Apostasy from true Christianity

Author: Mopac

Posts

Total: 193
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,457
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
Sorry tradesecret, the truth of the matter is that you belong to a heretical church. Even if your churches act as some stepping stone to Orthodoxy for some, it doesn't change the fact that you are not with us. Your understanding of what The Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church does not match with what the church fathers teach. 

You don't really understand orthodoxy, but if you want to talk about an issue at a time, I could clarify what it is we actually teach for you.

For starters, there are not denominations within orthodoxy. Every church is properly catholic.
Mopac, I feel sorry for you.  I really do. I reject your opinion that my church is heretical and will rely instead upon the teaching of GOD in the bible over your opinion.

I can't see why you continue to think we are on different sides - I think you will find that we agree on much more than we disagree. And that when compared to the actual enemies of the church, that we fight them on the same terms.  

I do  understand Orthodoxy. I studied and was tutored by academics, scholars, and priests and fathers from the Orthodox Church. 

I know the Orthodox Church refuses to consider itself a denomination. I understand you see every OC as properly catholic.  Protestant Churches believe the same thing - but accept the term denomination as well.  I think you are being a pedant. And that is your prerogative. 

But to call people who the Lord Jesus has accepted as his people -  heretical is sad and pathetic and not worthy of any who has been washed by the blood of the Lamb. 


Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
I don't believe for a second you understand orthodoxy as your prior statements have made that clear.

But make no mistake, there is One Church, and to accept heretical churches as being a part of that One Church only serves to pollute The Church.

The type of ecumenism you are professing here is considered heretical by us. Not simply my opinion, but the teaching of the church.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
From the 2004 conference "Ecumenism: Origins, Expectations, Disenchantment"

"Ecumenism began within the bosom of Protestantism at the beginning of the 20th century as an effort to regain unity for a protestant world divided into innumerable groupings and off-shoots. Ecumenism has no relation whatsoever to the ecumenicity and catholicity of the Church, which is fully preserved, both geographically and ecclesiologically, in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, i.e. the Orthodox Church, which continues to believe that which has been believed “always, everywhere, and by all.” The existence of heresies negates neither the unity nor the ecumenicity nor the catholicity of the Church. The Church continues to be one and universal. Heresies and schisms such as the “catholic” and protestant “churches” of the West as well as the anti-Chalcedonian churches of the East are not the legitimate and authentic local churches of those lands; these churches recover unity and catholicity, they constitute true churches, when they are reincorporated into the faith and life of the Orthodox Catholic Church, which is not simply the true Church, but the only Church. Consequently, from its beginnings until today, the so-called “World Council of Churches”, as the vehicle of Protestant Ecumenism, is in a true ecclesiological sense a “World Council of heresies and schisms.”

Papalism departed from the unity and catholicity of the Church at the beginning of the second millennium with the schism of 1054 and the adoption of heresies such as the “filioque” and “papal primacy.” The then orthodox Church of Rome, which had shown forth many saints, martyrs and confessors, was drawn into heresy and delusion. Cut off from the one and true Church, the local Church of Rome, as a captive of scholasticism and the worldly aspirations of the popes, not only failed to keep western Christianity unified, but became the source of new heresies and schisms, such as the protestant Reformation of the 16th century in its varied forms, Anglicanism and Old Catholicism. It falsified the theanthropic character of the Church, changing it into a human institution with total control over the faithful, and led to the de-Christianization and un-churching of Europe. The speakers and attendees of the conference accepted the most suitable definition of Ecumenism left to us by the venerable Elder Fr. Justin Popovich: “Ecumenism is the common name for pseudo-christianities and all pseudo-churches of Western Europe. Within it is found the heart all of the European humanisms, with Papism at its head. And all of these pseudo-christianities, all of these pseudo-churches are nothing but one heresy after another. Their common name, according to the Gospel, is pan-heresy.”

