Are the Greek/Russian orthodox Valid Christian Churches?

Hmmm... Because something doesn't exist, that proves one's thesis? That's an argument from silence doc. Try again!

WM

 

Not only is the good doc claiming to be the final arbiter of one's final destination, but he now knows what I believe better than I do. Sweet...

WM

 

You are simply going back to your circular reasoning model. You assume the traditions represent all of authentic Christianity in spite of the fact that these very writings have hundreds of references to hundreds of thousands of those who opposed Rome and yet MYSTERIOUSLY not much of anything they wrote is preserved. Yet, there is evidence that Rome not only murdered them but attempted to completely destroy everything associated with them. That is not silence, that is a clear testimony that can be supported from Rome's writers and the fact they were largely successful is that hardly none of their writings have been preserved.

It is not an argument based upon silence that says Rome preserved the so-called "church father" writings. It is not an argument of silence that such writings mention "heretics" they condemned and destroyed under such law's as the Laws of Justinian.

The problem is that Romanist apoloigists (like yourself) have attempted to clean up this Great Whore and her bloody hands by the so-called revisionist "church father" approach to the history of Christianity.

 

Why quote that particular text then? The contextual application does not refer to you or me but to those God used to write the Scriptures. It is a clear and explicit declaration by Peter that the scriptures are inspired by God and not the product of men. It is further proof that the Word of God is final authority for faith and practice as it is God's Word not man's (Like your traditions). It is not God's word as INTEPRETED by men LIKE YOUR TRADITIONS but it is DIRECTLY from God as though the human writers did not exist. You are caught in your own web of deceit.

 

Anastasia went beyond merely providing differences between Roman Catholicism and the Orthodox Church. She gave a defense of her doctrine of Biblical faith, she entered into apologetics rather than mere comparative distinctions. If she had stayed within the boundaries of mere comparative distinctions I would not have commented.

If you think Rome or the Orthodox church hold to "eternal security" you simply did not understand her definitions or applications. Rome considers the doctrine of eternal security as "anathamized".

 

"I dare you" ROFL :laugh:

Just spit my drink across the room LOL You can do better than that....REALLY you can!

Brother note....Im already regenerated....silly stuff like a picture is not putting me in hell. I dont kiss it or bow down to it....you silly man. Would you distroy all art work because of your apparent legalism? Do you seriously think all pictures of Christ are Satan work? Seriously!?! How bout music then, do you claim to know the righteous type from the sinful kind? Are you closer to God than I or Westminster? Have you looked deep into yourself and seen your own fallibility....or are you so .....ahhhhh, isnt worth it!

You are pretty funny however! :laugh: Never seen legalism taken to quite these heights before. Quite enjoyable!

 

You are simply advertising your ignorance and embaracing yourself by the above statements.

First, it does not take too much common sense to know that a regenerated child of God going to heaven can also sin! However, your whole reasoning above denies that simple truth. Pointing out sin is the true Biblical use of the Law - not justification by law keeping. Legalism is attempting to be justified by law keeping. However, a person saved by grace, kept by grace CAN STILL SIN and sin is the transgression of the law whether you are saved, lost, legalist or eternal security minded. Grow up!

 

Ewwwww... "MYSTERIOUSLY"

Hmmm.... Do you associate yourself with those heretics and their beliefs?

I am a Christian apologist. Oh, and by-the-by there doc, using the old insult of calling me a Romanist doesn't really advance the discussion.

WM

 

Not all of them but with a great portion of them with pleasure!

You shall know them by their fruits. You are no "Christian" apologist - you are a ROMANIST apologists and your apologetical fruits make that crystal clear. You have no concept of true "Christian" soteriology and therefore by that very fact you cannot be regarded as a "Christian" apologists at all. No "Christian" apologist would defend the Catholic Doctrine you defend and espouse.

To say you are only defending it against misrepresentation is a HALF truth and simply a cover up because in other discussions your Romanist view of salvation comes through crystal clear.

 

Well at least I don't call myself a doctor when......:laugh:. That would be embarrassing myself :tongue3:

 

You are the common sort of variety that cannot defend their doctrine with any substance so they reduce their arguments to personal attacks.

Again, I dare you to take the scriptures I presented and place them back into their context and demonstrate that I have merely proof texted my position. If you are an honest person you will do that and back up your charge. However, if you cannot do that, then siimply admit it or be quiet and go to another topic. Your only showing your spiritual age by this kind of silly responses.

