Oh okay, see that’s the difference. In Trinitarian belief, it’s understood that the “begottenness” of the Son of God is not identical to the begottenness of humanity - because the Divine is Uncreated and Eternal.
Whether you believe “the Bible” teaches it or not isn’t particularly relevant. “The Bible” is a collection of literature, which does not in itself have free agency - but must be read and interpreted by living teachers. “The Bible” doesn’t teach anything - teachers do.
And therefore, though you claim the Bible teaches there was time that the Son of God was not, that’s actually not what the Bible teaches - because the very Tradition that gave us the Bible has taught us otherwise.
Logically, because you’re claiming the Begotten Son of God has a beginning, in time, you’re teaching that the Divine is subject to temporal reality. The Orthodox teaching is that the Divine is not subject to temporal reality. Therefore, we cannot both be correct. One of us must be wrong.
As such, Arianism apparently teaches that the Son of God is, in essence, less Divine than God the Father. This is regarded as heretical by the Orthodox.
Well of course. Orthodox and catholicism are both sides of the same coin. Of course you will hold the traditions of men higher then the scriptures just as the roman church does.
Neither the catholic nor orthodox gave us the scriptures. The books of scripture were copied and passed around for hundreds of years before the romish church dug her claws into them.
She is neither the author nor custodian of the scriptures or their interpretations.
The scriptures absolutely do "teach" us through Christs spirit.
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"
The verse speaks nothing of letting an organization of men decide what they mean.
Our time is soon to expire. It is past time for you to heed Jesus warning in Revelation 18:4 mate. And it is so plain a warning, you dont even need a group of white haired men in a dark room to explain it to you.
Well that’s all an entirely different set of argument. You’re creating a dichotomy where there isn’t supposed to be one - between The Bible and the Holy Tradition. They’re both unified in one single Holy Tradition, instituted by God, handed down to the Apostles, and manifest to this day as The Church.
What you’re doing is ripping the Church’s Holy Books out of their God-intended hermeneutic context, and replacing it with your own. In my estimation, that’s an extremely egregious ecclesiological heresy.
But we’ve already been through all that I’m sure.
The "church" is any man, woman or child who keeps the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. (per Revelation 14:12)
Not a building. Not a committee. Not a tradition. Christs people are the church.
When the teachings of the papacy/orthodox or any denomination are opposite to that of the plain language of scripture, the dichotomy is there.
Scripture says in plain language, that all scripture is given by God. Scriptures trump "the church".
Yes, we have been through all this before. It is a tale as old as time. That is why "the church" has shed so much christian blood.
Darkness hates light and there will be conflict between the two until Christ stands up.
(post is archived)