Monday, April 12, 2010

More on Energetic Procession about icons and authority - 2

Perry Robinson has gone off on another rambling, repetitive comment at his blog.  You'll note that numerous things he said go unresponded-to, and that's b/c I don't think such things are worth rebutting, either b/c they are redundant, unimportant, or mere naked assertions in place of arguments refuting my own previously-offered arguments.  You'll also note the screwed-up Christology he's working with, which is, it is becoming clear, is effectively monophysite.
Here's the comment:

You equate worship and veneration. I showed that veneration or honoring comes in a variety of forms.

1) But since I *don't* equate worship and veneration...
I simply identify the actions you perform in conjunction with each other to painted pictures of dead people as fulfilling the conditions of worship, and reject the convenient "but it's not our INTENTION" excuse.
2) Have I admitted to venerating the Reformers themselves in memory?  No.  To say nothing of statues of them.


The Reformed statues are religious in nature given the name Jesus below them in abbreviated form as “IHS”.

1) You'd need more proof that the IHS refers to the statues and not to the Jesus that they preached, reminding us that above all they preached Jesus.
2) You still wouldn't've proved any inconsistency on MY part since you never asked me if I would've built those statues or supported their construction.  Which I probably wouldn't've.
And since you go on to say (in another example of your being all over the place):  "I grant with the Geneva idols that no one is bowing down and rendering honor to them", it would appear you grant me the point.  Thanks!




will only bring to light the Procrustean lengths you need to go to maintain your position.

Sorry, it's not ad hoc that I would claim to judge everything by the Scripture.  Have I ever said that before?



you also noted that you would allow images of Jesus even in a church building even if not in the “worship hall.”

And you might have sthg if I'd said sthg like "...and it's OK to venerate those images of Jesus".
But, since I didn't...


Certainly the Reformed tradition has held that it is impermissible. Is it or not?

Am I "the Reformed tradition"?  I don't see how my position isn't quite clear.


And if it is, how then do you evade the objections from the Reformed that you are guilty of idolatry and breaking the second commandment?

Anyone can contact me to get the email fwded to them of my convo with one TurretinFan's friends about this very point.



But 1 Kings shows things that Solomon put in on his own apart from a command by God and yet God approved them.

This is me being consistent.
Where did anyone ever do before those images what you do before yours?  And where did God say that was OK?



Third, if you think that I need to refute them all jointly because jointly they have some argumentative force that individually they lack, you will not actually demonstrate that this is so and that my dealing with them one at a time fails to take this into account

I'll have to appeal to the reader's common sense at this point.
You keep asking where it's wrong to kiss someone or a Bible or sthg.  Yet do you ONLY kiss sthg in the practices to which I object?  Ditto for candles, incense, bowing down, etc.  Then you attempt to equivocate and ask "oh, so it's wrong to ask living persons to pray for you?"  But you do ALL of those TOGETHER.  To PICTURES OF DEAD PEOPLE.  Sorry, again, it's pretty clear this is self-serving equivocation on your part.  Either defend your practices or don't.





Romans 14 and 1 Cor 8 do not teach that it is acceptable to teach that food can be impure, but rather that one should condescend to someone who does for a time to bring them along to a proper understanding.

Right.  And the question was about unity of the church.  And the church has weak PEOPLE in it, who believe wrong things sometimes.



As I don’t think that the image of the visitation to Abraham is an icon of the Trinity

Sorry, now I'm just laughing.  Even though it says "Holy Trinity" on it in the background?  If that's insufficient, what would it take to prove it to you?  If it said: "Holy Trinity.  No, seriously, for real this is depicting the Trinity.  Really."  Would that be enough?



Just because you say it is, doesn’t show that it is.

Because *IT* says it is!  What it DOESN'T say is "A type of the Holy Trinity".



Once Rubalev for example realized this, he never again painted it and denied it was of the Trinity.

Are you familiar with the common expression "Cover your rear"?
It *says* "Holy Trinity" on it, man!  Is this point so essential to your position that you feel obligated to go to these absurd lengths to defend it?


If the icon has the depiction of “Holy Trinity” doesn’t it depend on how those who made it and use it understand such a designation?

Only if you think that words don't mean things.  More pomo talk.




Just because I can read a sermon it doesn’t follow that it is superfluous to have it preached.

It would be great if more EO would share the same obvious thoughts.  Maybe you could help me out with the catechesising of fellow church members.



Part of the minimalism you proffer depends on a denial of God sharing divine properties with his people.

Since my objection rests on what God directly said in the OT, it would be God, not me, offering this "minimalistic" position.  I think He'd be in a position to know whether and to what extent He's sharing "divine properties" with His people.



we don’t give worship and devotion to saints so your analogy at best

It sure looks like it.  It's in fact indistinguishable therefrom, outwardly, and you've admitted in this comment that intention is actually meaningless in this question.  The obvious conclusion to draw, then, is...


