Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
An Apostolic Church eh!.. Which one?.. Peter, Paul, Apollos?
What negative theology? You mean apophatic? Are you sure you understand what that means?
So, how do you draw the line between ethical and unethical. If lies boost the sales, long live America? How is that different from businesses hiring illegal aliens out of greed and not caring what that does to America's security?
I guess as long as we make a sale, the path doesn't matter. Truly revealing.
The Church viewed Cassian's teachings as heretical. Shouldn't that be sufficient?
You have no proof nor do you have sufficient evidence.
What evidence do I need? I'm not the one who sits in judgment. I'm merely stating venerating statues made with hands is idolatry. Let him who have ears hear.
We can and we do.
So, what is the meaning of venerate?
Can we pull together a coherant post please?
Sometimes I think people can grasp certain concepts. The Orthodox view was built on a synergistic model that believed in man's will to change his life. Their touted saint is none other than Saint Cassian who had a great influence on the Orthodox view. On the other side was the Latin who branded (at least initially) Cassian as a heretic, favoring Augustine's view of salvation as a gift from God. After all, it does state that in scripture although few actually believe that it is a GIFT; instead thinking they did something (had faith, was baptized, etc.). Few look upon the church/Church as the "chosen" nation of God. Instead most veiw it as the "chosing" nation of God.
No, just the Protestant interpretation of Paul,and the emphasis on Paul and OT over Gospels.
You have problems with Apostles too?
“Bottom line: my tagline is a lot more factual then claiming indwelling spirit.”
You believe that it is just as I believe that the Holy Spirit indwells me, and interestingly enough, both statements use the same evidence, the Word, the church and experience.
***What negative theology? You mean apophatic? Are you sure you understand what that means?***
LOL
I don’t know?!
Hey, you took off my smiley face :>(
“a moral message. Somoene is used as an example for others to learn.”
These examples are not moral messages for others but tests of the individual’s commitment and loyalty. When they were going through the testing they had no idea of being used as examples.
Hbr 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten [son],
Jam 1:12 Blessed [is] the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.
1Pe 1:7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:
The difference between testing and temptation is in the intent of the initiator. When God subjected Jesus to hunger in the desert it was to test him in his reliance on God but when Satan tempted him in the same situation it was to sin by relying on himself to perform a miracle to satisy his personal hunger.
Here is the funny part. We post scripture STRAIGHT from the Bible and you call it an interpretation. That’s hilarious. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...
Well, that's pretty much the first step in apophatic theology, I believe. So you've made a good start.
And I don't know about you, but when I don't know, which is all the time, I take comfort in my confidence that I am known.
I don't know anybody important -- not to where you'd say "know", but somebody REALLY important knows me.
I thought you were “off” for Lent?
Is Lent over?
Not the originals?..
The job security of hand me down authority gives me the heebie jeeepies..
I know about the strange teachers(heretics) and such..
So I understand the logic of the hand me downs.. but I don;t like the concept of it..
AMEN!
This can't be said enough. We get so smart sometimes we outsmart ourselves.
No. Our liturgy is unchanged form the 4th century. We worship the same was as the Church did in the 4th century. And we teach the same doctrine that Church taught. We are the same Church doctrinally and worship-wise as the Church that canonized the Bible. These are facts. Your indwelling spirit could be the HS or demons or just pure voices of insanity. Two different hings. One is objective the other is subjective.
I thought you had no clue. But you didn’t answer my other questrion: what is supposedly “negative” about our theology?
Waste of bandwidth. :)
So are MOST of our posts :>)
“One is objective the other is subjective.”
You are still relying on what someone else believed to be true. You don’t have the same documents that the 1st century had, nor do your priest have the same garments, nor did the 1st century church have the relics you use, nor the commentaries you use, nor do you know that the liturgy you use was used in the 1st century church. You are relying by faith that what your church heirarchy and history is telling you is the truth. You weren’t there when the early church started so you are using reason, probability, that what you believe is true.
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.