Conclusion from Peru and Mexico

***Then what are they essential for? What happens if the Reformed do no works at all?

That’s easy! God doesn’t want them to! Don’t you get it? The rich are rich because God wants them to be rich. And the starving are starving because God wants them to starve. And the evil and cruel ones are doing their work because God uses evil,among other things, to fulfill His “plan.” It’s all part of the “plan.”***

It’s certainly one of the gaping holes in Reformed theology. The claim is that works are essential; the question is asked: essential for what? Blank out.

If you’d name the three US senators and the name of the Vatican envoy, it’d have a little more validity.

*** 11) The ET’s who will arrive on 2017 are referred to as “The Controllers.” They are a “galactic federation” type group; however, “galactic federation” is not the real name for their group—it is hypothetical name used as a reference. ***

A reference for what?

***13) The controllers will not give us technology to expand our ability to feed ourselves if we do not recognize the necessity to stabilize our population growth. They don’t want our planet’s population to double because of a technological innovation seeded by them. Our source used India as an example, “ India has over 1 billion people. It is clearly a country out of balance in terms of its population size.” ***

“Controllers” is right. Don’t forget to spay and neuter your pets.

***The Roman Catholic countries will not have a rough time, except for the population problem; the Roman Catholics already have three Gods in one, so accepting others is not that much of a stretch. ***

Nice analysis. The rest of the article appears to be of similar elevated thought.

FK: "However, since that falsehood [by Ann Coulter] was in no way intended to actually convince ANYONE that Edwards was gay she did not breach any ethics, imo."

So, opinions are okay, even if they are defaming?

Oh PLEASE! :) Defaming? Did ANYONE take the comment as an assertion of fact? NO! No one did. Therefore, it was not defaming. An example of defaming was when Clinton New Hampshire campaign co-chair Bill Shaheen (husband of former governor), suggested to the press that Obama might have been a drug dealer based on no evidence whatsoever. Now, multiply that by a thousand times, and suddenly you're a student of American politics. :)

First of all, I suspect, [Ann] calls herself conservative, Republican, and probably "Christian" in the Reformed sense, proud, arrogant, prejudiced, unkind, unforgiving, "assured," and what not.

You forgot racist, sexist, homophobic, unpatriotic, and she hates puppies.

I believe she is a perfect extreme example of such a "Christian," where all the characteristics of one are laid bare for everyone to see. No doubt, in my mind, she doesn't hold back because all her sins that she will commit have already been forgiven in her mind. She is the extreme example of the pecca fortiter (sin boldly) abomination of Luther's message.

Some people say that Christianity means in part that we should never put anyone in jail according to the scriptures. I find your above to be a perfect example of what the following verse was really designed to cover:

Matt 7:1-2 : 7:1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

I think this speaks to judging another's motivations and what is in his or her heart. As I understand it, Ann does happen to be a Reformer, and if so, of course she would have nothing to do with your interpretation of Luther. No Reformer, or Bible-believing Christian, would.

I believe that she is the epitome of the Reformed perversion of Christianity in that there is absolutely nothing, no reason whatsoever, for Reformed Christians to not act carnally, sin as much as possible, lie, cheat, defame, steal, even kill, because in their mind all their sins have been forgiven.

And you think Ann Coulter epitomizes this? If she was promoting a book on C-SPAN and you called in with this, I would pay money to hear her response! :) Please show me a pattern of examples. I haven't seen ONE yet.

And when they add to this God's purpose, convinced that they are not guided by their own will, but by God, then we have what I call a Christian Muslim: a fundamentalist mind with jihadist tendencies using a different God, but the same principle, imo.

AG, what were those verses again? LOL!

All this has been pointed out on FR by Kolo, Mark, StF, myself and other Catholics and Orthodox on these forums. WE all believe to various degrees perhaps that the Reformed theology may not promote that which is carnal, but it intrinsically lacks any checks and balances that will make any individual stop and say "am I supposed to be doing this?" (emphasis added)

Kosta, I KNOW you know better, and I will stop there and not get into your motivations. To all lurkers, the above is a 100% mischaracterization of Reformed theology. The checks and balances that prevent us from chasing wine, women, and song after our assuredness of His grace are legion in the Bible itself. We quote them ALL THE TIME. Apparently, we are not being allowed to believe in the very theology we preach to everyone. The ENTIRE chapter of Romans 6 covers this. Here it is:

Rom 6 : 1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means ! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. 5 If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7 because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.