If they are “fakes” then why do object to icons being “fakes” but somehow the “fakes” you make of Jesus would be permissible and unobjectionable?

The "fakes" argument was one YOU introduced, and which I have merely counter-rebutted.



Second given that Scripture indicates that God appointed apostles, prophets and teachers (1 Cor 12:28) and given that whomever hears the ones Christ sends, hears Christ, (Mat 10:40, Lk 10:16) the Reformed will be without divinely sent teachers.

That's strange, I don't remember denying that
1) we're w/o apostolic teaching
2) we're w/o teachers
3) we're w/o prophets.
If you can quote me, though, please do.



Nor will be of any use to appeal to Scripture since the formal canon of Scripture that you employ depends on these “witnesses.”

Sorry, it doesn't.  It depends on God Himself.



Given that the witnesses do not all agree on the canon, even if they did

Are you listening to yourself?  This is one of my main problems with EO arguments - you're constantly (and apparently unknowingly) using double-edged arguments and not asking your own position the same questions.  You have no agreement within your own church about the Canon of Scr, and you certainly have no agreement about the Canon of authoritative *S*acred *A*postolic *T*radition.



This is why your appeal to the many fathers of the faith in the scriptures won’t help your position since we’d need a criteria to find out from all the conflicting witnesses on the canon to figure out which works were canonical to know if the “fathers of the faith” mentioned in various books were in fact so.

I'm just sitting back, waiting for you to answer your own question.



If your principle were adequate, it would entail rejecting your own judgment too since the principle of rejection is error and your own judgment has erred.

It's not a principle to which I hold, so your reductio is not a reductio at all, but a strawman.



First, you never seem to lay out where I am confusing two categories or what the two categories in fact are.

Obviously, the category error is conflating my judgment as considered to be somehow infallible versus my judgment as all I have and yet trusting God to have given the means to, thru sufficient and sufficiently thorough searching, find sufficient truth.



There is no legitimate inference from I can’t help but think x, to, x is true anymore than there is from x is intuitive, to, x is true.

And why do you think that this isn't a problem for you as well?



As for your remark about presuppositionalism and solipcism, nothing I stated could even possibly imply solipsism.

If you're calling into question any inference from my thought to access to truth, then I don't see how you're not.



As for Matt 18:17,it is true that it is about church discipline, but since church discipline will include theology, the church is ascribed the power to judge and not individuals.

And yet the command also exists that every individual is to test teaching according to the Scr.  So BOTH are true, and Matt 18:17 is talking about the local church.



It doesn’t imply that the judgment of said individuals as to what the Constitution means, even if correct, amounts to having the force of law.

But it SHOULD if said judgment is correct.
That's normativity, even if the majority doesn't accept it.  That's what you only acknowledge when it suits you.



the right of private judgment.

Protestants also wrongly speak of private judgment as if it were a right.  It's not really a right but more an unavoidable necessity and also something we're commanded to submit to the Scr.  So to say "the right of private jdgmt" doesn't really have anything going for it; you're wrong to ape those Prots in saying it.



Either religion has a foot in the social and political sphere and we get wars

Which describes the history of the Roman Papacy as well as the Byzantine Empire quite well.



In any case, since I distinguish between levels, epistemological and normative, there is no regress in having an infallible judge and interpreter.

W/o telling us why, you act like the issue of private interp is removed if you put an infall interper between Scr and the individual.  Why do you do that?



As for Montanism, if for the sake of the argument you do not grant that it is heterodox, then I can use Tertullian’s own articulated criteria to show that he is outside the church, namely what was deposited in all the churches as apostolic to exclude Montanism.

You're not dealing with my point, and I know why - your position has no hope of answering it.
If you get to pick and choose from what early church writers wrote, then you don't get to assume "Orthodox/Catholic" and "Montanist as separatist" categories - you need to PROVE them.  But if the Montanist gets also to pick and choose for its own support, then we have a great big problem.
One that's easily solvable by appeal to the Scr as final authority, but that's the one thing you can't do.



Secondly, people at the time who judged him to be outside the church didn’t beg the question because they weren’t selecting material post facto.

???  Selecting material post facto is the very definition of begging the question!



You write that no evidence against the Montantist prophetesses could count since they are infallible. This would be true if in fact they were infallible, but in terms of knowing this examples of error would count against their claims to infallibility.

If we presuppose their infallibility, what place do you have to count error against them?  Rather, since they're infall, YOU as fallible individual agent, even if there are more than one of you in agreement, are automatically wrong b/c they're infall and you're not.  This isn't that hard to understand.