The attempts at union between Rome and Constantinople over a period of five centuries, from the schism to the fall in 1453 of Constantinople to the Turks, along with their corresponding theological dialogues, failed because they were not accompanied by true repentance, a readiness to renounce delusion and return to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Dispensations and compromises in matters of faith for the accomplishment of unity were always refuted by the ever-vigilant and watchful conscience of the flock of the faithful. In spite of obvious worldly agendas and political manipulation, these attempts never ended in the dogmatic minimalism, syncretistic leveling and worldly talk of love, as have the ecumenical dialogues of the 20th century. The apostolic and patristic principle that “there is no room for compromise in matters of faith” prevailed.

That which could not be accomplished for centuries by Papism, has been attempted, since the beginning of the 20th century, with Protestant Ecumenism; and Papist Ecumenism in its turn, has supported these efforts since the Second Vatican Council (1963-65). Both Papism and Protestantism are continuously losing their prestige and authority in America, Europe and throughout the world. Through ecumenism, they are attempting to cover themselves, to conceal their alienation and departure from the one, true Church of Christ, to fortify the greatest ecclesiological heresy ever; namely, that the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church does not exist, that it has ceased to be, that all of the christian confessions retain aspects of the Church, such that their faithful need not fret nor bother to seek out the true Church and their salvation."

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
"In reference to the “World Council of Churches” and theological dialogues in general with various Protestant confessions, Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Reformed, and so on..... The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church has been humiliated and trivialized by participating in the “World Council of Churches,” and the Church’s status reduced and abased to being but a portion, a part, of a many-member assembly of heresies and schisms. This “arithmetic reduction” has made Her practically non-existent in terms of voting and thus has eliminated the possibility of having Her having a decisive voice at the various assemblies. Even more, it has emboldened liberal Protestants to introduce and discuss issues which negate the very Gospel and the Tradition of the Church, and even Christianity itself. Such issues include the ordination of women, the marriage of homosexuals and participation in various animistic pagan expressions of faith and worship.

This apostasy of the Protestants from Christian faith and life proves incontestably that the supposed witness to the Orthodox faith through our participation in theological dialogues is a myth and fantasy. The reaction to this apostasy of the Protestants was such that many Orthodox churches made definitive and irrevocable decisions to withdrawal from the “World Council of Churches” and from theological dialogues. The first church to take this step was the Mother of Churches, the ancient and venerable Patriarchate of Jerusalem, and was followed in turn by the Church of Georgia and the Church of Bulgaria, and other Orthodox churches were poised to withdrawal as well. The Holy Synod of the Church of Serbia decided in June of 1997 to withdraw from the “World Council of Churches;” 

....We pray for the heterodox, that they may return to the Church; we do not however, pray with the heterodox."



Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,671
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret

Mopac, I feel sorry for you.  I really do. I reject your opinion that my church is heretical and will rely instead upon the teaching of GOD in the bible over your opinion.
Patronising


I do  understand Orthodoxy. I studied and was tutored by academics, scholars, and priests and fathers from the Orthodox Church. 
Which ones? 


"Christians"  arguing who has the right to call themselves Christians and who doesn't.

The odd thing here is that you all believe the same scriptures to be "true". 

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
There is nothing odd about it. The creed acknowledges the church an object of belief. If you don't believe in the church, you are not a Christian.

Tradesecret claims to believe in the church, but his understanding of what the church is has no resemblence to how the historical church has understood itself from the start.


SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@Mopac
If you don't believe in the church, you are not a Christian.
What about believing in Christ? I'm pretty sure that He said, "I am the Way," and not "The church is the Way."
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@SirAnonymous
The Church is the body of Christ.




Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,671
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
There is nothing odd about it. The creed acknowledges the church an object of belief. If you don't believe in the church, you are not a Christian.

Tradesecret claims to believe in the church, but his understanding of what the church is has no resemblence to how the historical church has understood itself from the start.


 I see.  But you do understand that s/he is a qualified Pastor and Chaplin,  not to mention a lawyer too, don't you?  That "lectures" real student at universities  on matters biblical and has real clients  #20  Tradesecret


Personally , Church aside,    I don't think  the Pastor Tradesecrete - even with all of his a "qualifications-  has any understanding of the scriptures, never mind how that church works or understands itself.