8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

11 In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13 Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. 14 For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace. 15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means ! 16 Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey — whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. 18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

19 I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves. Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness. 20 When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. 21 What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! 22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Will you allow us to believe this? :) I mean, we say we believe it all the time, yet the other side keeps denying that we even believe in what we say we believe in. I would expect your side to simply declare Paul wrong, but please at least allow us to agree with his grievous error. :)

In other words, it does not seem to promote repentance (if one's sins have already been forgiven) because it is not needed and "makes no sense."

After salvation, we do not repent to earn salvation back. We repent to be forgiven (non-salvational), obey, grow, and be sanctified. These are all worthy things in the life of a Christian.

[Ann Coulter's] falsehood [about Edwards being gay], in my opinion, is not intended to convince anyone, because it's glaringly false, but it is intended, I think, to smear and defame. I am no lawyer, but even I know that defamation is not just a "joke."

It was a joke that missed. :) I saw the tape. There was nothing more to it than that. She was feeding red meat to a red meat crowd. It only happens every single day in politics.

BTW, since Edwards is a public figure the standards go WAY up to prove a case like defamation ("actual malice" legally not present here). Given the facts, it was a non-event, except for the media which tried to blow it up. Which, of course, only resulted in more cable spots for her and consequently more book sales. I remember laughing WITH her AT the media and the liberals who made a big deal out of it. It just helped her. :)

A lie is a lie. It is always there for one purpose: to deceive, to hurt.

So if a female friend or family memeber asks you if she looks fat in a dress you just lay it on 'em straight down the line? Riiiiiiiiight. :)

FK: "It is completely different, for the reasons above and also that the businesses are in direct violation of the law."

And defamation isn't? Not all speech is protected. Not all opinions are allowed.

Federal law prohibits businesses from knowingly hiring illegals. If they do it anyway, then there isn't much else to say. They are in violation of law and should be prosecuted. Unfortunately, all the current law does is impose a small fine for such an offense, like a big speeding ticket.

Defamation, OTOH, is a civil tort and must/should meet the basic element before a suit can be brought. One of those elements is actual damages, in which Edwards would have no case to make.

BTW, from your above, and barring national security, a prior contract, or McCain legislation or something, which opinions are not allowed in this country?

Annie? I see her more like a seven-headed Beast, but that's just my perception. With millions of illegals in the country, you'd think a lawyer of her character would have prosecuted some businesses for their unethical practices. Lawyers have jobs. They don't go around crusading.

While pursuing a career in federal or state prosecution is very noble, and serves the public good, I'm sure that the other FR lawyers around here would agree that no lawyer is "honor-bound" to pursue such a career. In fact, the great majority do not. In further fact, I cannot name any FR lawyer that I know of who has done so. No shame on them, ........... or me. :)

And BTW (again :) my gut instinct tells me that if someone did a survey the result would be that most "professional crusaders" have a law degree. :)

Instead of meeting justice, which is what she went to law school for (I hope), she is much happier "stirring up the pot" as she says, and being in the limelight as one of the favorite conservative attack dogs (no gander insinuated here/s).

No goose taken. :) But seriously, you just can't impose a duty upon any lawyer to practice the type of law you feel is most worthy. The law is an extremely broad profession, and there is genuine and legitimate need for expertise in a great many fields. So, to make a short story long, I don't think it's fair to criticize Ann for using her law degree to choose the career path she did, based on some duty or debt you think she owes.

But we already know that our concepts of truth and ethics are like night and day, FK. So, it doesn't surprise me one bit that you would consider "Annie" Coulter truthful and ethical.

What is this? :) SO far, all I know is that you don't like her. That's fine, but give me something to defend. You have done a pretty good job to "defame" her in your post. Can you back it up with anything? :)

Almost surely anyone that despises Ann Coulter is a RINO..

Liberals could care less.. their minds are in Oz.. Because she is the leanest meanest RINO exposer of all time.. They cannot help themselves.. For they are at heart liberals and covert Moonbats.. posing as Patriots..

she hates puppies.