You ask if Origen was an infallible interpreter how would I know he was in error? I think you have mistaken my position for asserting that individual church fathers are infallible under any and all conditions.

It's an IF question.  I know that's not what you in fact blv.  That's not the point.  Answer it, please.


If the true church recognized the Protestant canon, then this will be an actual historical society of people, which society would that be?

The people of God.  Did you forget that I hold to the existence of the invisible church?  Like I said, if you ask me to be more specific, I'll just ask you to identify the specific locality of the 7000 who’d not bowed the knee to Baal in Elijah’s time.



Hence John 10 won’t help you here since we’d need a document written by people that listed said books as inspired and we’d need to know that said people were elect.

Or we could simply recognise that the Bible doesn't give us that data and neither does history.  And proceed to acknowledge the impossibility of the contrary.


Second, can you name any figure in church history who was in fact elect?

1) I can't name anyone at any time who was in fact elect.  God hasn't chosen to reveal that info, for pretty obvious reasons.
2) Just b/c you're elect doesn't mean you'll definitely hold the correct Canon of Scr.



Fourth, it isn’t clear that all true believers have the same kind of experience of self authentication and inner witness about all of or the same books.

1) For once we can totally agree.
2) Know what else isn't clear?  That all true believers have the same kind of experience of self-authentication and inner witness about all of or the same TRADITIONS or COUNCILS.



I don’t know how you could discover that the Orthodox do not have a closed canon. I’ve been Orthodox for ten years and I’ve always thought they did.

Kallistos Ware disagrees with you.  I'm going with a bishop rather than some blogger, sorry.



You write that we act like the icons or the saints are gods. Well, we don’t have orgies to them like the pagans (or the Israelites did with the golden calf), we do not mix them with pagan images of Zeus and such.

Begging the very question at hand - ascribing religious piety and devotion to created things rather than the Creator is sort of one of the central definitions of paganism.



With respect to Revelation 3 and 19, when I point out the difference is in the intention, you point to the OT. But the context is Revelation and not the OT.

Perhaps you could point out where intention is made a meaningful caveat in the NT, then.



Second, the intention in the case from Is 8:19ff is quite relevant since the intention is to conjur up a spirit which is in direct violation to biblical commands.

It's amazing you can say that with a straight face.  Bowing down and performing religious actions before pictures of dead created people is ALSO in direct violation to biblical commands, but you show no concern for that!
In fact, a little later you say:
"First, I am not advocating the making of images as disobedience but it is somehow permissible because my intentions were good."

1) I know you don't grant it, but that's kind of the point of this convo.  I'm trying to reach you, but when you're stubborn like this, it's your own fault.  Let the reader judge whether the OT thinks it's OK to bown down to pictures of dead ppl and talk to them.
2) Sounds like you've conceded the point that intention, good or not, is immaterial.  I'm glad to have that out of the way!  Thanks!




But there are biblical examples of prayers offered for the dead or of the saints being involved in some way with the prayers brought before God (2 Tim 1:16ff, Rev. 6:9, 8:3-4).

Wow, you're approaching near Dave Armstrong-level exegesis!
2 Tim 1:15 You are aware of the fact that all who are in Asia turned away from me, among whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes. 16 The Lord grant mercy to the house of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains

Please prove that the house of Onesiphorus was dead.

Rev 6:9 When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained;10 and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?”

Testimony obtained WHILE LIVING.  Unless you think they were under persecution after they were dead or something.
This is prayer not offered from Earth - it's offered by the dead saints.  I've never denied dead saints can pray, even that they pray for the living.  I don't know, maybe they do.  But we're not supposed to contact them.

Rev 8:3 Another angel came and stood at the altar, holding a golden censer; and much incense was given to him, so that he might add it to the prayers of all the saints on the golden altar which was before the throne. 4 And the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the saints, went up before God out of the angel’s hand.

And how do you know the prayers were offered to the angel and not to God?
Looks like a whole lot of fail, sorry.



Further, Paul speaks of the saints as intercessors and I don’t see why such a power ceases at death but perhaps you do

Never said that.  Where does Paul say it's OK to contact the dead?



The example of Aaron and the golden calf doesn’t work either since it was supposed to be an image of Yaweh as a regional fertility deity.

And the text says that where exactly?  Aaron says "THIS is the Lord your God Who brought you up".  I'd say you have the burden of proof on this one.


To ask that when Thomas falls down before Jesus and renders worship (or anyone else in the NT for that matter), is the worship passed on through his human nature to his divine person or not?

Oh, right, you're not stating a position implicitly in this question.  Please.
And you know, I've asked you at least one question in response.  Where's your own answer?



In fact I cited exactly where you were, self confessedly, confused about the Incarnation.

