Quote
Of course not. But you do realize that all leaders are not the same and not all have excellent administrative skills. Go back and read a history of the popes. Some took absolutely no heretical garbage at all. They were strong men and acted like it. Others, while perhaps better at prayer and contemplative issues, were not given to such strength of character when it came to issues of administration.

THEN WHY ARE THEY ADMINISTRATING? If nothing else, it is a sign of INEPTITUDE FOR THE OFFICE.

Quote
Just so we are on the same page, would you kindly define "federalist" for me. I believe you are referring to covenantal headship, but I wish to be sure.

Yes, the federal headship of Adam over fallen mankind and the federal headship of Christ over the church.

Quote
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Now where would they git such a dopey idea as that?

You may see William's post on your Scriptural citations.

Quote
In other words (if I am following this line of thinking correctly) was Satan made the federal head over mankind in place of Adam? Is that right?

The Eastern Orthodox do not accept federalism from anything I've studied of their understanding of the atonement. Satan was the owner of men following the fall, but God paid off Satan with Christ's death. Of course, Christ's resurrection cheated Satan of his payment. That's the ransom theory of the atonement.

Quote
They are every bit as Eastern Orthodox as the churches in Byzantium prior to 1054 were Eastern Orthodox. In fact, one might really say that we are the REAL Eastern Orthodoxy, since we practice the same eclessiology which was held from the time of Christ up to the schism of 1054 AD.

There was properly no such thing as Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism until that schism, just as there was no Protestantism until the Reformation.

Quote
Now it is you who are being ridiculous. Baptists consider baptism an ORDINANCE whereas Presbyterians consider baptism a sacrament which confers or promises grace. If you are going to be Reformed, for heaven's sake at least get that right!!

REGARDLESS, the NUMBER is agreed upon: two, Baptism and the Lord's Supper. And, frankly, the Zwinglian view of the Baptists is also historically present within the Reformed camp.

Quote
As for the issue of definition of the Eucharist, the Orthodox never had the heresy of Protestantism within their ranks, therefore, there was no need to define what we both MUTUALLY BELIEVE -- that the elements, upon consecration by a validly ordained priest, become the very same Body and Blood which was upon the Cross. Ask any Orthodox some time.

Firstly, the Roman Church defined the doctrine of transubstantiation prior to and apart from Prostestantism. Secondly, as the doctrine itself is defined in the Roman Church, the Eastern Orthodox do not embrace it. They accept that the elements become the body and blood by the ministrations of the Spirit, but they do not define the process as Rome does.

Kyle

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