Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: DouglasKC; Petronski; mountn man; Gamecock; P-Marlowe; xzins; All

Although valid in his critique of Mariology, why did you choose someone with less than orthodox views on something even more important, like the Trinity?

The author and the “church” he writes for are anit-trinitarian, and officially modalist—a very serious error, amounting even to heresy. Such is more serious even than the mariology he criticizes. The author would not be permitted leadership or even communion in most evangelical churches—if his views on the nature of God were known.

From the text above:
“This is the same mechanism by which Christmas, Easter, Sunday-worship, and the pagan trinity-god were brought into the Roman church—and which most of mainstream Christianity has accepted without question.”

As you can see he also denies the validity of Sunday worship and the celebration of Christmas—though these are small points compared to the Trinity.

If we’re going to discuss orthodox belief, lets find an orthodox author.

Though he’s right about Mary, had I known the author and his organization were actually heretical, I wouldn’t have commented on this thread.

It goes to prove how we all ought to read a posting before commenting—and I’m the chief of sinners in that!


121 posted on 04/12/2008 10:08:40 AM PDT by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: AnalogReigns
...valid in his critique of Mariology...

Bzzzt.

Completely false.

131 posted on 04/12/2008 10:42:29 AM PDT by Petronski (Nice job, Hillary. Now go home and get your shine box.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies ]

To: AnalogReigns
Though he’s right about Mary, had I known the author and his organization were actually heretical, I wouldn’t have commented on this thread.

I don't know much about the organization other than I enjoyed this article. I do however agree with many of their views. I consider myself a first century Christian. Those in biblical times hadn't "developed" a notion of the trinity. That's an evolved viewpoint hashed out by men over the centuries and agreed upon by tradition. Biblical Christians believed the father and son to be divine persons in the Godhead and considered the Holy spirit to be their intercession and presence in our reality and lives. I don't believe that's modalism.

Sabbath keeping was the norm in biblical times for Christians as was observing God's holy days. Days such as Christmas and Easter are not biblical holy days. They too are evolved traditions derived from what is now called the Roman church.

I am not ashamed of embracing and doing the same things my Lord Jesus Christ and his followers taught and did and I'll gladly wear the label of heretic if that's the cost.

217 posted on 04/12/2008 10:28:47 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson