Thursday, April 08, 2010

Continuing with DavidW, icons, and EOx' question-begging authority claims

In answer to this comment from DavidW and the one after it:

If someone is departing from the Apostolic Faith, thereby becoming a heretic, why should we accept his teachings?

B/c saying "he's departing from the Ap Faith" is circular.  Who decided that?  The same Church that then looks back on what it has identified as "Ap Faith" to derive its authority to look back and identify that which is "Ap Faith"?
Or shall we test everythg by what we know that God has revealed - the Scripture?
That's why I'd hate to be in your position.


Why should we accept the Gnostics, the Marcionites, the Ebionites, the Arians, etc?

*I* would say it's b/c their doctrine doesn't match the Scr.
Give me a non-circular way, under your position, to know why not.


the false teachers are always exposed and expelled.

Yup, but maybe you were expelled from the true Church.
Give me a non-circular way, under your position, to know why not.


I certainly can define my canon of Scripture and my canon of Tradition.

Give me the list.  Let me know also how you know it's authoritative.
If you can do neither, you've got nothing.  "By all, everywhere, at all times" is useless - be specific.  Or else y'all can quit badgering me about a specific Canon too.  I'll just respond the same way - "By all, everywhere, at all times", and that statement means whatever I want it to mean, whenever I want it to mean it.


The fact that you've gotten salvation totally wrong and add works to it.
Then you must expunge the Epistle of St. James from your New Testament immediately.

Fail.


The fact that you think it's OK to worship pictures.
Come on, now -- you know that this is a strawman.

What precisely sets your practice apart from worship of those images?
Let's look at it with an analogy.  Two men strike their wives with the exact same level of force.  The one did so b/c he was angry and wanted her to be hurt and to shut up.  The other didn't mean to hurt her at all, meant it as a joke but had a bad sense of humor.  Is the latter action commendable b/c his motivation was not to hurt?


To reject images is, in the end, to adopt a docetic christology.

Please prove it.  You say that all the time.  Make it its own post, I want to see your argument.


Now, you ask Jnorm how you can test our Faith: test it off the Faith of the early Church.

1) Early writers disagreed about certain things and you don't accept just ANYthing an early writer said.
2) Nor do you accept every writer.
3) Nor can you prove, apparently, that these early church writers represented the beliefs of the early church laity, though I keep asking you for the proof.
So, will you engage those challenges, or will you keep repeating yourself?


I challenge you to find any way in which we've departed from the Faith held by the earliest Christians.

I've found multiple ways in which you beg the question on this tendentious characterisation.
I have also shown you before numerous things that early church writers (even "F"athers) have written that contradict your position.  You choose simply to ignore them, but that's not my fault.


Our God would not abandon his people to heresy and idolatry for 1600+ years.

1) How do you know that?
2) How do you know He DID abandon His church, given my position?
3) How valid would that objection be during Elijah's time?



They were not Reformed Baptists in any sense; they were Orthodox.

Actually, they were who they were, nothing else.  But I get to properly represent them b/c what they blvd holds very little importance for a Sola Scripturist, in terms of authority and backup for what I believe.


1. Consuming the Eucharist is an act of worshiping Christ through an "image" of Him -- or a symbol, in your belief. Would it be okay to kiss the chalice/cup containing the Eucharist as a way to honor it as well as to consume it?

1) The Scr knows nothing of this practice.  Jesus never mentioned anythg close.  So there's certainly no obligation to.
2) Which demands that one ask the question - why would one do that?
Same for questions #2 and 3.


4. You seem to think that the Orthodox Church invented its Apostolic Succession and picked and chose amongst ancient authors at some relatively recent date. Can you give a round number at least for when this happened?

1) If you can give an approx date and location for the remnant that God preserved for Himself in 1 and 2 Kings.
2) It's not that "I seem to think" it.  I've proven it numerous times, that you choose among what early writers blvd and ignore other parts b/c "those things that they wrote didn't line up with Apostolic Faith".  This is not up for question, it is clear and evident.


5. Do you ever prostrate yourself in prayer at all?

Yes.  To God.


