Posted on 12/05/2010 6:14:57 PM PST by RnMomof7
I nominate Deuteronomy 6.2 for the reference to the Trinity.
If G-d was a Trinity, or was not a Trinity, how would you act differently?
“The things of G-d are unknown, and unknowable, so why argue?” The Buddha
Care to post the evidence supporting THOSE accusations?
Metmom,
Freedumb pulled a Willie Green. When Willie called me an "anti urban/anti rail bigot," it was supposed to shut down the arguement.
Freedumb,
This is a question. I'm asking a question because I can't read your mind and certainly won't try to.
Is your arguement so weak and without merit that you must resort to the race card?
How "progressive."
As you may know, m-mom, Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Christians, who certainly take no back seat to the Latins when it comes to veneration of the Most Holy Theotokos, do not subscribe to the innovative and modern Latin Church dogma of the Immaculate Conception. This is a doctrine whose dogmatic status was declared by no Ecumenical Council but rather by a 19th century pope, not to fight a heresy as all the other real dogmas to that point were, but for other reasons apparently sufficient to him.
While no Orthodox Christian accepts this doctrine, some of us believe that it is positively heretical as a denial of the dual nature of Christ (True God and True Man)as declared by the 4th Ecumenical Council held at Chalcedon in 451 AD. If the Most Holy Theotokos was ontologically different from all the rest of mankind by being born without the tendencies to sinfulness we all carry as a result of the Sin of Adam, then she was not a human being, she was a "goddess" and her Son was not True Man.
This whole notion that she had to be "pure" or "without the stain (Macula) of Original Sin" is, it has been argued, driven by the fundamentally flawed Manichean notions of Blessed Augustine (whose Greek was not good at all and so he was cut off from the writings of the Greek Fathers) about "Original Sin". That whole concept is outside the consensus of The Fathers and is rejected by Eastern Christians, but this flawed doctrine probably lies at the base of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
A number of the Fathers rejected this idea of the Immaculate Conception and some of the greatest theologians of the Latin Church did too. No less a figure than +Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor, denied it. It was essentially a doctrine developed by "Schoolmen" like Duns Scotus.
It is my understanding that many Protestants accept the Augustinian idea that man is utterly depraved. If so, then it stands to reason that such Protestants should immediately accept the Immaculate Conception doctrine since it strains credulity that God would be born out of depravity.
Once the West, including Protestants, accepted Blessed Augustine's non-patristic concept of Original Sin, all sorts of theological aberrations developed.
bashing Mary by telling the truth about her.To which I replied
oh and of course your group, 2000 years later has some secret knowledge that is contrary to what Early Christians believed, I guess?Does your group have some gnostic knowledge to doubt that Mary was sinless?
Ann. If you say my mom isn't a virgin, you're dissing her. Why are you dissing my mom?
Others’ posts.
I didn’t mean to imply that it was yours.
Since the Catholic church accepts *trinity* on proof texts without the word actually appearing in Scripture, why do they have such a problem accepting *sola Scriptura* from proof texts as well without the word actually appearing in Scripture?
Gotta go shovel. We’re getting buried.
Later.....
WHAT sins did she commit?? LIES?? CHEATING??? CURSING?? MURDER??? Please tell me what sins she committed.....please tell us
Romans ch 3
23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24
Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
We can learn from real believing Protestant groups and, sadly enough, from the mainstream Protestant groups mistakes (ECUSA, ELCA etc). For instance, to learn how the LCMS has been cautious in welcoming “refugees” from the ELCA by rigourously ensuring that these completely agree to the doctrines of the LCMS and don’t bring in ELCA’s liberal policies is something we should all take heed of.
Where?
Not only is there no papacy in the NT church, there is not priesthood, no sacrifices..bloody or unbloody
The Scripture outlines what the NT church should look like, and the God given outline looks nothing like the Roman church
Good taste - and rules for posting on Free Republic - prohibit me from saying what I really think about that post.
I am a convert to the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC CHURCH. The Holy Spirit led me to the true church, the one that Christ Himself founded.
That is what James said..do you have a problem with James?
Where is that in the bible?
Actually, in the very last section of Ineffabilis Deus, Blessed Pius IX wrote this about what he hoped for with his declaration of the dogma:
...[I]n her who is the most excellent glory, ornament, and impregnable stronghold of the holy Church; in her who has destroyed all heresies and snatched the faithful people and nations from all kinds of direst calamities; in her do we hope who has delivered us from so many threatening dangers. We have, therefore, a very certain hope and complete confidence that the most Blessed Virgin will ensure by her most powerful patronage that all difficulties be removed and all errors dissipated, so that our Holy Mother the Catholic Church may flourish daily more and more throughout all the nations and countries, and may reign "from sea to sea and from the river to the ends of the earth," and may enjoy genuine peace, tranquility and liberty. We are firm in our confidence that she will obtain pardon for the sinner, health for the sick, strength of heart for the weak, consolation for the afflicted, help for those in danger; that she will remove spiritual blindness from all who are in error, so that they may return to the path of truth and justice, and that here may be one flock and one shepherd.
So, in a sense, Blessed Pius was invoking her to fight all heresies.
Reference — yes, there is plenty to prove it, however, our friend here the met may seem to wish for explicit quotation of a term for it to be viable.
btw, isn’t that quote by Baha’ullah not Buddha?
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.