Okay. That's it. I am officially no longer in love with her.

Sister Mary Ann, who worked for a home health agency, was out making her rounds visiting homebound patients when she ran out of gas.

As luck would have it, an Exxon Gasoline station was just a block away. She walked to the station to borrow a gas can and buy some gas. The attendant told her that the only gas can he owned had been loaned out, but she could wait until it was returned.

Since Sister Mary Ann was on the way to see a patient, she decided not to wait and walked back to her car. She looked for something in her car that she could fill with gas and spotted the bedpan she was taking to the patient.. Always resourceful, Sister Mary Ann carried the bedpan to the station, filled it with gasoline, and carried the full bedpan back to her car.

As she was pouring the gas into her tank, two Baptists watched from across the street. One of them turned to the other and said, ‘If it starts, I’m turning Catholic.’

One day while he was at the track playing the ponies and all but losing his shirt, Mitch noticed a priest who stepped out onto the track and blessed the forehead of one of the horses lining up for the 4th race. Lo and behold, that horse - a very long shot - won the race.

Before the next race, as the horses began lining up, Mitch watched with interest the old priest step onto the track. Sure enough, as the 5th race horsescame to the starting gate the priest made a blessing on the forehead of one of the horses.

Mitch made a beeline for a betting window and placed a small bet on the horse. Again, even though it was another long shot, the horse the priest had blessed won the race.

Mitch collected his winnings, and anxiously waited to see which horse the priest would bless for the 6th race. The priest again blessed a horse.

Mitch bet big on it, and it won. Mitch was elated. As the races continued the priest kept blessing long shot horses, and each one ended up coming in first.

By and by, Mitch was pulling in some serious money. By the last race, he knew his wildest dreams were going to come true. He made a quick dash to the ATM, withdrew all his savings, and awaited the priest’s b lessing that would tell him which horse to bet on.

True to his pattern, the priest stepped onto the track for the last race and blessed the forehead of an old nag that was the longest shot of the day. Mitch also observed the priest blessing the eyes, ears, and hooves of the old nag.

Mitch knew he had a winner and bet every cent he owned on the old nag.

He then watched dumbfounded as the old nag come in dead last. Mitch, in a state of shock, made his way down to the track area where the priest was.

Confronting the old priest he demanded, “Father! What happened?

All day long you blessed horses and they all won. Then in the last race, the horse you blessed lost by a Kentucky mile. Now, thanks to you I’ve lost every cent of my savings - all of it!”.

The priest nodded wisely and with sympathy. “Son,” he said, “That’s the problem with you Protestants, you can’t tell the difference between a simple blessing and last rites.”

FK: "1 Cor 10:13...If my above is right, then it looks like all men are tempted, but only the elect are tested."

It does not provide the reason for testing. There is no reason for God to test anyone if He knows our hearts and minds.

But that presumes that God tests principally for His own benefit. That cannot be so for the very good reason you give. We are tested for OUR benefit. Have you ever been through a trial and come out better spiritually? Of course, we all have.

It’s certainly one of the gaping holes in Reformed theology. The claim is that works are essential; the question is asked: essential for what? Blank out

Well, why do you think Luther tried so hard to get rid of the Book of James!? He realized the unbridgable problem with this. I don't think he could bring himself to admit that God is the source of evil. But, lawyer Calivin had no problems with that, and neither do his saints.

If works through faith are required, and are part of God's "plan," theh they are essential, unless God just wants people to keep busy...

The Calvinists do not ask why. They just "submit" like the Muslims. If you are rich, it's God 's will. If you are poor, well God made you poor, so that His Glory may become evident through your poverty...(see the story of the blind man).

That's why you have pastor Hagee, who endorsed McCain just yesterday, who says that Katrina was sent by God because New Orleans planned a gay parade the following week. He also calls the Catholic Church a "cult" and the "Great Whore." I hope not a single Catholic votes for McCain after this.

All in all, they are pretty Muslim and pretty medieval in everything but name.

Discussions with my fave prof, now deceased, led to the conclusion that the reason for good works is that they are a gift and more fun than bad works.

My becoming a filthy papist has not changed my opinion about that. I would rather be a door-keeper in the house of the Lord than dwell in the tents of wickedness, ceteris paribus and all .... It's just plain nicer here.