Yes, but you keep harping on it as if you need to cynically bolster your own confidence and that of your readers.  It is nothing less than pathetic, honestly.
Further, given your own ridiculous questions and your ignorant and inane repetitions thereof, you have no room to talk.



Jesus assumes human nature into his divine hypostasis. The divine hypostasis isn’t thereby made into something else than it was previously.

Monophysitism.  Thanks!



The assumption of human nature into the divine person doesn’t alter the person as such.

Except now the divine person has a human nature.
You know, except for that.  Tiny details.



“Again, though Christ died in human terms, it is the divine Person who is said to have been crucified.” http://vintage.aomin.org/CHALC.html
Now is James White wrong too? Is James confusing person and nature too?

Sorry, I don't see the problem.  NATURES don't get crucified, after all.  Nor do NATURES receive worship.  PERSONS do.  NATURES don't DO anything.  PERSONS do stuff.
And Jesus is one person, with two natures.  Each are truly His nature.  His divine nature means that He's God.  His human nature means He's man.  To speak most correctly of Him, as we're (well, as *I'm*) trying to do here, we should always refer to him as the God-man after His Incarnation.  I'm sorry this elementary element of Christology escapes you.


The woman kissed his feet (Lk 7:38) and last I checked, his feet were created. The worship given to the physical created thing is passed on to the divine person.

Jesus' PERSON HAS PHYSICAL FEET since the Incarnation, since Jesus the Person has a human nature.  It's like talking to a wall, sheesh.


Now if the statement is false, either there are two persons after the incarnation or the divine person of the Trinity is changed after the union into something he wasn’t previously

Yes - the Person took on a human nature.  Previously Jesus was God.  Now He's the God-man.


Not only do you then have to start doing some fancy foot work on the doctrine of immutability and impassability

You know what?  You're right - the Incarnation is NOT mysterious at all!  It can be rationally explained at every level.  How silly of me to think that God taking human flesh might be a tad difficult to explain.




You claim, but do not demonstrate that I am arguing the act of kissing is separate from the context.

You just did it!  Amazing.



This is why I gave you the example of the Arian controversy so you could see how I divvy things up.

Yes, but I don't accept your reasoning behind this question-begging divvying.



I pointed out that representing the teaching of a given body by what any given member claimed was not a standard that even the Reformed could live up to. You replied with a question of which Reformed body claims infallibility, succession, etc? I don’t think you understood the point since the infallibility that I think is a divine power had by Christ’s church doesn’t necessarily extend to each member, and certainly not in every day conversations.

Obviously, the point was that trying to apply the internal critique to my position fails b/c my position doesn't make equivalent claims of itself as yours does.



I’d need to go to normative documents or representative sources.

1) You mean to your private interp of what those documents say.
2) Many of which were written by individuals anyway.
Just goes to show the objective reader how ludicrous your position's claims are.


The only way one could think that assuming human nature would change the divine person per se or in and of itself

No, it reveals your monophysite outlook.  What is divine about the Person?  His NATURE.
And when He takes on a HUMAN NATURE ALSO, what are we to say?



Existing in them does not alter the Son qua hypostasis of Son.

Which I wouldn't claim.



since if the “God” part of the phrase “God-man” refers to nature and person, then Christ must be the person of the Father and the Spirit since they are God as well or they must not be God as well or they must be different Gods.

Um, why would anyone buy this gibberish?



Uhm because they are wrong since (in some cases) what they say contravenes infallible judgments of the church.

Uhm which you have access to via the very clergy we're questioning.



First if a bishop makes a factual error you can check, then you should believe the facts

Sounds like fallible private individual judgment to me.  Why appeal to that only when it's convenient to you?



If Scripture says that God cannot be seen, then the doctrine of the beatific vision is false.

There's no "If".  1 John 4:12, 1 Tim 6:10, John 1:18.
Or maybe you're wrong to limit this to mortal existence, which the whole biblical context makes clear.
Or maybe you're wrong not to recognise that these refer to the Father.  Jesus can be seen, obviously, as John 1 and Hebrews make clear.  Your biblical ignorance on this issue is fairly stunning.

42 comments:

Viisaus said...

From John Mendham's book on the 2nd Nicene council:

http://www.archive.org/details/seventhgeneralc00mendgoog

pp. 338

"*The similitude between picture-worshippers and these heretics here enumerated it is not difficult to illustrate. As Arius worshipped what he considered as a created thing, so they worship created things: as Nestorius imagined the human nature apart from the divine and so (as they say) worshipped a created thing, so do some worship the picture of Christ's human nature, and therefore worship the picture of a created thing. As Eutyches imagined the divine and human nature to be one, so others in like manner look on an image of Christ as the image of His divine and human nature conjoined and confounded.

