Why I’m Not Roman Catholic Or Eastern Orthodox Part 5; Theses 81-100

  1. The Western Catholic tradition conflates Yah’s economical action with his ontological action to preserve their Filioque only to necessarily commit themselves to Pantheism.
  1. The doctrine of Angelic Celibacy is pagan and contradicts blatant passages of scripture.

1 Cor 9:5 Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

The Apostles’ regular order (1 Tim 3, Tit 1:5-10) is that a Bishop is to have a wife and children and he is to keep them well. His virtue is displayed in having a wife and children not abstaining from them. This then is a real virtue not an honorific and fictitious hypocrisy of virtue but real virtue. Taylor says in reference to those other articles of the ancient Church such as the Mass, Christus Victor, Synergy, Tradition and Justification by works and faith etc., “Are they immemorially ancient?-so is this. Did they receive the assent and warm approbation of the long series of Christian doctrines?- so did this. Were they acknowledged and followed out in the practices of the apostolic churches, throughout the world? – so was this; and finally, may they pretend to a colour of support, or more than a colour, from some few expressions of the inspired writers? – so may this.”

Due to their misunderstanding of 1 Cor. 7, Catholics teach that it is good for a man to be unmarried. This is in direct contradiction to Gen. 2:18 “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” Yet the Christian tradition has taught the exact opposite. It glorifies the Monastic and Ascetic life which is traditional in Pagan cultures. Paul says in 1 Cor. 7, “26 I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is. 27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28 But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you. 29 But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened…”

You see, the Corinthian believers were under persecution and were constantly in need of retreat. It would have been difficult for a man to flea persecution with a wife and small children. Paul’s prescriptions in this Chapter were specifically for this period and not general rules for all believers in all times.

The passages quoted to support angelic virginity: Luke 20:35 etc. are simple speculations that give no connection or relationship to the life of the believer.  They simply assert that angels do not marry. This says nothing against marriage nor does it give any intrinsic value to celibacy.  Moreover, it denies the resurrection because in order for the resurrection to be true there has to be gender in the final state and if there is gender in the final state there will be sex.  Not to mention that this verse proves too much.  This would prohibit marriage completely and those who use it prove angelic celibacy show their devotion to Gnosticism two-fold.  For crying out loud, Christ himself allows ministry by women and is often found in their company in the gospels. This would offend Origen’s pious hypocrisy no doubt.

See my Conquering the Verbal Sorcery of Trinitarianism, Chapter V, “Ancient Christianity and the Doctrine of the Oxford Tracts by Isaac Taylor Reviewed”

  1. The great apostasy prophesied by Paul in 1 Tim. 4:1-4 is explicitly fulfilled in the Catholic Theology.  The Council of Ancyra A.D. 314 Canon 10 prohibited marriage as do other canons in the seven ecumenical councils. Jovianus was condemned at Rome and Milan and banished for his denial of angelic virginity. (See Jerome Against Jovianusand Jerome Against Vigilantius). The Angelic celibacy doctrine demonizes masculinity and feeds feminism.
  2. The Church’s Rejection of the Law of Moses is the basis for mysticism and moral relativism. The only parts of the Law of Moses that have been abrogated are the Levitical priesthood and sin offerings. Heb. 7-10. All the rest is standing and any other position is buried under a mountain of endless confusions, contradictions and priest-craft.

See my book Why I Left the Christian Church.

  1. The Soul doctrine and the floaty place and the Pre-Mil Abraham’s Bosom doctrine is a rejection of the Bible’s teaching on resurrection and makes people not care for their race and their nation. They think the events of the physical world don’t matter because they are going to leave their body and fly up into the floaty place.

https://southernisraelite.wordpress.com/2016/04/29/the-soul-refuted/

  1. Both Geocentrism and Heliocentrism are a direct rejection of Biblical cosmology. The Bible clearly teaches the Flat Earth Cosmology. The irrefutable proof that the Bible teaches Flat Earth is that the sun, moon and stars are in the firmament.

Gen. 1: 14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

Moreover, the Firmament is clearly identified as a solid object over the earth:

Job 37:18 Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?