FK: "Kosta, from our conversations and now here, this timing problem of yours is getting way out of hand."

Because, maybe, in the back of your mind, you know that it is significant although not desirable in your preconceived picture of the development of Christianity?

I'm honestly not sure what that means. My complaint is that, for example, you appear to be saying that since John was written in 90 A.D. no one knew anything in John until that time. HOWEVER, at the same time your Church (I think) maintains that all truth was orally transmitted until the Canonization of scripture, for which your Church takes full credit. These both cannot be true (if either if them is). My contention is that the conversations appearing in John were "basically" orally and correctly taught leading up to the actual drafting of the text. If that happened, then it's no wonder that the Book of John was rubber-stamped by the Council. Therefore, the conversations in John were already known to the people before John was written.

FK: "From your above, it sounds like you are saying that Christians didn't believe that Christ was God until John was written 60 or 70 years after the fact. Is that right?"

We can only speculate what was taught orally. And we can hope that what was taught orally is the same thing that was written down later on, beginning after 70 AD (destruction of Jerusalem's Temple).

Well, then when did your Church assume the mantle of being the one and only true Church that was infallible in its holdings? When did "always and everywhere believed" begin?

It is rather obvious that Christians, in time, did come to believe that Christ is God (they sure didn't in Acts 1!), and that Son of God in His case was not just a title reserved for the angles and kings (as in Judaism) but literally means God's only begotten Son, God of God, True Light of True Light, of one essence as the Father, as the Creed was was later formulated, just as they, in time, came to believe that the Holy Spirit is not just the "power of God" (Judaic meaning), but actually God Himself, co-eternal and co-substantial with the Father and the Son.

You are describing a progression of Christian faith here that is all over the place, especially if you see John as incompatible with the other Gospels. Assuming that it was your men, and your men alone who brought order to all this, when did that happen, and how?

LoL... The sister one is stealable..

***If the KJV was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for us. :)***

I know for a fact that Jesus used the “Living Bible” almost exclusively :>) The KJV was second rate.

[good works] are a gift and more fun than bad works.

Yes they are. Joy is in giving. Love only gives. Love doesn't ask. When the old owman gave her last two coins in the synagogue, her gift was more than all the money rich Pharisees could muster. And God gives in abudance, and we give Him crumbs. But godo works are ultimately our imitation of Christ. We are like aprentices who learn after the Master, by imitating Him. Being a Chirstian is not just faith; it's everything we do—in faith, walking in Christ's footsteps. It's all works-based.

Mother Theresa's faith may have been full of doubt; but she did more good than all of us put together.

I think God allows doubt to give us a chance to grow stronger. Really.

But yes. The call is so breathtakingly challenging that most of the time I just quail. But nothing else gives any happiness.

I am not holy enough to say more.

My complaint is that, for example, you appear to be saying that since John was written in 90 A.D. no one knew anything in John until that time

Speculating what went on beofre the books were written is just that speculation. Truth is, we don't know what was said before the books of the Gospels were written. But we do know that various Christian groups represneted a heterodox community of believers.

at the same time your Church (I think) maintains that all truth was orally transmitted until the Canonization of scripture, for which your Church takes full credit

The Church only takes credit for recongizing and selecting that which was inspired, and rejecting that which was profane.

My contention is that the conversations appearing in John were "basically" orally and correctly taught leading up to the actual drafting of the text

That means +John's Greek was flawless (actually better than +Paul's) from the getgo and his theoogy fully developed. If that's what he was teaching from the beginning, then it is surely strange the Synaptic Gospels don't mention any of it.

Well, then when did your Church assume the mantle of being the one and only true Church that was infallible in its holdings? When did "always and everywhere believed" begin?

The Church existed from the Pentecost. The Church consisted of those who held the orthodox faith. The Church is the one that, when tested, formulated correct theology (Trinity), and Christology (two natures, one Person) based on what the Church believed "everywhere and always" but was not necessarily expressed.

The other alternative is that all other "churches" were equally "true," and all Gnostic, Docetist, Monophysite, Montanist, Marcionist, Ebionite, etc. theologies were equally "true"."

I hope you realize the situation hasn't changed a single bit to this day.