 Could you answer this for me please; is it right to assume or is it a fact that a person baptising another aught, should or has had their own sins washed away before having the audacity to call others to have their sins washed away? 
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
The Church wouldn't recognize his qualifications. He isn't orthodox. 



Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
Could you answer this for me please; is it right to assume or is it a fact that a person baptising another aught, should or has had their own sins washed away before having the audacity to call others to have their sins washed away? 
It seems odd that someone who has not been baptized would urge others to get baptized.

Would you clarify?
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,457
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
I don't believe for a second you understand orthodoxy as your prior statements have made that clear.

But make no mistake, there is One Church, and to accept heretical churches as being a part of that One Church only serves to pollute The Church.

The type of ecumenism you are professing here is considered heretical by us. Not simply my opinion, but the teaching of the church.
I am not an ecumenicalist.  I take the view that only Christian denominations belong to the church. Hence, I would not subscribe to the JWs or to the Mormons, nor to many other so called branches or denominations within the so called Christian branch. 

Which statements in particular would you say I did not understand? I hope you understand that me understanding and agreeing are two different things. I understand for instance why you refuse to use the term denomination within the Orthodox Context and I understand why this is important for you. But I disagree fundamentally with that position of yours. I understand the mysticism you observe in Holy Communion. Yet I disagree fundamentally with this view. I understand your church's reasoning in relation to the apostolic succession. Yet I disagree with it. I understand your church's position on the authority and interpretation of the bible. Yet, I disagree with it.  Disagreeing with something is not the same as not understanding it. Similarly, if I happen to pose a picture of your doctrine in a different light to that which you like, it does not mean that I do not understand nor that I do not comprehend.  It simply means that I am not going to put a particular spin on it - that you would prefer.  

I also know from first hand experience that some of your priests take a different take than you do on some of these things.  This does not mean that you are not necessarily in accord with the teachings in your church, but it might well reveal that not everyone including the priests in your church are not as consistent as you. 

My teaching on the church here may well be inconsistent with your church's view of things, but it is not inconsistent with the majority of the church in the world. 

I accept the Orthodoxy of the Orthodox church. I even accept them as a real church. But not because I agree 100% with them. But because the Lord Jesus accepts them as part of his body. For the record, I could not in good conscious have someone from either the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church, or even the Anglican Church lead Holy Communion in our church.  I would permit you to attend. And even to participate. Yet not to lead.  I would accept people from your communion to be admitted to membership - as indeed we do and have in the past. There are many people who leave the Orthodox church because of its lack of nourishment. Yet this does not prevent it from being orthodox. 

You are loyal to your denomination and that is a good thing. You must act in accord with your conscience.  I would not ask you to do otherwise.  I trust you have a good day. 
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,457
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
Your church would not recognize me as a pastor. This is true. But they do not reject my qualifications. 
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
Maybe you should elaborate specifically on these disagreements so that we can examine what is different. I also do not know what church uou are a part of.

If you were to become orthodox, and even go for the priesthood, you would be sent to a seminary. It wouldn't just be to teach you how to swing a censor or sing properly either! 

We are supposed to show charity to protestants, but the truth of the matter is the greatest consensus even across the ages is that they aren't with the church, and are even heretics. We aren't even supposed to pray with them. Even stepping into a protestant church is strongly discouraged as being defiling to all but those most mature in the faith. We certainly cannot take communion with protestants, as it isn't even a real eucharist.

It is no thing at all for you to consider us Christians, as you don't believe in the church.

Protestant ecclesiology, the branch theory, and all these different heterodox ideas concerning the nature of the church come from anti-christ. For us to put the protestants on equal footing with the true church would be to sell out the church to anti-christ. We don't consider ANY protestant church to be orthodox, nor can we. 



Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,671
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
Could you answer this for me please; is it right to assume or is it a fact that a person baptising another aught, should or has had their own sins washed away before having the audacity to call others to have their sins washed away? 
It seems odd that someone who has not been baptized would urge others to get baptized.


Yes, it certainly does don't it.  


Would you clarify?

Would someone that is going around baptising others have to have been baptised themselves before having the audacity to be performing the baptismal rite on  others?