And also, Psa. 19 and Psa. 148 clearly states that the firmament and the waters above the firmament still exist after the flood.

  1. The Patristic Theology affirms a Manichean view of man and sin. Aulen criticizes the idea that Christus Victor is a “physical theory.” [34] This has been the common understanding of the Eastern view and some have called it the “blood transfusion” atonement. Aulen’s understanding is that the atonement destroys sin, overcomes death, and bestows life on men, but the questions I have are, where is the basis for the blessing of Abraham and where is the guilt offering mentioned in Isa. 53? This system has from its inception produced defenders of Universalism and the reason why the East refuses Universalism is completely baseless and arbitrary. The idea is that the incarnation and atonement effect  immortality for all men yet where they spend this eternity is up to them, heaven or hell. The atonement also has effects on the physical world. His recapitulation doctrine is a process that will continue into the ages and is highly eschatological.

Aulen acknowledges the objection that “Eastern theologians, places relatively little emphasis on sin, because he regards salvation as a bestowal of life rather than of forgiveness, and as a victory over mortality rather than over sin.” [38]. He attempts to answer the objection by appealing to the fact that the Eastern view breaks down the barrier of the dividing wall or “partition between man and God.” [39] Yet he never says what that partition is. The problem is the partition in the context of the entire system of the Eastern Church is man’s mortal and material reality, which is clearly Gnostic. His clear acceptation of Gnostic teaching is made manifest as he calls Irenaeus’ view of sin to be organic; Aulen says, “he always regards sin organically” [39]. This is Manichean par excellence. Aulen says again, “Athanasius does, in fact, regard sin as not merely the cause of the corruption from which men need to be saved, but as being identical with it.” [60]. He makes it plain, sin is material corruption.

Therefore, the atonement does not save man from the guilt of sin, Isa. 53,  it saves them from the organic state of material EXISTENCE [41]. The fact is, the Eastern Church does not like to define sin as a transgression of law and the guilt of that sin being upon man, because this would imply that Messiah would have to take that on the cross and this would be devastating to their whole system. Instead, they say Messiah takes the state of sin. On page 164 Aulen defines sin as “an objective power standing behind men, and the Atonement as the triumph of God over sin, death, and the devil. It might seem, therefore, that this type treats sin as an impersonal force, and so weakens the idea of a direct relationship between God’s work and man’s soul.” First, Aulen forgets that the Eastern Church cannot think that sin is a real thing; they take Augustine’s view of sin as a lower choice of good on the chain of being. Second, 1 John 3:4 defines sin as a transgression of law and that is an example of an Apostle teaching at the full blossoming of New Testament teaching. The fact is the New Testament is not a radically different religion than the old. His response here is clear dispensationalism and is a howler at best. This leads to the next problem:

  1. Patristic Theology is Antinomian. On Aulen’s view the atonement condemns the law as it has been a tyrant over men and claimed “dominion over Christ, over whom it had no right” and therefore is “brought to judgment.” [67] The Eastern Orthodox say Messiah did not satisfy an obligation to the Law but through his death over-through the power “law” because the Law had condemned an innocent man. The Reformed say Jesus by performing an obligation to the law to become a curse for sin, over-through the curse of the Law (Not the justice or moral obligation of the Law) by satisfying its demands perfectly. They say Jesus’ resurrection deprived the Law’s ability to condemn. So why then does John say it is the rule of sin in 1 John 3:4?

