Quote
Not at all. Didn't Jesus say that the field which is the kingdom of God would bring forth both wheat and tares until the end of time? The Church is not Heaven nor is it perfect on earth in regards to the behavior of members within it.

So, in your opinion, when the church is not actively excommunicating flagrant heretics, that's fine and dandy?

Quote
True. But theologians I have read on the filoque admit that the filioque is more of a matter of semantics. Both the East and West hold to the orthodoxy of opinion on the deity of Christ. Both the East and the West were trying to defend the deity of Christ against heresy. But due to the politics and emotions of the time, reconcilliation was not easy in this matter.

So why do the Eastern Orthodox still stubbornly reject the filioque, where the Roman Church affirms it? Or why doesn't the Roman Church, being the more ecumenically inclined, simply drop the filioque, in order to facilitate reconciliation?

Quote
Certainly the scriptures speak of the issue of atonement and propitiation. I would be foolish to deny that. But the real issue has to do with whether that propitiation is for a certain class of "the elect" or if it was a more federal atonement in which Christ paid for the sins of Adam to reconcile mankind to God and restore the original plan of God.

That's the issue between Calvinists and others (and you'll please note that the Calvinist view is federalist), not between the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox. Both the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox see the atonement as being for all individuals. The difference between them lies in whether original sin inheres in all descendants of Adam or not, and thus whether Christ's death was a ransom paid to Satan or to God. The satifaction theory of the atonement, whereby Christ's death is the propitiation of God's wrath, is rejected in Eastern Orthodoxy, which is why such a ridiculous and unbiblical view of the judgement as Kalomiros presents has come out of her.

Quote
Are they? I don't know at this point in time because I have not thoroughly studied them out, my interests lying elsewhere at this time....however, I would suggest that rather than being in opposition to each other, perhaps both views are like the two sides of a coin.

I'm sorry, but to say that the guilt of original sin extends to all descendants of Adam is clearly and simply contrary to saying that the guilt of original sin does not extend to all descendants of Adam. These views are utterly contradictory. They are not two sides of the same coin.

Quote
No, you do not realize that there was a group of Eastern Orthodox in the Ukraine who united with Rome back in the 13th century at the Union of Brest and the Union of Ushurod.

And so they are no longer Eastern Orthodox, because they are no longer in communion with the Eastern Orthodox churches.

Quote
This is an Orthodox Church. Our Liturgy is the Orthodox Liturgy which was written back in the 5th and 6th century. It is St. Ann's Byzantine Catholic Church, of which I am a member. If you ever visit our Liturgy, you will see nothing even close to a Roman liturgy. You will see an Orthodox liturgy and praxis.

I will see an Eastern, Greek liturgy and praxis; in short, Eastern Catholicism. But I will not see Eastern Orthodoxy.

Quote
Catholicism includes all bodies which submit to the authority of the Holy Father in Rome. The Eastern Orthodox do not accept that authority, but at one time they did. They still have valid priestly orders, and thus are considered as "sister churches" while yet not in communion with Rome.

And so you are not Eastern Orthodox, either by Rome's or by Eastern Orthodoxy's standards, since you are in communion with Rome.

Quote
The issue is that they each have a different authority over them eclessiastically. This makes them independant of each other.

Do you honestly believe that the two Independent Bible churches in Podunk, which believe and practice in nearly identical fashion, whose members freely intermingle and fellowship with each other outside of Sunday service, and who may even take communion in either church, but do not have any ecclesiastical connection, are actually two separate and distinct denominations? If so, then I'd say you're ridiculous.

Quote
And they do not agree on some of the things you mentioned, such as the Sacraments. Baptists do not accept sacramentalism at all.

I said that they agree on the number, not the nature, of the Sacraments. For that matter the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Churches do not have identical views of the Sacraments, either. Regarding the Eucharist, the Roman Church teaches transubstantiation, for example, where the Eastern Orthodox do not really bother to define precisely what becomes of the elements.

Quote
I'm sorry, but the Reformers changed 1500 years of teaching as if it never existed prior to them.

Don't even start on that. William has destroyed your opinion on this one entirely.

Quote
Just get a good Presbyterian Calvinist and a Landmark Baptist together and start a discussion about who's doctrine was the doctrine taught by Jesus and the apostles. Would be worth the price of admission.

Or why not get a Roman Catholic and an Eastern Orthodox to discuss the meaning of Peter's Rock? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/3stooges.gif" alt="" />

Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.