6. Are all forms of prostration acts of worship?

No.  You're committing the same error that all those EOx at Perry's blog are.
You tell me that it’s OK to do all of the above:
1) Kiss their image. While they’re not there.
2) Burn incense and light candles to their image. While they’re not there.
3) Set up that image in church. You know, the place where religious activity frequently takes place. While they’re not there.
4) Pray inaudibly to them and expect them to read your thoughts and carry the prayer to God. While they’re not there. And you can’t say it audibly to their ears since the dead don’t hear with their physical ears.

Why divorce the one action (bowing down) when it’s never alone in real practice? Unless you were trying to hide something or commit the fallacy of division?


7. Did Christ redeem the material world when he assumed material flesh?

1) Please be more specific, specifically with reference to "redeem" and "the material world".
2) Please also give us a reason to think this is relevant to bowing down and talking inaudibly, asking religious, pious requests and favors and grace, from pictures of dead people.



8. Do you really think that the earliest Christians were like the Reformed Baptists in their beliefs and practices?

I don't know how many times I have to tell you that they were who they were, neither modern EOx nor modern Reformed Baptists.  I suggest you check your attitude - when someone has to explain his position over and over again and you keep going back to the same questions, that says something about you.

20 comments:

Lucian said...

I can't post at Triablogue, so I'm leaving this comment here, regarding the previous post (about the confusion of person and nature)

Jesus Christ IS one divine person and HAS two natures: one divine, and one human. He IS NOT a 'divine-human person', NOR does he possess a 'divine-human nature': the first is Nestorianism, and the second is Monophysism or Myaphysism.

Hope this helps.

Rhology said...

That's called ban evasion. Nice to see how much integrity you have.

He is the God-man, a person with a human nature and a divine nature. I don't see why "divine-human person" doesn't work just fine.
Of course, that's not the pile Perry stepped into.

Lucian said...

I don't see why "divine-human person" doesn't work just fine.


Because Christ added a human nature, and NOT a human person to Himself in the Incarnation. (Hope this better clarifies the Orthodox position).

Rhology said...

Perry didn't express that position, you know. Did you even read the post?


And what about "divine-human person" says "TWO personS" to you? I count one.

Lucian said...

Maybe *you* were expelled from the true Church: give me a non-circular way, under your position, to know why not.

Because the true Church, according to Jesus own words, as recorded in the Gospel, and repeated by Gamaliel in the Book of Acts, will never-ever, not even for a moment, be overtaken by the gates of hell: so this means that the only possible options are the five historical Christian Churches: Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Monophysism, Nestorianism, and Monothelism. -- The other historical heresies went extinct, and the Protestant movements were non-existent prior to the 1500s.


What precisely sets your practice apart from worship of those images? Let's look at it with an analogy. Two men strike their wives with the exact same level of force; etc.

1) What exactly did set apart the OT way of venerating icons from the way pagans worshiped their idols? Moses bowed down before the icons of golden cherubim that were on the Ark, because there's where God appeared to Him; the Arch-Priest burned incence in front of it on Yom Kippur when entering into the Holy of Holies; they set up the seven-branched Menorah in front of it; etc.

2) Let's make another analogy: a man loves his wife and his child; he kisses them both all over their bodies; he calls them both by the exact same sweet-loving words; he lovs them both; etc. -- what's the difference between the two different kinds of love?


3) How valid would that objection be during Elijah's time?

I've explained that one at length at the EnergeticProcession blog: there were no missing generations before Elijah (as opposed to at least 5 centuries between 1,000 AD and 1,500 AD, when there were no Iconoclasts); Elijah wasn't by far alone: he had another 7,000 men by his side, plus the Temple Priests and Levites. There was no inter-ruption of motheism after Elijah; etc.


1) If you can give an approx date and location for the remnant that God preserved for Himself in 1 and 2 Kings.

Israel, Elijah's time (9th century BC).


2) Burn incense and light candles to their image. While they’re not there.

3) Set up that image in church. You know, the place where religious activity frequently takes place. While they’re not there.


As opposed to what Moses and Kings David and Solomon did in the OT?...

Rhology said...

what's the difference between the two different kinds of love?

Um, sex?
Fail.

Lucian said...

Perry didn't express that position, you know.

Of course he did. He expressed it clearly and repeatedly.