The Eutychian view of images seems more common amongst Greek and Roman Catholics, for they seem to consider their images as having something divine in them."

Viisaus said...

I would say that there exists yet another real difference between the "veneration" shown to icons and everyday courtesy that Protestants show to persons or objects like the Bible.

In real life, in the "old country" especially, average EOs often worshipped icons with rather base motives; to get their various frivolous wishes granted, to have the saints provide them with various goods or safety.

By no means were they praying only for spiritual treasures!

But would any Protestant affectionately kiss the Bible in expectation of getting some divine favors in return for such an act?

Many of the most devoted image-"venerators" are engaging in "quid pro quo" business, not just spontaneously showing respect.

Jnorm888 said...

Rhology,

Your arguments aren't sufficient. And I think most of your readers will say the same.


Also, if both you and Viisaus disagree with our Christology......then all that means is that you all have real strong Nestorian tendencies.








Christos Anesti

Rhology said...

you all have real strong Nestorian tendencies.

According to what I've seen from Perry Robinson, more like you have real strong monophysite tendencies. It's obvious, but Nestorianism is not obvious chez nous.

Anonymous said...

Who is John Mendham and why should any of us care what his opinion is? After all, when his book opens up with absurdities about incense and candles (both easily traceable to Jewish influence in Christianity, not to mention the prophecy of Malachi 1:10) his credibility dips slightly. But anyone who uses the phrase "the purest ages of the Church" and expects to be taken seriously can stand in line with the rest of the Restorationist delusional slobs.

John said...

"What it DOESN'T say is "A type of the Holy Trinity".

Neither does the statue of Calvin say "a facsimile of what Calvin looked like". It just says "Calvin". Are we to assume that the statue IS Calvin? Or do we ask someone who lives in the culture to give us the correct understanding of what the inscription means?

"That all true believers have the same kind of experience of self-authentication and inner witness about all of or the same TRADITIONS or COUNCILS. "

Yeah, and yet we are pretty clear what our traditions are. How can that be? And Protestants are pretty clear about their canon of scripture, yet not for the reason of inner witness, but for the reason they were taught it by their church.

"Kallistos Ware disagrees with you. "

Nowhere does Kallistos say anything whatsoever about an open canon. You've been told off about this lie so many times, it's hard to keep count.

" ascribing religious piety and devotion to created things rather than the Creator is sort of one of the central definitions of paganism. "

We're still waiting to be told what the distinction between religious and non-religious piety is. I've been waiting for that answer here for at least a year now I'd say.

">The divine hypostasis isn’t thereby made into
>something else than it was previously.

Monophysitism. Thanks!"

Saying that the divine hypostasis isn't made into something else is distinctly anti-monophysite. Monophysitism would say that the divine hypostasis IS made into something that is now human and divine all-in-one. By saying that the divine hypostasis remains the divine hypstasis, he rejects monophysitism.

Rhology said...

"What it DOESN'T say is "A type of the Holy Trinity".
Neither does the statue of Calvin say "a facsimile of what Calvin looked like"


1) Nowhere is it written that nobody has ever seen Calvin. In fact a lot of ppl saw him and he looked like his image, no doubt.
2) One of the reasons why it says that no one has ever seen the Father (or the HS) is b/c Christ revealed Him; "If you've seen Me, you've seen the Father" - Jesus. The Father is invisible and His glory is undepictable.
3) Nowhere is it written that you can't make an image of Calvin if you want to, and if you want to use it properly.
4) So, what does the Father look like? And how do you know?



Yeah, and yet we are pretty clear what our traditions are. How can that be?

B/c you've gotten together after the fact and decided to kick out of your fellowship all who dissent. ANYone can do that - my Baptist church does that. But we don't make the same claims your church does of itself.



Nowhere does Kallistos say anything whatsoever about an open canon.

Deal with the linked-to article.



We're still waiting to be told what the distinction between religious and non-religious piety is.

Hmm, it probably has to do with the entire context, as should be plain to the unbiased reader when I list off the actions that, performed in conjunction with each other, form the context to which I object.



Saying that the divine hypostasis isn't made into something else is distinctly anti-monophysite.

Saying that the human is swallowed up into the divine IS distinctly monophysite.



By saying that the divine hypostasis remains the divine hypstasis, he rejects monophysitism.

Yes, and the point is that the hypostasis (person) sustains no change at all when He adds the human ousios (nature) is monophysite - the human makes zero difference. I thought you guys were supposed to be Incarnational! Here you show that's not at all the case.

Viisaus said...

Dear Anonymous chicken, it's clear that you just flipped through the first few pages of Mendham's opus of several hundreds pages and then ran away.

What is your scoffing at "restorationism" but ad hominem high-churchian prejudice? After all, "the older the better" is basically RC/EO logic.

