If someone claimed you had to read a dozen books by ‘experts’ on Michael Crichton before you could possibly read and understand Jurassic Park, you would call that man an idiot (at best).
Why do you listen to those who claim similar things with regard to God’s Word?
I will agree to disagree with the Reformed, while still believing that we can work together. I categorically do not believe we can work together with the EO, as they have set themselves up as a subversive fifth column in the West and every day they prove that they are enemies.
This frees our hands when dealing with them.
The Eastern ‘Orthodox’, quite simply, are not Christian.
There are Christians who claim to be EO, but do not know what their ‘church’ teaches, and so they may yet be saved by that felicitous inconsistency, but anyone who understands what the East actually teaches and does not flee from it is damned.
There was a time in the history of our people, when oathbreaker — Eidbrecher — was amongst the worst of the accusations that could be levelled against a man. A word and a charge so vile that the former was almost unspeakable and the latter was just cause for violence.
May we soon return to such an upright society.
For other traditions, it may very well be different, but, for the Lutherans, I remind you of your Confirmation Oath:
Do you intend to continue steadfast in this Confession and Church and to suffer all, even death, rather than fall away from it?
I do, by the grace of God.
To everyone who has considered swimming the Bosphorus:
May you drown in the attempt instead of succeeding and losing your soul.
On the Filioque:
This is a philosophical point, but a fairly basic one. Demonstrating the falsity of the East’s position on the Filioque is, in fact, trivial, because the position taken by the East necessarily denies the Trinity by conflating the Son and the Spirit.
1. The 4th Law of Logic:
Identity of Indiscernibles: ∀x∀y [∀P(Px↔︎Py) → x=y]
Indiscernibility of Identicals: ∀x∀y [x=y → ∀P(Px↔︎Py)]
Ignore the symbols, what is being said is simple: If two things cannot be distinguished (i.e., discerned), then they are identical; similarly, things that are actually identical (i.e., not actually separate things) cannot be discerned.
2. A logical distinction is not an actual distinction.
A concrete example: A man may have more than one name (a logical distinction), but still be the same man (not an actual distinction); on the other hand, two different men will have actual differences (e.g., eye color, hair color) and so are not identical (i.e., are actually distinct).
3. “Procession” and “generation” with regard to the Trinity are merely logical distinctions unless they can be shown to be actually distinct.
This is the crux of it. If the Spirit proceeds and the Son is generated, then we must have some way to distinguish procession and generation if the Spirit and the Son are actually distinct (i.e., not the same Person). In the West (following Scripture), we distinguish procession from generation because the Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son (Filioque); in the East, they claim the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, which makes their conception of procession only logically (i.e., not actually) distinct from the generation of the Son — this is a denial of the Trinity.
—
Thus, as already stated, the conclusion must be drawn that the Filioque is necessary in order not to commit the trinitarian heresy of conflating the Persons of the Son and the Spirit. If the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, then there is no actual distinction between generation (of the Son) and procession (of the Spirit), and, thus, no actual distinction between the Son and the Spirit. The East teaches falsely with regard to the Trinity, and is thus in open heresy.
I have read the Book of Concord — the statement of the Lutheran faith.
I have read the Thirty-Nine Articles — the statement of the Anglican faith.
I have read the Belgic Confession, the Canons of Dort, the Westminster Confession, and quite a few other similar documents — the statements of the Reformed faith.
I have read no statement of the Eastern Orthodox faith, because no such statement exists.
I expect to see many EO in Paradise (although they will no longer be EO), but EO can have no place in American Nationalism — it is a subversive and alien thing that must be removed.