 

What personal attack.....explain yourself (I dare ya) :laugh:

 

Well at least I don't call myself a doctor when....... That would be embarrassing myself

What has this got to do with our discussion on idolatry? What has it got to do with our discussion on the texts I used? How is this a response to prove your allegations against me that I am merely proof texting? What has your post #106 got to do with any serious dealing with our discussion?

Several times I have clarified that this is only a pen name. However, I am entered into the doctoral program at Landmark Baptist Theological Seminary. I do have an earned Master's of Theology degree.

Have you ever seen me bragging about the "Dr." on the front of my pen name? No!

So, why have you chosen to bring that up in this particular discussion? Why did you bring it up when you were challeged to prove your own accusation against me is true? Why did you choose to bring this up instead of provide Biblical evidence I was wrong as you charged???????????

The readers can easily see why but I doubt you are honest enough to admit the obvious.

 

Obviously the word of God is not sufficient for you. So like the Romanists you prefer the word of a man over God's Word before you can determine right from wrong:

FACT #1 - Christ was not a handsome face -

Isa. 53:2 ....he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

PROVE THIS IS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT and therefore just a PROOF TEXT



All pictures of Christ MISREPRESENT God's own description of him.


FACT #2 - Christ was God in the flesh

Jn. 1:1,14 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.....14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

PROVE THESE VERSES ARE JUST PROOF TEXTS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT AND DO NOT MEAN they prove Christ was God in the flesh!



FACT #3 - God's Law prohibits making any visible image of what man may perceive to be God

Ex. 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

Isa 40:18 ¶ To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?Isa 40:19 The workman melteth a graven image, and the goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold, and casteth silver chains.

Isa 42:8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

Ac 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.

PROVE THESE ARE JUST PROOF TEXTS that do not speak in context to MISREPRESENTING GOD by reducing him down to a visible image or likeness.


In other words God prohibits making any kind of physical visible image to REPRESENT God because every such image MISPRESENTS God.

A painting is such an image on canvas in paint rather than in stone. Such paintings of God or gods are classified with idols in God's Word and is forbidden and should be destroyed:

Nu 33:52 Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places:


However, The Word of God is not the authority for Romanists and Traditionalists but it is for the true people of God.

 

Personally ....I couldnt care less. But you cause me so much enjoyment in your ......er "Ways" that I cant help myself........ so I do apologize for my approach.

We are not here to debate qualifications but to provide glory to our Lord. I would ask that you would try to understand other people before castigating them. Are you aware that you come off self righteous & arrogant?

 

Wow! Now you apologize out of one side of your mouth and stab me out of the other side of your mouth. What about the issues? I brought up doctrinal issues and I was content to discuss those issues. You are the one that side tracked this discussion from scripture to personal issues.

I have once again presented Biblical evidence that you have disputed. Well, I await for your reasonable discussion on those issues.

 

Please identify which ones...

Well doc, I would simply turn that around and say that Catholic doctrine IS Christian doctrine.

I didn't say that now did I. Straw.... Oh well, forget it.

WM

 

Why? So we can jump back into your circular self-authorizing final authority to define heretics????? No thanks!

There you go! What further proof is needed?

You have said this repeatedly since I have had first contact with you on this subject. But your second response above tells the WHOLE truth.

 

Let me acknowledge your apology. Second concerning your impression of my responses. There is a fine line sometimes between strong convictions and being perceived as "self-righteous & arrogant."

I don't defend my self. I defend the truth as I perceive the Scriptures to teach it and I defend it with very strong convictions that are based upon many years of Bible study and teaching. I have no hesitations in my convictions. I don't present what I "think" may be truth but what I "know" to be truth based upon years of personal study that has developed deep convictions. When challenged, all that I do is present the evidence in context and return the challenge to overthrow it. That is all I have done here.
I will readily tell you what I "think" about areas that I am not sure are right or wrong if I have hesitations or am not sure. Are there areas that I am not sure about? Yes, there are many areas and I usually do not enter into those discussions but more or less observe on the sidelines.

 

No... So you can show how heretical groups held to similar beliefs as yourself. Hey... You made the statement so let's see how they stack up. I think it's clear why you won't.
WM