads for Special Education
- Jefferson Elementary - 2nd Grade "The Quirkles" Science Program, Kindergarten Milk, iPods for 3rd Grade
- Longfellow Elementary – Music Room Instruments, Kindergarten Milk and iPods for 3rd grade
- James Madison Elementary – SMARTBoard Technology, iPods
- Lincoln Erdman Elementary – iPads for 1st Graders
- North High School - SMARTBoard Technology & Projection Equipment for Spanish Classes, Hand Held LabQuest Devices and Probes for Science Classes, LCD Projector for Music Program
- Pigeon River Elementary – 3rd Grade 21st Century Reading & Writing Skills
- Urban Middle School – Anti Bullying Literature, EGGSPERT Answer System, Books for Urban Book Club, Projection Equipment for 6th and 8th Grade
- Washington Elementary – Orff Instruments for Music Classes
- Wilson Elementary - Orff Instruments for Music Classes, Band & Orchestra Instrument Purchase & Repair, Projection Equipment for 4th Grade, Funding for Tier 2 & Tier 3 Intervention Reading Program
Sheboygan Area School District Press Release
December 6, 2011
December 6, 2011


text:
Home >> Fun Halloween Stuff >> I Love Halloween >> I Love Halloween Trucker Hat
See this design on our other products!
We've got a great selection of I Love Halloween gifts. Whether you're looking for I Love Halloween t-shirts, hoodies, stickers or other I Love Halloween merchandise, Trick or Treat Tees by Whee! Design has a large collection of fun, unique gifts to choose from. For the last minute gift shoppers, most orders ship within 24 hours. You can shop with confidence because all our products are backed with a 100% satisfaction guarantee.
Products by Section


text:
The New Social Circle® Module (SCM) Links Your SiteWatch® System to Facebook® to Attract New Customers to Your Car Wash
We all know that newspapers and direct mail coupons aren't nearly as effective as they used to be when it comes to reaching new customers. So where does that leave you as a car wash operator?
DRB Systems has the answer; our new user-friendly SiteWatch Social Circle Module makes it simple to extend your marketing reach to social media by posting positive newsfeeds about your car wash on your customers' Facebook pages. This reinforces the loyalty of existing customers and attracts new visitors to your car wash.
Here's What The Social Circle Module Does:
- Automatically posts a positive message on your customer's Facebook newsfeed every time he or she visits your wash. Each post includes your customer's name and "Facebook photo/image." For example, the post might read ("Joe Businessman just got the best deluxe wash in town at North Coast Car Wash.") Click here to see sample Social Circle Module Facebook newsfeeds.
- The post immediately appears on the Facebook pages of your customer's friends to spread your marketing message across social media.
The Social Circle Module from DRB Systems, Inc is the cure for nose-diving newspapers and crumbling coupon responses.
- A "Get My Deal" link on your post draws new visitors to your car wash by giving your customer's friends an incentive to try your services. For example, this link can give friends access to special discount coupons. These coupons can have time limits. You can also limit your coupon offers to a set number of customers, such as the first 25 who redeem the offer. Your Social Circle couponing can also be set up to offer smaller "consolation discounts" to customers who miss out on your main deal. Click here to see sample Social Circle coupons.
- Many of the friends who visit your wash for the "Get My Deal" special are likely to be new customers. This will expand the market for your car wash.
- Some of these newcomers will wind up becoming regular customers and members of your Social Circle Club. This will extend your reach on Facebook even further.
Here's How The Social Circle Module Works:
- Customers give you permission to post on their Facebook pages in exchange for a discount on their monthly pass or prepaid card account.
- Customers can enter your Social Circle Club through an app on your Facebook page. This app is provided by DRB Systems.
- Club member customers will be identified either through their FastPass® Tag at the Xpress Pay Terminal®, by vehicle barcode, by license plate number or by having a club card scanned.
- As more customers join your "Social Circle Club" your Facebook marketing message will be seen by a larger and larger audience.
- Social Circle discounts that you give to the friends of your customers can be offered through a printable barcode or a numeric code.
- In either case, SiteWatch will automatically apply these discounts without depending on the actions of your employees. SiteWatch will also invalidate a barcode or numeric code after it is used one time.
All you need to do is have a Facebook page and be tracking customers on SiteWatch 2011 using vehicle stickers/barcodes, FastPass Tags or license plates. It really is that simple.
As more and more customers sign up for your Social Circle club, the "viral buzz" about your wash will gain momentum. SOON THE WHOLE TOWN WILL BE TALKING ABOUT YOUR CAR WASH!