On pages 83 and 84 Aulen presents the patristic war against Yah’s law. He quotes many verses that refer to the hostility of the law towards man. This is an issue that Calvin and Owen specialized in. Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; Rom 7:10 and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me, does not refer to the law absolutely it refers to a certain utility of the law toward the unregenerate man. To take my own example (As an example of human nature): Before I was converted, I thought myself a good person. I was grossly ignorant of the things of Elohim and for some strange reason I thought Elohim overlooked my sins and thought quite highly of me. When my friend pointed out scriptures that condemned my drunken lifestyle, a newfound hostility with Elohim became alive in me and my supposed friendliness with Elohim died. I found no ability to do those things I heard from the scripture and it produced a great anger in me towards Elohim. So is the function of the law to the unregenerate man. Therefore, the moral law in general is not a hostile tyrant and Messiah did not come to deliver us from the obligation of the law but from the curse of the law. The law is an issue that the Puritans specialized in and gave some clear answers. On page 160-161, Aulen shows his misunderstanding again. He says, “the fact that Protestantism was seeking to unite the sola gratia principle of the Reformation with a juridical doctrine of the Atonement involved it in a fundamental inconsistency.” This is laughable. Does he show the inconsistency? He tries. On page 163, he argues that the satisfaction view “necessitates a discontinuity of the legal order: there is no satisfaction of God’s justice, for the relation of man to God is viewed in the light, not of merit and justice, but of grace.” He simply does not understand covenant theology and does not understand that both can be present. Merit and justice are present in that my standing before Elohim is based on the merit of Messiah imputed to me and received by faith alone and there is grace in that eternal life and the blessing of Abraham are mine without one drop of my own works but all based on the work of Messiah. Has this guy ever read a single book on the Calvinist Reformation? On page 95, he demonstrates the primary error of the entire Eastern Religion and that is dispensationalism. He says, “the classic idea of redemption in the New Testament shows how radical the breach between Judaism and Christianity is.” The Orthodox and The Romanists claim that their religion is ancient, and it is. It’s Buddhism perfected in Neoplatonism.

  1. Patristic Orthodoxy requires Messiah to have been physically and numerically one with the Platonic Idea of the human genus. This is impossible because, first, it would make Messiah’s humanity eternal and universal and therefore Creation and Redemption are emanations from Elohim meaning Elohim was compelled to create and second, Messiah’s humanity was not consubstantial with mankind. This heresy of theirs has given rise to the anti-racist Communist idea of Universal humanity.
  1. The Church Has a Gnostic View of Creation. The Patristic Church did indeed reject the basic and overt principles of Gnosticism, yet Taylor makes the point that the principle of Gnosticism retained by the Patristic Church concerned the way the Gnostics rejected the “animal life” and the relationship of a man with his social system (Anarchism) a thing opposed to the divine perfection. This is why they sought to escape from society, why they treated “their evil” material bodies in a rugged and severe fashion, and as Paul writes, they submitted themselves to certain decrees, “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” (Col 2:21)

Yahovah Elohim hates nothing he created in its original state. Although, he does hate sin which he did not immediately create. Therefore, nothing interrupts the blessedness of Elohim coming upon man but guilt and sin. Yeshua takes the guilt penalty of this sin and the barrier is removed between Elohim and those who partake of the benefits of the atonement.

On the Gnostic view it is the material world which interrupts and bars men from receiving the blessings of Elohim.   An accident of the material world is moral disorder or sin; which is why that which is material is renounced as evil and the source of separation from Elohim. On the Gnostic view, sin and guilt was not the obstacle in the way of man’s blessedness. The Gnostics hopped for a release from material bondage. Is this not dangerously similar to the Eastern view of the atonement that denies that Yeshua takes the guilt of men’s sins but only takes the mortality of fallen human nature to raise it in the resurrection and deify it. And so the obstacle between man and God is not sin and guilt but lower metaphysics.

Therefore, the Patristic religion posits a God eternally at war with the “material world” and “resenting the humiliations of animal life.”[Taylor, Ancient Christianity, 220] This is in contrast with the Biblical doctrine of Elohim that has an essential and knowable essence that is holy and offended at sin. Due to this hatred of sin, he punishes the sin to satisfy his vindicating justice and reconcile to himself his people removing the barrier of guilt and sin. The Patristic Christus Victor God has no essence, it even transcends the dialectic of being and non-being, and merely removes the mortality of men by raising the human nature to partake in the energies of Elohim.  Therefore, the problem with men in the Patristic view is their mortal material realities that need to be raised/deified. The Patristic view sees virtue as a removing of the soul from the societal animal life and renouncing their natural sexual constitution. This by clear inference implies that the natural sexual desires of our “material” bodies are evil and a removal of oneself from these material desires and the world brings one closer to Elohim. These celibates in the Patristic Church are the few who approach the Unknowable Elohim having removed themselves from the lower world. Paganism, simple and plain.