In pre-Constantinian times, Christians were indeed widely known among pagans for their lack of images. Celsus accused them of "godlessness" for that, and Origen answered:

http://www.ntrmin.org/catholic_but_not_roman_catholic_03.htm

"As, then, this act of self-restraint, which in appearance is one and the same, is found in fact to be different in different persons, according to the principles and motives which lead to it; so in the same way with those who cannot allow in the worship of the Divine Being altars, or temples, or images. The Scythians, the Nomadic Libyans, the godless Seres, and the Persians, agree in this with the Christians and Jews, but they are actuated by very different principles. For none of these former abhor altars and images on the ground that they are afraid of degrading the worship of God, and reducing it to the worship of material things wrought by the hands of men. Neither do they object to them from a belief that the demons choose certain forms and places, whether because they are detained there by virtue of certain charms, or because for some other possible reason they have selected these haunts, where they may pursue their criminal pleasures, in partaking of the smoke of sacrificial victims. But Christians and Jews have regard to this command, 'Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve Him alone;' and this other, 'Thou shalt have no other gods before Me: thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them;' and again, 'Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.' It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God....it is not possible at the same time to know God and to address prayers to images."

- Origen (Against Celsus, 7:64-65)

John said...

"So, what does the Father look like? And how do you know?"

Irrelevant, because nobody claimed that the hospitality of Abraham icon depicts the Father.

"Deal with the linked-to article."

Nothing to deal with. It simply does not say thing one about an open canon.

"Hmm, it probably has to do with the entire context, as should be plain to the unbiased reader when I list off the actions that, performed in conjunction with each other, form the context to which I object. "

Still nothing. Nada. Zip.

And I think I asked you before if you claim the laity worships the priest and the priest worships the laity since we bow to each other in the supposed religious context.

"Saying that the human is swallowed up into the divine IS distinctly monophysite. "

Except he didn't say that.

"Yes, and the point is that the hypostasis (person) sustains no change at all"

I think Perry's point is that Christ is a divine person with a human nature. When you talk about his taking on the human nature changing the divine person you are confounding the categories of nature and person. For Perry to be monophysite he would have to say that the human _nature_ is swallowed up by the divine _nature_. But he didn't say that. Rather he says that the divine _person_ "assumes" (not swallows up mind you) or acquires, the human nature.

Perry's further point is that personhood is the thing that makes you who you are. If you change that, then you are not the same person. There's bound to be lots of talking at cross purposes in a discussion like this because notions of adding natures to persons and "changing" persons are not well defined concepts in human experience. I don't see the point in butting heads with Perry about it. Until you define what you both mean by changes of person, you're not going to make progress.

Rhology said...

"So, what does the Father look like? And how do you know?"
Irrelevant, because nobody claimed that the hospitality of Abraham icon depicts the Father


You keep saying that, but there are, you know, THREE figures. And it says "the Holy Trinity". Everyone knows Who comprises the Trinity. Why not just admit the obvious? Your gymnastics make you look even worse.


Nothing to deal with. It simply does not say thing one about an open canon.

Might read it again.



Except he didn't say that.

You can *say* that all you want. But the facts remain; anyone can read it.



I think Perry's point is that Christ is a divine person with a human nature.

He's a person with a divine nature and a human nature.
Calling Him a "divine person" and not allowing for the same statement with respect to His humanity, ie: "He is a human person" is aping monophysitism.



When you talk about his taking on the human nature changing the divine person you are confounding the categories of nature and person

No, I simply am objecting to Perry's constant and wrong use of "divine person". He is as much a DIVINE person now as He is a HUMAN person, b/c He has both natures. Perry keeps brushing off the human nature, and that's monophysite.



For Perry to be monophysite he would have to say that the human _nature_ is swallowed up by the divine _nature_. But he didn't say that.

There's little diff from that in what he IS saying. Logical conclusions and all that.



If you change that, then you are not the same person.

And that's one reason the Incarnation is mysterious. Jesus is the same yesterday, today, forever, yet He also took on a human nature at a point in time.



I don't see the point in butting heads with Perry about it.

He seems to take pleasure in nothing as much as calling Reformed ppl Nestorian. I'm only too happy to return the favor with his obvious monophysite tendencies. Only my claims actually follow from his statements, unlike Reformed statements.

Anonymous snob said...

That's "Anonymous snob," to you, empty-profile-functionally-anonymous-Viisaus-person, whoever you are.

A tome by a near-anonymous 19th-century rector wholly absorbed in a conceited and anachronistic Enlightenment intellectual milieu is of little concern to me. Why in hades should anyone take time to read a book when the author can't even write a defensible introduction? No thanks--I'll save what little time I have for the vast numbers of more credible books out there. Let me ask again in another way: why is Mendham any more credible than Darby?