Did you even read the post?


Yes. (What kind of a question was that?)


And what about "divine-human person" says "TWO personS" to you? I count one.

Nestorius also counted one divine-human person of union (Christ), made out of two persons, one divine (the Logos), and one human (Jesus). -- he was a rather subtle heretic, but a heretic no less.

Rhology said...

Sorry, Perry kept confusing nature and person. THat's the whole point. If you did read the post, then you're either stupid or a hopeless apparatchik.


Nestorius also counted one divine-human person of union (Christ), made out of two persons, one divine (the Logos), and one human (Jesus)

Bully for him. I don't. Like I said, fail.

Lucian said...

Um, sex?
Fail.



Uh-huh... that, and the actual erotic feeling generating it...

So the question now becomes: what is the equivalent of that obvious difference in Orthodox/OT icon-veneration vs. pagan idol-worship?

Rhology said...

The ACTIONS are different. Your analogy fails. The man doesn't have sex with both of them, but only his wife.

Lucian said...

Sorry, Perry kept confusing nature and person. THat's the whole point. If you did read the post, then you're either stupid or a hopeless apparatchik.


Rho,

I did read the post. Attentively. You're wrong in accusing Perry of confusing person and nature. (You were the one guilty of making such a confusion). -- And I also didn't insult You.

Rhology said...

JNorm,

I copied and pasted your comment over here. Please interact there.

Lucian is here b/c he is engaging in dishonest and disrespectful behavior - ban evasion.

Lucian said...

Lucian is here b/c he is engaging in dishonest and disrespectful behavior - ban evasion.


I'm sorry, was I banned from this blog as well? Or do you just like asking rhetoric questions, without genuinely searching for an asnwer to them?

Jnorm888 said...

Rhology,

After reading Perry's blog...as well as David's, I must say that I don't find anything you said here convincing at all.

You keep denying what we tell you about our own beliefs.

And you keep pretending that we believe something else....or that we are suppose to believe something else.


I think a good number of your readers will understand that after they read David's and Perry's blog posts.

Also, if this is what you do with us......then I doubt you will believe the fathers when you read them. You will probably do the samething with them as you do with us.







Christ is Risen!

Jnorm888 said...

They banned Lucian unjustly! I even got on them about that. They need to stop! They banned 2 or 3 EO's back then.










Christ is Risen!

Jnorm888 said...

Rhology,

If you can get them to un-ban Lucian......then I'll show up.





Christ is Risen!

Lucian said...

I don't want to be un-banned. They have a certain style which poisons everything around them, and the more I keep away from them & their influence, the better. They sooner or later drag anyone down to their level by their evil behaviour. Even if someone were to convince them of the truth of our faith... so what? The last thing I want would for them to embrace our faith while still clinging to their evil style and behaviour: I mean, what would be the pint of that? Just keep on insulting anyone and everyone who disagrees with their (this time Orthodox) position? It would do more disservice to our faith than it would do good... at least that's my opinion, given how things are now... but these things have been like this for ever, and I see no change in their behaviour either, so... :-\

Rhology said...

Waaaaah, the T-bloggers are mean. You guys sound like children.

Lucian, since you're complaining about me "just lik(ing) asking rhetoric questions, without genuinely searching for an asnwer to them", answer my challenge to your screwed-up analogy about the man and his wife and child.

Lucian said...

The Triabloguers have a certain behaviour which is completely inappropriate (for grown-ups), to say the least...


The point of my analogy was to illustrate the difference between worship and honor, or latria and doulia: it's basically just like the difference between loving and making love: one is more general, the other more restrictive.

John said...

It's no more circular to start off from the Church that we "know" Jesus Christ set up, than to start off from the book that we "know" God gave us.

BTW, I read the exchange with Perry and I don't think he was confusing anything, although there was a good deal of talking at cross purposes. I would have pointed this out on your blog, but since you disabled comments, and I refuse to comment at Triablogue, even if they still allow me to post which I doubt, I can't comment further.

And I see you're still pushing the religious/non-religious context argument that is the unbiblical foundation to your entire anti-icon argument. When are you going to fess up that without this argument, your position is toast, and that your argument relies on a distinction nowhere found in scripture?