The Church wouldn't recognize his qualifications. He isn't orthodox. 

And  "The Church" wouldn't be on their own.  S/he doesn't even know how s/he is to be addressed  in her/his revered position as Pastor or Chaplin. 
 

Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,671
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
I do  understand Orthodoxy. I studied and was tutored by academics, scholars, and priests and fathers from the Orthodox Church. 
Which ones?

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
Would someone that is going around baptising others have to have been baptised themselves before having the audacity to be performing the baptismal rite on others?
Technically no baptism outside the church is considered a baptism in itself. If a bishop says that a baptism is acceptable on entering the church, one gets Chrismated which fills what was lacking in the prior baptism. 

Some churches baptize all converts, some of them examine their baptism and say, "Your previous baptism will be made acceptable on entering the church."

The nuance here is important, that nuance being that apart from the Orthodox Church, no baptism is valid in itself. If you are baptized outside the church, and you are not with the church, you effectively have not been baptised.

Baptisms as a rule are performed by priests, but there are certain circumstances  where even laymen can baptize such as on someone's deathbed where there are no priests.

If you are orthodox, especially if you are a priest, you've been baptized. It would be an anomoly in any other situation.

So yes, since the heterodox have no baptism, you could say that some in the church have been baptized by those who have not been baptized. That however is not the rule, or akribia. Rather, that would be a matter of economia.




Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,671
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
Baptisms as a rule are performed by priests, but there are certain circumstances  where even laymen can baptize such as on someone's deathbed where there are no priests.

 So then there is absolute no strict requirement or qualification needed for one person to  baptise another? 

 Is it safe to say then that John the  baptist himself  was or wasn't baptised  before  he baptised Jesus? And is there biblical evidence to support this either way?



Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
It's not really relevent, because even those who were baptized by John were again baptized with Christ's baptism.

"And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
The strict requirement would be the position of akribia. That is, baptized by a priest.

We are not a legalistic religion though. For the sake of management there is the position of economia. That is, whatever is the loosening of the hard rule.

When someone enters the church through chrismation, having their prior baptism accepted by the church, this is an example of economia. The position of akribia would be that someone is baptized by an orthodox priest.


In the book of Acts there is an example of a deacon baptizing the Samarians...

"...when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women...
Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)"

Only a bishop or priest can properly chrismate, not a deacon. Also, it is the historical position of the church that the heterodox cannot give the gift of the Holy Spirit. We chrismate all converts. Some converts get baptized, some converts we accept a prior baptism. Different jurisdictions have different policies, some bishops do things one way, some another way, and then even discernment is put in the hands of the priest. The bishop has the power to bind and loose, so it is no strange thing that we have some variance of the practice due to circumstance. Chrismation is the sacrament which acts as a seal of the gift of The Holy Spirit. Historically, this was outwardly done either in the laying on of hands, the annointing with oil, or both.



Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,671
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
It's not really relevent, because even those who were baptized by John were again baptized with Christ's baptism.
 I didn't ask its relevance. I simply asked you  was he - John -  himself baptised or not before he met Jesus?  It really is a yes or no question.






Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
Saintt John the baptist and forerunner to Christ, whether or not he himself was baptized is irrelevent. Christ was baptized by him. That in itself is enough of a stamp of approval.

John himself was an ascetic of unquestioned vigor, and a holy man.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,671
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
Saintt John the baptist and forerunner to Christ, whether or not he himself was baptized is irrelevent. 

 So you don't know.

Although the Christ himself appears to indicate that  John was baptised.   I was just hoping to establish  if he was baptised before or after he met Jesus.

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
I am not entertaining the validity of your line of reasoning. 

It always seems to be aimed at being subversive.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,671
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
I am not entertaining the validity of your line of reasoning. 

It always seems to be aimed at being subversive.


 I don't know what you mean by that.    But as I have wrote above;  The Christ himself seems to indicate that John was himself baptised . Matthew 21:25

I was merely trying to establish if it was before or after he met and baptised Jesus. I can't see what is worrying you about such a question of exploration.  I am not interested in who is supposed to have baptised John. 

If you don't know, then simply say so.