Restorationists are invariably full of anachronisms and thereby they produce forgeries and therefore they do not produce any actual restoration. A person only needs basic powers of observation to recognize this. "High-church prejudice" has nothing to do with it. I'm a low-churcher anyways, and vituperate pejoratives only stroke my ego.

John said...

"And it says "the Holy Trinity".

This has already been explained to you. This label indicates a typology, not a visual depiction. I think we would understand our own labelling system, don't you? Nobody Orthodox seriously thinks this is a visual representation of what the trinity looks like.

"Might read it again."

When you do, quote the part about an open canon.

"Calling Him a "divine person" and not allowing for the same statement with respect to His humanity, ie: "He is a human person" is aping monophysitism. "

Well, you are at odds again with many important Reformed documents. Like Fishers Catechism, “yet his human nature subsists in his divine person". And lots of other Reformed writers who have said that "he is a divine person, not a human person". If you want to call all your brethren monophysites, well that's bad for you, not for me, but it doesn't fit the definition of monophysitism. So you'll be pretty much isolated in a circle only you live in.

"There's little diff from that in what he IS saying. Logical conclusions and all that."

Adjectives can be applied to different ends, which is why you are butting heads over nothing. Like if I asked "Is Fred Bloggs a Democrat?", I could be asking if he votes Democrat, or I could be asking if he is a member of the Democrat party, or I could be asking if he is not a communist. You're using one approach to the meaning of applying adjectives to persons, and Perry is using another. As far as I see, Perry is more in line with traditional categories.

"And that's one reason the Incarnation is mysterious."

Ahh, falling back onto mystery again? You Reformed folks always have to fall back to there don't you? :-)

"He seems to take pleasure in nothing as much as calling Reformed ppl Nestorian".

Ahh, but the only way you can return the favor is to impute the Reformed churches as also Monophysite. That's not a good approach is it?

Nathan said...

He's a person with a divine nature and a human nature.
Calling Him a "divine person" and not allowing for the same statement with respect to His humanity, ie: "He is a human person" is aping monophysitism.


I think this statement makes it rather obvious that you don't at all grasp the person/nature distinction. Calling Him both a "divine person" and a "human person" entails Nestorianism. If the Word never stops being a divine person, how can it be proper to call Him a "human person?" You seem to be way out of your league here.

Rhology said...

John,

This label indicates a typology, not a visual depiction.

What about "the Holy Trinity" indicates a typology, not a visual depiction? Please provide the exegetical steps you took to arrive at your conclusion.




Nobody Orthodox seriously thinks this is a visual representation of what the trinity looks like.

So why doesn't it say something else?




And lots of other Reformed writers who have said that "he is a divine person, not a human person". If you want to call all your brethren monophysites

OK, fair enough. It would appear there's room for more nuance than I've been allowing.
That said, I would still argue that Perry's question about Thomas' worship being "passed along" does not fall under the reasonably nuance-able, as if one can worship a nature.



but it doesn't fit the definition of monophysitism.

Sure it does - the human nature appears to make zero impact in Perry's statements.




"And that's one reason the Incarnation is mysterious."
Ahh, falling back onto mystery again? You Reformed folks always have to fall back to there don't you? :-)


As I've said more than once, it's rich that an EOx would make fun when someone appeals to the mysterious.
Go ahead and provide some rationalistic explanation on your own.


Nathan,
I think this statement makes it rather obvious that you don't at all grasp the person/nature distinction

And it makes sense to you to ask whether worship is passed on to a NATURE?




. Calling Him both a "divine person" and a "human person" entails Nestorianism.

Where did I say that? You can't quote me. Fail.
What I DO say is that Christ is a divine and human person, and He'll be that way unto eternity. He wasn't always that way (since He was only a divine person before the Incarnation), but He is now.



If the Word never stops being a divine person, how can it be proper to call Him a "human person?"

That's why I don't use such simplistic language.


You seem to be way out of your league here.

That must be why you insist on strawmaning me and falsely imputing statements I didn't and wouldn't make to me.


Peace,
Rhology

John said...

"What about "the Holy Trinity" indicates a typology, not a visual depiction?"


What is it about the label "Calvin" on the statue of Calvin that indicates it is not actually a thing called "Calvin", but just a likeness of a person called Calvin? How about cultural context?

"Perry's question about Thomas' worship being "passed along" does not fall under the reasonably nuance-able, as if one can worship a nature."

Perry wasn't saying you could worship a nature, he was saying that the physical manifestation of Jesus was completely attributable to his human nature, and that bowing down to Jesus in his human body is in its physical manifestation directed towards a created thing. His point is that he can worship the divine person by physically bowing to a created thing.

