Let me express my gratitude for those of you who have the patience to talk to such arrogance.

"Do you want to know, so that you can continue to suppress the truth and deny it, or because you want to know the truth of what these scriputres teach."

Are you claiming not to have a lens of interpretation?  Our pov is subjective and yours is objective for the simple fact that it is yours?

"It is useless, you simply can't see it, therefore, you can't understand it."

"but it is because you drive us to scorn, thru your childish, arguments"

I suppose one could let ones own words speak for oneself.  These sort of statements reveal character. I can see you have attained great spiritual wisdom to speak with such authority.

A sinner,

good comedy.

"God can not be explained in our terms. Imagining Him is just
far beyond our knowledge. And describing Him in our terms
would just be impossible, for our languages can not describe
such an unfathomable thing..."

Apophatism well done.  However, we can understand God only in His energies.

Love!

"I dont think it is quite appropriate to try and stoop to an elementary or joking fashion to approach lost sinners. God's salvation was bought with the most amazing price, the crucifixion of his dear Son our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."

Lightsavour:  Amen.

Hail Aslan, King of Narnia!!!!!

*Lion's roar heard in the distance

Raphu, Symphony, Seven Tides:
Amen!

This is a good example of the difference between Monergism and Synergism.

Monergistst state that only God's will is active in the Earth, and the goal of man's is to hope that he is within the good part of this will(predest).

Synergism, which is much more orthodox, states that man must submit and make his will, like Gods will- so they will be indistinguishable and will be like one will.

Was the Bible written by God alone, or did he use men who were completely and wholly men?  Was Jesus all God and no man? or all God and all man?

To me, synergism seems the stronger point of view.  

Ollie, im afraid to say, your reasonings are ridiculus.  The Church was started at the day of Pentecost, and on the rock of Peter, which is the ecclesial rite, the Church was started.  It is an impossibility for the Church to have failed, without denying scripture. He said the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth, that the Church is the pillar and ground of truthe, and that the gates of Hell would not prevail.  Your reasonings are insufficient.  The Church of Christ was not created in the 20th century.  If, perhaps, you are curious on the activities of the eklessia, why not read about their actions in the first, second, and third centuries?  Is this scandalous?  

Please answer reasonably.  I refuse to talk in circles, or play games.  How about a real discussion?

I have never heard of such a thing.  How can the Church be restored?  I do not understand this movement at all.  How can the Church fall, when the Gates of hell cannot prevail against her?  Id like your answer Ollie, and describe to me the doctrines of this Cambellite church, and I will look at your persuations honestly.  How can one claim to be "THE" Church of God, and yet have started its existence in the 20th century? What Church would this be?  And how could you use the Bible as a blueprint, when the Bible was not intended to be used as a blueprint for the Church- like the OT, becuase they already had the Church at the time the NT was written!  There was no need to write down the practices in epistles that are dealing with specific problems.  But I will accept your reasoning, brother!  Just tell me!

[Christ, our King of Kings, our Lord of Lords]

Angelicman:

By what authority do you interpret the Scriptures in such convoluting ways?  
Do you mean to convince us that the founder of your Sect was led by the Holy Spirit to reach such heterodox conclusions?  
Is there any Apostolic Authority which gave you the right to interpret them such ways?
Was there a council convened like in Acts, and like the 7 Ecumenical Councils to make such blatant heterodox claims?  Did not the Lord say that"...when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13)  Why was the early Church then led into non-truth.

“..And on this rock will I build my church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against her” (Matt 16:18b)

Did the gates of Hell prevail against His Church when they reaffirmed the Doctrine of the Trinity?

“And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.” (Eph. 1:22,23)

Why then did the Church fall away from the Truth?

Why did the Church, which is the "...pillar and ground of truth" (1Tim 3:15) make an Ecumencial desicion that is heretical? Do you accept the authority given to the Church by God?  What about the first Council in Acts?

Are we not the Body of Christ? Did he lead us into darkenss for 2000 years, awaiting a man in the 20th century to make up his own interpretation, so we can be *finally* rescued from this heresy?

Why did your church prophecy the Rapture twice, and both times it did not occur?  Is God changing his mind?

Why gives your church the authority to make such a sick mosaic of verses, and to distort the truth of Christ?

DO NOT send me more of your interpretations of Scriptures, answer by what Authority are you speaking, THEN you may make your scriptural claims.  Not first.

Thanks!!!  Humbly and in the name of Christ, our King of Kings, our Lord of Lords! (1 Timothy 6:15)

Kerygma-

Hello, I have also read much of your postings on Beliefnet and often find your posts intriguing!  I have been, for the most part, a lurker for the past month, and decided to get in on a couple discussions.
I think, however, it is nessasary, do you agree?  that we must act humbly (and God knows I fail at this!) even in the face of insolence.  This is why we are Christians, and let us not be angry at others, or else they are winning.  If you read St. Ephraim, the starets of Russia in the 19th century, he says that a follower of Christ will never respond to aggression with aggression, but will always be stoic and strong, and especially calm in the face of aggression.  This is the example of Christ.
I appreciate your support though, but I am not Orthodox you know!

Ollie,
I was not being in any way cynical when asking you which denomination you belong to.  Please note that I am speaking humbly, and I speak to you as a brother in Christ. I realize we are all searching for the same thing, and that I am first among sinners, so please do not think I am writting in a way to be insulting, or from arrogance.  
I think we all realize that Christ's truth is Objective, and the second you say "My interpretation" or "My opinion" it becomes subjective.  Since God is the same forever, if any Truth of God's is subjective, God no longer exsists.  This is clear.
All we can know from God is directly revealed to us from the person of the Holy Spirit.  Even the interpretation of the Scriptures must be taken only from the Holy Spirit, knowing that they do not interpret themselves- however this is the wrong thread for that argument.