Taylor attributes their error to an influence of Oriental Theosophy. The idea of the Gnostics was that by, “lofty contemplation, by habitual mental abstraction, and by disengaging himself, as far as possible, from the humiliating conditions of animal life, to facilitate, and, in a sense, to anticipate, his relapse into the infinite Nature.” [Taylor, Ancient Christianity, 215]

Gregory of Nyssa, On Virginity, Chapter 10,

“What words indeed could possibly express the greatness of that loss in falling away from the possession of real goodness? What consummate power of thought would have to be employed! Who could produce even in outline that which speech cannot tell, nor the mind grasp? On the one hand, if a man has kept the eye of his heart so clear that he can in a way behold the promise of our Lord’s Beatitudes realized, he will condemn all human utterance as powerless to represent that which he has apprehended. On the other hand, if a man from the atmosphere of material indulgences has the weakness of passion spreading like a film over the keen vision of his soul, all force of expression will be wasted upon him; for it is all one whether you understate or whether you magnify a miracle to those who have no power whatever of perceiving it. Just as, in the case of the sunlight, on one who has never from the day of his birth seen it, all efforts at translating it into words are quite thrown away; you cannot make the splendour of the ray shine through his ears; in like manner, to see the beauty of the true and intellectual light, each man has need of eyes of his own; and he who by a gift of Divine inspiration can see it retains his ecstasy unexpressed in the depths of his consciousness; while he who sees it not cannot be made to know even the greatness of his loss. How should he? This good escapes his perception, and it cannot be represented to him; it is unspeakable, and cannot be delineated. We have not learned the peculiar language expressive of this beauty. An example of what we want to say does not exist in the world; a comparison for it would at least be very difficult to find. Who compares the Sun to a little spark? Or the vast Deep to a drop? And that tiny drop and that diminutive spark bear the same relation to the Deep and to the Sun, as any beautiful object ofman’s admiration does to that real beauty on the features of the First Good, of which we catch the glimpse beyond any other good. What words could be invented to show the greatness of this loss to him who suffers it? Well does the great David seem to me to express the impossibility of doing this. He has been lifted by the power of the Spirit out of himself, and sees in a blessed state of ecstacy the boundless and incomprehensible Beauty; he sees it as fully as a mortal can see who has quitted his fleshly envelopments and entered, by the mere power of thought, upon the contemplation of the spiritual and intellectual world, and in his longing to speak a word worthy of the spectacle he bursts forth with that cry, which all re-echo, Every man a liar! I take that to mean that any man who entrusts to language the task of presenting the ineffable Light is really and truly a liar; not because of any hatred on his part of the truth, but because of the feebleness of his instrument for expressing the thing thought of. The visible beauty to be met with in this life of ours, showing glimpses of itself, whether in inanimate objects or in animate organisms in a certain choiceness of colour, can be adequately admired by our power of aesthetic feeling.”

Gregory of Nyssa, On Virginity, Chapter  10, New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia Site, June 2010, available from,http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2907.htm; Internet; accessed June 2010

Whether or not the Gnostics wanted salvation from the body and the latter Eastern Church Salvation in the body, Nyssa leans to the former here. One such passage by Gregory Nazianzen that Taylor quotes on page 167 I have yet to find, “happy those the unmarried blessed who having shaken off the flesh are nearer to the divine purity.”

  1. The doctrine of angelic celibacy led to transubstantiation in that the people expected to receive the holy sacrament from holy hands (celibacy implied). The clear connection between the angelic celibacy of the ancient Church and their view of the sacraments comes from the fact that they believe the rites of the church such as celibacy and fasting to be intrinsically holy and efficacious. Not only so but a man accustomed to live such an unnatural life finds the supernatural an easy bed buddy (Thus, the fanaticism with exorcisms). And not to forget the fact that these men thought of themselves as terrestrial seraphs through whom miracles are ordinarily done. This is how multiple sacraments became established through the church: by asserting intrinsic efficacious powers to the monastic disciplines.There are other issues that celibacy affects but these are the most damaging.