You are describing a progression of Christian faith here that is all over the place, especially if you see John as incompatible with the other Gospels. Assuming that it was your men, and your men alone who brought order to all this, when did that happen, and how?

It's not incompatible with other Gospels. The ealrier Gospels describe a human Christ; +John's Gospel describes a divine One. THey are both correct, but the idea that Christ is two natires in one Person was not necessarily believed by all Chritisians, or all bishops.

When the issues of Christological nature began to appear, there was many a hierarch who had strayed, creating distorted and misleading "Christ," one with only divine nature, or one who was "adopted" by God.

The Gospel according to Matthew is not equivalent to The Gospel according to God. It is man’s feeble attempts to write about the infallible in fallible terms.

The Bible is "man's feeble attempts"??? Well, that explains a lot. I know Kosta's view is along these lines, but I didn't know it was the Latin view also. I was confused because of what the Catechism says (all emphasis added):

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

On a level of basic principle, I have little problem with this. However, this is not what I am seeing from Apostolics on this thread. What gives? :)

Forest Keeper: My complaint is that, for example, you appear to be saying that since John was written in 90 A.D. no one knew anything in John until that time. HOWEVER, at the same time your Church (I think) maintains that all truth was orally transmitted until the Canonization of scripture, for which your Church takes full credit. These both cannot be true (if either if them is).

Kosta: Speculating what went on beofre the books were written is just that speculation. Truth is, we don't know what was said before the books of the Gospels were written. But we do know that various Christian groups represneted a heterodox community of believers.

The Church only takes credit for recongizing and selecting that which was inspired, and rejecting that which was profane.

Well now, what have we learned? Of course we have learned that we must not accept a priori that anything in Scripture is correct, i.e. we must not accept the divinity of Scripture as a principle known outside of sense experience. Curiously, however, what seems to be implicitly stated is that the [Greek] Church is the a priori principle, that is, we must accept the proclomations of the [Greek] Church outside of experience. Of course, Kosta may have all kinds of data proving the infallibility of the [Greek] Church, since he would obviously reject any rationalist principle that the [Greek] Church grounds all truth, and has yet to prove it. Or, perhaps, Kosta is a subjectivist and the [Greek] Church is just one form of truth amongst an infinite number of truths, as all empiricists end up being subjectivists.

One final possiblity exists, it could be that Kosta is actually a mind in a vat being manipulated by an evil scientist and what he thinks is sense-experience is all an illusion. That'll be a tough one to prove false.

Mark: The Gospel according to Matthew is not equivalent to The Gospel according to God. It is man’s feeble attempts to write about the infallible in fallible terms.

FK: I was confused because of what the Catechism says... "God is the author of Sacred Scripture...written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit...they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself...God inspired the human authors of the sacred books...though [God] acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more...[t]he inspired books teach the truth....we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures"

That's what I call the "truth" by fiat." Sounds positively "protestantized." Unfortunately, the RCC has been suffering from "protestantitis" for a few decades, especially the American Catholic Church, and especially the one on the West Coast.

Even if all this were true, the fact is that (1) there is no proof of any of this and (2) it does not account for errors, disagreements, and inconsistencies that have plagued the New Testament scriptures all along.

The claim that the authors were "consigned to writing whatever [God] wanted written, and no more" is simply not true when one considers that +Paul speaks of "his gospel" or when he explicitly states, on more than one occasion, that the commandments he is giving are not from the Lord but from him personally.

Despite the fancy definitions and allegations that the Holy Spirit worked "inside" the authors, the Church still gives credit to the authors (smart approach in my opinion), thus always leaving the door open for "human variation," of which there is abundance.

Ultimately, the Catechism you cite does not say how one is to determine the truthfulness of these allegations, and also does not say that anyone can read and "extract" the message of truth found in the scriptures, and I would be the first to admit that the Bible does express certain things we know that are not to be found in the natural world, things not of this world.

You know, we are all "inspired" from the moment we wake up until we fall asleep. Something "inspires" us to do things all day long. My problem with this terminology used is that (1) it is loaded with implications and (2) it is "fluff" without substance.

Something moves us and motivates us to do things, to think about, to wish and to search. The trick is knowing what drives us. Some people believe they are being used by God to do things; others simply do what they are "inspired" to do and leave the reasons behind.

Of course we have learned that we must not accept a priori that anything in Scripture is correct, i.e. we must not accept the divinity of Scripture as a principle known outside of sense experience

I am not in the habit of using expressions such as "must not"; if I did, it was inadvertant. But if you are exaggerating for effect, then beware that exaggerations do not earn you points. Stick to what is written without making things up and adding to something that is not yours to add to.

An a priori starting premise is just that: starting premise. It is assumed or known to be true; otherwise the whole project is meaningless. Our initial a prior premises determine our course of action.

If you start with the premise that there is a reasonable possibility that there is life on Mars, you will conduct experiments aimed at discovering life on Mars. The trick is to distinguish "realistic" or "probable" premises from wishful thinking, fantasy and superstition.

On what basis do you accept that the Bible is the word of God? On the basis of your faith that it is! Take for example a psychotic, who believes that monopoly money is real money, attempting to buy groceries with it. To him, the money is "real" but to the rest of the world it's monopoly money.

Two "realities," one dissociated from the other. We can't live outside of this world and make up our own reality. The reality is that which we all experience in common. Those things which are idiosyncratic to us or a small group of people with similar "experience" are not necessarily reality in an absolute sense. To us, seeing is believing, but to bats, it's hearing.

The problem is that some want the whole world to fall in line with one's personal "reality" which is more than likely a solipsistic imagination or even possibly psychotic in nature.

what seems to be implicitly stated is that the [Greek] Church is the a priori principle, that is, we must accept the proclomations of the [Greek] Church outside of experience

No, that's only Church phobia that so many Protestants seem to suffer from. The Greek Church makes no such claims. However, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is the Church that defined Christain God as Divine Trinity, and Christ as one Person, in two natures. That pretty much defines the orthodox Christian faith to which even the Reformers subscribe.

But there are some (especially in the liberal Anglican and other Protestant communities) where the "Holy Spirit" is leading them to "new developments" that was never believed by the "Greek" Church.

The Orthodox Church believes what the Church believed all along but didn't express it unless it was challenged. So, while many Protestants subscribe to the basic orthodox premises of the Holy Trinity and Christology, they differ when it come to the ancient Church beliefs vis a vis atonement (the term didn't even exist in the Church for more 11 centuries), salvation, etc.

In addition to the faith in the trinitarian God and God-man Savior, you accept the canon of the same Church you are mocking, based on nothing more than an a priori belief that it is true. Gnostics, Montanists, Marcionists, Adoptinists, Ebionites, Bogomils, Muslims, Hindus, and Jews, Shinto and Buddhists, to mention a few, with equal conviction disagree.

Of all the heterodox beliefs that existed in the early Christian era, we can either assume that they were all correct or that there was only one that was correct and true Church: the one that believes in one triune God, and divine-human Savior, as defined by this "Greek" Church.

Now, if God is really Trinity and Christ is really true God and true Man, as revealed and known to the Church, and the scriptures the Church canonized are true scriptures, can that Church then stray into apostasy? If that is so, then there is no true Church of God, and all the "churches" are equally vulnerable and unreliable, and all contain a little bit of the truth (universalism, relativism), and equally subject to corruption and error, and that would include the scriptures too.

But you believe that God would not let his sheep be snatched away from Him, yet you believe that He would allow His Church to become apostate? How consistent is that?

You may believe that believers are led by the Holy Spirit, but the Church not only isn't, but it's allowed to stray?!? Is this your way of "explaining" your diffeence with the Church?

Or, perhaps, Kosta is a subjectivist and the [Greek] Church is just one form of truth amongst an infinite number of truths, as all empiricists end up being subjectivists.

We are all "subjectivists" to some extent. Some, however, believe their subjectivity way too much and turn into false reality because it "feels right" to them. The sane, however, realize that subjective truth is not necessarily the same as objective truth.

We are tested for OUR benefit. Have you ever been through a trial and come out better spiritually?

Maybe some desire to be tested; others are happy the way they are. You keep telling me how secure you are in your belief. Do you need to go through a Job-like trial to feel "better" about it?

And, besides, since when does God do things on our agenda if everything is subject to fulfillment of His "plan?"