Now,  I was just asking the question becuase this is important.  I belong to an evangelical church, if you are wondering, and I have no reason to hide this, or the fact that I am examining Orthodoxy.  Of course the definition of the Church is the Body of Christ, I believe this with all my heart!  In fact, we share His flesh and Blood, and thus in this mystery we are united with His resurrected body as One.  When I asked what denomination are you, I was wondering what physical church you goto.  Do you goto church? I do not think this is irrelavant, since we are the Body of Christ- unless you are a Monophysite, and believe that God was only spirit and not body.  The Christian teaching and tradition states that God had a physical Body, and was at the same time 100% spirit. (see the 4th council at Chalcedon) In this way, His Church is also made up of physical believers, in the flesh- just as he *really* was fully man.  It is a physical church mystically united in spirit.  Do you disagree with this statement.  Id love to hear your thoughts on this!

Ollie, What denomination are you?

One of my favourite saints is Saint Nicholas, who was a Bishop at the time of the First Ecumenical Concil.  During the council of Nicaea he walked up to Father Arius and slapped him in the face.  Upon seeing this, the other Bishops were shocked, this had never been done (and hasnt since) and they immediately de-frocked hi.  During the night- Jesus appeared to them all, telling them that St. Nicholas was right.  

Anyone stating that the doctrine of the Trinity was made up during the Council has not read the Church Fathers.  Try the epistles of St. Polycarp, St. Ignatius, St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus.  Thank the Lord for the Church, who defended the Body of Christ against this heresy that lives even today.  


 I believe in one God,
 the Father Almighty,
 maker of heaven and earth,
 and of all things visible and invisible;

 And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
 the Only-Begotten Son of God,
 begotten of the Father before all ages,
 Light of Light, true God of true God
 begotten, not created,
 of one essence with the Father;
 through whom all things were made;
 
 For us men and for our salvation
   He came down from heaven,
 and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost
   and the Virgin Mary,
   and became man;
 
 He was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate;
 he suffered and was buried;
 and the third day he rose again
   according to the Scriptures,
 and ascended into heaven,
 and is seated on the right hand of the Father;
 and he shall come again, with glory,
   to judge both the living and the dead;
 whose kingdom shall have no end.

 And I believe in the Holy Spirit the Lord, and Giver of Live,
 who proceedeth from the Father;
 who with the Father and the Son together
   is worshipped and glorified;
 who spoke through the Prophets.
  In one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church;
 I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins;
 and I await the resurrection of the dead,
    and the life of the world to come. AMEN.


Defend Christ against this blatant Arianism.

I thought this would be relevant to the topic at hand:

"He [the Holy Spirit] is not revealed, however, in His essence, for
nobody has ever seen or declared God's nature, but in the grace, power and
energy common to the Father, Son and Spirit. Each has His own hypostasis,
and the characteristics seen to belong to that hypostasis. They have in
common not only Their undisclosed essence, which is above all names and in
which we cannot share, but also the grace, power, energy, radiance,
incorruption, kingdom, and everything else by which God has communion with
the holy angels and with men. He is united with them through grace without
losing His unity and simplicity either by the division and difference
between the hypostases, or the diversity and variety of the divine powers
and energies."

- St. Gregory Palamas (The Homilies Vol. 1, Homily Eight para. 10

4676169.

Also consider this relevant passage from St. Irenaeus of Lyons'
Against Heresies, IV, 20, 5:

"The prophets, then, indicated beforehand that God should be seen by
men; as the Lord also says, 'Blessed are the pure in heart, for they
shall see God.' [Matt. 5:8] But in respect to His greatness, and His
wonderful glory, 'no man shall see God and live,' [Exod. 33:20] for
the Father is incomprehensible; but in regard to His love, and
kindness, and as to His infinite power, even this He grants to those
who love Him, that is, to see God, which thing the prophets did also
predict. 'For those things that are impossible with men, are possible
with God.' [Luke 18:27] For man does not see God by his own powers;
but when He pleases He is seen by men, by whom He wills, and when He
wills, and as He wills. For God is powerful in all things, having been
seen at that time indeed, prophetically through the Spirit, and seen,
too, adoptively through the Son; and He shall also be seen paternally
in the kingdom of heaven, the Spirit truly preparing man in the Son of
God, and the Son leading him to the Father, while the Father, too,
confers [upon him] incorruption for eternal life, which comes to every
one from the fact of his seeing God. For as those who see the light
are within the light, and partake of its brilliancy; even so, those
who see God are in God, and receive of His splendor. But [His]
splendor vivifies them; those, therefore, who see God, do receive
life. And for this reason, He, [although] beyond comprehension, and
boundless and invisible, rendered Himself visible, and comprehensible,
and within the capacity of those who believe, that He might vivify
those who receive and behold Him through faith. For as His greatness
is past finding out, so also His goodness is beyond expression; by
which having been seen, He bestows life upon those who see Him. It is
not possible to live apart from life, and the means of life is found
in fellowship with God; but fellowship with God is to know God, and to
enjoy His goodness."

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus
Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are
to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from
prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of
our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which
the Father, in His goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift
of God are perishing in their disputes" (St. Ignatius of Antioch,
Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1).

"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake
of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has
been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for
regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as
Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we
receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by
the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so
too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the
Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change
of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the
blood of that incarnated Jesus" (St. Justin Martyr, First Apology 66).

"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own blood,
from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of
creation, He has established as His own body, from which He gives
increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and
water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the
Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our
flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is
not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal
life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord,
and is in fact a member of Him?" (St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against
Heresies, 5:2).

Please note that St. Ireneasu was a Bishop of the church in the 2nd century.

Id like to see the responses.