Therefore, when your Orthodox or Catholic friend asks you how the whole Church, at least in its visible administration, fell into the same apostasy all at once you have an answer for them.  Northern Egypt long the home of the hermit life was succeeded by the Nicene Monks who picked up right where they left off.

“India was, however, the cradle of the anchoretic life, and Buddhu the father of its doctrines; and in like manner as all Christendom, during many centuries, was accustomed to look to Egypt and Nubia for its brightest patterns of holy abstraction and mortification, so did these refer to the banks of the Indus, and the Gnages, as the sources of their doctrine and practice.” [Taylor,  425]

  1. The Eastern View of Man’s Will Denies the Possibility of El’s Foreknowledge

To individuate their view of the will from Calvinism, Eastern Orthodoxy gives man a freedom from God’s decree. That is, they believe man has the freedom to choose opposite from what Elohim has decreed. In order for Elohim to have foreknowledge there must be a fixed, objective and real future that Elohim foreknows.  Therefore, the East must deny foreknowledge.

  1. Concupiscence. The Ancient Church does not believe that concupiscence is a sin; which is why they don’t believe in original sin. They believe concupiscence is passed through the generations after the fall, but since it is not sin, there is no original sin. Lev 5:17 and Jam 4 in its entirety especially verse 17 clearly calls concupiscence a sin not to mention that the tenth commandment against coveting should settle the issue completely.
  1. If Elohim is beyond being and man is in being then by definition man cannot be “the image and glory of God;” (1 Cor 11:7)

This being the case the East must take an atheist view of Man’s ascent and assert that human language is a convention that developed through millions of years of development; a convention developed from observing created natures, which then by definition cannot predicate anything about Elohim.

  1. The Eastern Church has no coherent definition of the distinction between essence an energy. Palamas’ insistence on this distinction does not tell us what it is. If it is a modal distinction, this does not import enough to take the essence outside of the realm of being and non-being. There needs to be a real distinction to do that. Lossky’s The Vision of God, refers to the energies as

“another mode of the divine existence outside the essence of God, the mode of grace, in which God communicates Himself and manifests Himself….far from being a separation or division of God into two parts, communicable and incommunicable, is an inevitable theological postulate if we wish to maintain the real and not just the metaphorical character of deification, without suppressing created being within the divine essence.” (pg. 166)

With such a distinction between the Essence and Energies and as Lossky describes his Hierarchies as being different levels of participation in the Energies in created beings it seems impossible to avoid that another reality existed before and during creation that Elohim used to create out of called the Energies. This denies Creation Ex Nihilo.

  1. The East complains about the dialectic of oppositions in the Scholastic philosophy but they never give us their theory of individuation. They complain about the Scholastic dialectic but never give an alternative.
  2. Justification as Taught in the New Testament can only be rejected by saying Paul misinterpreted the Psalms when writing Romans 4:6-8. The Justification of the Ungodly is an ipso facto denial of Infused Righteousness.

Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

The Patristics use the exact same arguments against Paul the Ebionites did and still do and then have the nerve to call me a Judaizer! Be consistent Papists! Reject Paul like your Ebionite forebears. Go be a Muslim and you will find much more affinity.

  1. The Ancient Eastern Theology has no distinction in sins. There is no Legal and Paternal distinction and so murdering someone’s family is on the same moral level as eating too much chocolate cake.
  2. The Eastern view of Authority leaves men in a ruined and enslaved conscience. These people will sear their conscience upon introducing any passage of scripture that contradicts “Ancient Tradition.” This is the exact opposite of what Paul teaches:

1Ti 1:5  But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.

Tit 1:15  To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled.”