Conway
Conway's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 278
1
2
5
Conway's avatar
Conway
1
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
There are three basic church lineages that claim apostolic succession 

The eastern Orthodox tradition
The Roman Catholic tradition, which traces to the original church
The western Protestant tradition, which traces from the Roman Catholic church

I know of only two protestant traditions that make the claim, Lutheran and Episcopal








Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,457
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Totally irrelevant and none of your business. 
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,457
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
Maybe you should elaborate specifically on these disagreements so that we can examine what is different. I also do not know what church uou are a part of.

If you were to become orthodox, and even go for the priesthood, you would be sent to a seminary. It wouldn't just be to teach you how to swing a censor or sing properly either! 

We are supposed to show charity to protestants, but the truth of the matter is the greatest consensus even across the ages is that they aren't with the church, and are even heretics. We aren't even supposed to pray with them. Even stepping into a protestant church is strongly discouraged as being defiling to all but those most mature in the faith. We certainly cannot take communion with protestants, as it isn't even a real eucharist.

It is no thing at all for you to consider us Christians, as you don't believe in the church.

Protestant ecclesiology, the branch theory, and all these different heterodox ideas concerning the nature of the church come from anti-christ. For us to put the protestants on equal footing with the true church would be to sell out the church to anti-christ. We don't consider ANY protestant church to be orthodox, nor can we. 
I assumed from what you said previously that you could tell just from my words that we were in disagreement and that I had no understanding of your church.  I have indicated that I do understand and disagree. That was the difference. Since you have falsely accused me of not understanding it is up to you to show where I did not understand. 

I have no plans to join with the Orthodox Denomination.  I also understand that if I did - it is not a quick journey but requires lot of training and experience inter alia .  Even when protestant pastors go from denomination to another there is more to it than simply walking in with a piece of paper. Baptists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans, all require that any new pastor is not just academically qualified, but is well aware and understands the entire culture of the denomination.  It has learned from the Catholic and Orthodox positions that just accepting someone or anyone is not the wisest course of action because unless they are prepared to leave their baggage behind and to commence completely loyal to the new denomination then it causes division.  In  other words, there is much weeding out before new growth takes places. 

Showing charity is good and well said. Nevertheless, despite your words in theory, your words in action do not show such charity. I take it from your words in general that you are a person of good moral fortitude.  I observe that you do not run into a fight unnecessarily.  You hold strongly to your faith and do now wish to compromise and for all those things I commend you warmly.  Yet your words in relation to the protestant church is hateful and spiteful.

This is one of the reasons that the Protestants desired to see the Catholic Church reform. The Catholic Church had within it the same seeds as the Orthodox church which together caused the division of the Church, at least those congregations consisting of the West and the East. IT did not take into account other Churches functioning and existing at the same time. Both the East and the West thought that they were right and that the other was wrong.  Both acted in the spirit of Anti-Christ and not out of love for each other. Even almost 1000 years later neither are able to work through reconciliation because both seek the other to repent. And the fact is - because both are arrogant they will never repent because they think it is the other church at fault. 

Since the Protestant Church in some ways is the child of the Western Church, the Orthodox congregation is naturally curious about it -  yet would see it as illegitimate and clearly the inevitable result of the Western's Church's heresy.  The truth of the matter is irrelevant to the Orthodox church. Yet thankfully, many within the OC have removed the shackles of their dead traditions and embraced Jesus and in doing so have been able to embrace his people where ever they are. 

In one of the main seminaries in Moscow, A Dr James Jordan is embraced warmly as a lecturer and academic. This despite his protestant background. His presence where he is warmly accepted - reveals that the Orthodox Church is not as closed as you make it out to be. Many visitors from Russia attend at his church in USA and worship together.  

I consider you a brother in the sense that Christ calls us all his brothers. Yet, your constant denial of the same does concern me. 

Your last paragraph does not deserve a response. 


Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
Lost me on the first paragraph.


Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
Now if you who accused us of polytheism understand orthodoxy so well, you will be able to show me where we differ.

I don't know what you believe, because the only consistency protestants have among themselves is that they are all heterodox.