Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
Yeah, precision about what we believe.
It is difficult to hit a moving target.
that looks suspiciously like a list
Amen!
Where do I find this in Scripture?
I was unaware you had such an insular definition of the word.
This definition is a good example why it is impossible for you to recognize error within your church. By your definition, your church can never be wrong because they define all things. Those of us that are in Christian sects that are not EO, or RC, define all things against what is written in Scripture.
Not really; I'm not Catholic so I'm not really concerned when you aledge Catholics pray to Mary.
That said it is protestants on this thread who have thrown out invectives to which I responded with the SAME ACCUSATIONS supported by at least as much information.
Then I withdraw my invective. That stated, in light of your non-responsive and irrelevant invective against Gill, Clarke and Barnes, I would request that you no longer post to me on this thread. We have nothing upon which to build a constructive conversation.
Have a nice day.
Boy and here I was at least expecting a 'well then you guys pray to pictures' out of you...
Yes and no. The doctrine of the Orthodox church comes from 7 seven councils (before the schism) where the entire church met, in the presence of the Holy Spirit. That's about all we call infailible.
Thank you.
As soon as I lose the weight I gained during the holidays I'll come over to help you perform the rites and ceremonies of Vareniki scarfing.
"God saved her at conception. She did need a savior. She was saved. It just happened at an earlier time for her.
Where do I find this in Scripture?"
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/marya2.htm
I'm sorry, I am homeschooling the two older kids today and only have a minute to spare. I'm not good at keeping up with these threads! I should stay away. LOL! There are a few scripture verses as well as a wonderful explanation. I'm not sharing it because I think it will change your mind. Just as you must realize that you can not change mine. I'm sure we'll all keep trying anyway! :o)
The leading I have in the Spirit is that we are temples for the Spirit's indwelling (John 3, etc.)
One must guard against spiritual pride. Only those who empty themselves of all pride become temples for Spirit's indwelling.
Like glass, the light of God shines through them, yet they have become invisible, never drawing attention to themselves, so that all we see is God's light through them.
Far and few inbetween are such temples.
All those that believe are temples of the Holy Spirit ... even those which Paul had to warn to avoid sexual immorality.1 Corinthians 6:15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
That's arianism.
Then maybe it would be best not to shoot at it, or at all? They say you should be sure of your target and of what's behind it. But in this thread ONE "strand" of the Protestant argument appears to go like this:
(1)An allegation is made, and the practice alleged is condemned, often with extensive and numerous excerpts from Scripture and Protestant authors.
(2) In response, we deny the allegation and draw a distinction.
(3)The activity of drawing distinctions is disparaged, and the allegation is repeated, again with extensive and numerous excerpts from Scripture and from Protestant authors. Sometimes there even are what would appear to be vain repetitions of the same excerpts and quotes.
It is as though the very idea of framing the criticism in a way which would lead those crticized to think it applied to them is repulsive. For example, if a Protestant wants to condemn praying to statues, I will agree. But rather than take seriously the question of how I can, while doing what I customarily do, agree with the Protestant in this sort of sequence, s/he just retorts, often as nastily as possible, "I was talking about YOU!"
When I question this, the activity is explained to be "telling the truth in Love." When I consider the numerous factual errors, most of them easily avoidable, I find the claim, at best, dubious.
I could agree with "Yelling the truth", as long as I could reserve judgement on the "in Love" part. And I would say that I am not guiltless of a little yelling now and again.
But I'm not pretending it's meaningful discourse. It's more like an argument among third graders.
Kolo can say the former leaders of my church have done and said terrible things about his Church, but I see no malice. Blogger can hold up his side of the question and point out the hinge points of my side, and I learn from him and feel he is becoming a friend.
But, well, there are a lot of wild shots being discharged seemingly without any serious aiming but with what they all a "spray and pray" approach to gunfire.
All I can see is that the person shooting won't learn anything, will confirm himself or herself in his or her own malice and opinions, and will probably interfere with or discourage any future loving and/or humble conversation about the Lord we all profess to love and whose gracious dispensation we seek to understand. Anybody can have a conversation with people with whom he agrees. Having a useful conversation with people with whom one disagrees, that's an achievement, one which, if the conversation were about our Lord, would make Satan tremble.
/ rant off.
Nowhere in so many words, as far as I know.
We Catholics have an understanding of the relationship of Scripture, tradition (we hold Scripture itself to be a kind, or instance, of tradition), and authoritative teaching, and that view is different from the one held by many Protestants.
Woah! What's Arianism? Gimme some guidance here!
I realized I was unclear. I don't mean,"What is Arianism?" in the sense that I'm asking for what Arius taught. I mean what is it in the message to which you referred which strikes you as implying Arianism?
My bad Pelagianism not Arianism. (mixed up my darned heresies).
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Pelagianism
This teaching was opposed by St. Augustine, the leading figure in the North African Church at that time. While Pelagius, in his claims that humans can (alone) do what God requires, had emphasized the freedom of human will and the ability to control one's motives and actions under the guidance of God's law, Augustine insisted that no one can control his or her own motivation and that person requires the assistance of God's grace if he or she is to will and to do good. Only with the help of divine grace can an individual overcome the force of sin and live rightly before God.
LOL yep
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.