An example of this would be 1 Tim 4:1-3 that commends both marriage and meats yet the Papists and other sheepish Christians find themselves in religious systems that forbid them.  Though conscience may make them feel good for adhering to these man-made rules they are the doctrines of men. Samuel Rutherford says,

 “Because the Word of God must be the rule of Conscience, and Conscience is a servant, and a under-Judge only, not a Lord, nor an Absolute and independent Sovereign, whose voice is a Law, therefore an Idolatrous and exorbitant rule of Conscience is here also to be condemned. Conscience is ruled by Scripture, but it is not Scripture, nor a Canonic book and rule of faith and conversation, it often speaketh Apocrypha, and is neither God, nor Pope, but can reel, and totter, and dream, to ascribe more to conscience then is Just, and to make new and bold opinions of God, broad and venturous and daring affirmations, the very Oracles of heaven, because they are the brood (as is conceived) of an equal and unbiased Conscience, is presumption, near to Atheism; the grossest Idolatry is to make yourself the Idol: whereas tender consciences suffer most persecution, and are not active in daring, there is extreme pride in such as lead families and are Christians in new heresies. Some are extremely sworn and devoted to Conscience as Conscience: humility is not daringly peremptory. Many weak ones pine away in fevers of sinistrous thoughts of Christ, as if his love were cold to them, Esa. 49. 14,15. and fancy an imaginary and a made-plea with Christ; Oh he loveth any but me, and because they make an Idol of the weak oracle of Conscience, they make also an Idol of meek Jesus Christ, as if they would try, if Christ’s love can be cold, and his blood and bowels can act any more mercy to them… Though the consciences of those in John 16:1-2 tells them that killing the Apostles is a good work unto God the sixth commandment says otherwise.”

Samuel Rutherford, “A Free Disputation” Reformed Perspectives MagazineMarch 4 to March 10, 2007, Volume 9, Number 10 (accessed November 25, 2008), 21, 31

Rutherford says again in reference to the use of the conscience,

“If the conscience have an indictment against you from heaven, and from the word of God, which is the Law-book of the Judge of all flesh; Ergo, We are to stand in awe of Conscience. And look how much goodness and true fear of God is in a Man, as much fear of himself and reverence to his own conscience is within him. For 1. to be holden even with the charges and writs of an erring conscience is obedience to the Law of nature, as we would not be willing that a scout, or a spy sent from a strange Land should see our nakedness, weakness, folly, security. When the Conscience returneth, to the Father of Spirits, it can tell tales of men, and can libel many pollutions of the flesh and spirit acted by the man, while the Conscience lodged with clay and a polluted Spirit. 2. Because Conscience is something of God, a domestic little God, a keeper sent from heaven, a divine piece which is all eye, all sense, and hath the word with it, in so far it is to be reverenced, and he that reverenceth the King, reverenceth the Ambassador, in so far as he carrieth along the King’s will, he that honoureth the Lord must honour the servant. 3. Solomon saith, Prov. 15.5 A fool despiseth his fathers reproof, but he that regardeth it is prudent. Vers. 10. He that hateth reproof shall die. To receive Instructions and rebukes from Conscience, in So far as they come from the Word of truth is spiritual prudence, and he that turneth away his ear from his conscience, shall die. 4. As to submit to the Word, is to submit to God, so to offer violence to a divine truth, is to wrestle with God, and by the like proportion to stoop before Conscience carrying a message from God, is to submit to God, and to do violence to the domestic light and truth of God, is all one as to wrestle with God. 5. We count a tender Conscience, such as was in Joshua, who did yield and cede to the Law of God, and its threatenings, a soft heart; then to stand out as a flint-stone or an Adamant, against the warnings of an inward Law must argue hardness of heart. 6. There is nothing so strong and divine as truth, a Conscience that will bargain to buy and sell truth, and will be the Lord and Conquerer, not the captive and taken prisoner of the Gospel, bearing itself on upon the soul in power and majesty, hath his one foot on the borders of the sin against the Holy Ghost. 7. It is like the man walketh not at random, but by rule, who is not made all of stoutness, and ventureth not inconsiderately on actions and ways which undoubtedly are the seeds of eternity, but feareth his Pedagogue and teacher in so far as the law and will of the Judge of the world goeth along with him.”

Samuel Rutherford, “A Free Disputation” Reformed Perspectives MagazineMarch 4 to March 10, 2007, Volume 9, Number 10 (accessed November 25, 2008), 20, 21,

  1. Ernst Benz’s The Eastern Orthodox Church admits that the Ancient Church taught Universalism, then inconsistently condemned it and then has repeatedly reaffirmed it through individual theologians throughout the centuries.
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s