This is not a completely new thing either. The Israelites would bow down to the ark, which was a kind of proxy for God's presence. And we believe an icon serves the same purpose.

Viisaus said...

"The Israelites would bow down to the ark, which was a kind of proxy for God's presence. And we believe an icon serves the same purpose."


The veneration of the ark was allowed because the Holy Scriptures testify that God wanted it to be made and honored.

The icons are not likewise vouched for by the Bible, but are mere human invention. It's so simple.

John said...

"The icons are not likewise vouched for by the Bible, but are mere human invention. It's so simple."

And as Perry pointed out in the thread from which this one is derived, lots of stuff Solomon did in worship in 1 Kings 6ff was not vouched for by the bible, BUT HE DID IT ANYWAY.

This is the problem with sola scriptura, its historically untenable.

Nathan said...

Where did I say that? You can't quote me. Fail.

I quoted you in my comment. Guess I need to repeat it. Here's what you said:

Calling Him a "divine person" and not allowing for the same statement with respect to His humanity, ie: "He is a human person" is aping monophysitism.

"He is as much a DIVINE person now as He is a HUMAN person"

So your quotes seems quite clearly to affirm "He is a divine person and He is a human person."

What I DO say is that Christ is a divine and human person, and He'll be that way unto eternity.

Now that's a helpful increase in precision. I don't necessarily think it's metaphysically coherent, but at least I get what you're trying to say.

He wasn't always that way (since He was only a divine person before the Incarnation), but He is now.

So you admit the Word is passable? Rhology contra Athanasius. Good luck with that.

Viisaus said...

"And as Perry pointed out in the thread from which this one is derived, lots of stuff Solomon did in worship in 1 Kings 6ff was not vouched for by the bible, BUT HE DID IT ANYWAY."


The Bible records some mighty sinister allusions to religious corruption in Solomon's later years - see 1 Kings 11.

One might well conclude that Solomon was getting "too ecumenical" with pagan Phoenicians, who back then were probably the world's most advanced civilization - the timeless seduction of worldly splendor.

So imitating Solomon in all things is by no means a safe way to go.

Even the very kingship of Israel was originally not pleasing to YHWH, but He allowed foolish people to get what they asked for - see 1 Samuel 8.

John said...

That's not God's conclusion. God looked at this house Solomon had built, complete with its "unauthorised images" and said "I have consecrated this house which you have built by putting My name there forever, and My eyes and My heart will be there perpetually."

So between your opinion and God's, I'm going with the latter.

Rhology said...

John,

What is it about the label "Calvin" on the statue of Calvin that indicates it is not actually a thing called "Calvin", but just a likeness of a person called Calvin? How about cultural context?

The image "Calvin" would obviously be depicting a visual view of John Calvin the person.
So, how does that help you? The statue of Calvin is not a type of Calvin.
Why is it so hard to admit the obvious? Is it b/c you know how blasphemous the image is?



Perry wasn't saying you could worship a nature

So, when he asks "Is the worship passed on to His divine nature?", that's not saying you can worship a nature? I'm confused. How do you figure?



and that bowing down to Jesus in his human body is in its physical manifestation directed towards a created thing

Bowing down to Jesus is not bowing before a created thing! Jesus is ONE PERSON, and you bow down to JESUS. Now who's sounding Nestorian?



The Israelites would bow down to the ark, which was a kind of proxy for God's presence. And we believe an icon serves the same purpose.

Only, unfortunately when you bown down before images, they're of dead people, and you do things that the Israelites never did to the ark or the cherubim.



lots of stuff Solomon did in worship in 1 Kings 6ff was not vouched for by the bible, BUT HE DID IT ANYWAY.

Yes, and Solomon is a great example to follow. Fail.


Nathan said,
Nathan: Calling Him both a "divine person" and a "human person" entails Nestorianism.
Me: Where did I say that? You can't quote me. Fail. What I DO say is that Christ is a divine and human person, and He'll be that way unto eternity.
Me earlier: He is as much a DIVINE person now as He is a HUMAN person.
Nathan: So your quotes seems quite clearly to affirm "He is a divine person and He is a human person."


If you weren't so blinded in your zeal to falsely ascribe Nestorianism to me, you'd understand that what I said can easily be understood in the way I actually meant it, that is, that Jesus is one person Who is divine and human. He is one person, and that person is the God-man, divine and human, b/c He has two natures.



So you admit the Word is passable?

Oh, so now YOU want to go all rationalistic. Very well - please explain in only-rational terms how God took on human flesh and became a baby who needed milk and to soil His diaper, and to grow in wisdom and knowledge and favor with God and man. Go for it!

Rhology said...

So you admit the Word is passable?

Oh, BTW, no, I don't admit that. I'm unsure what to say positively, however, which is why I've been consistent in referring you to the mystery of the Incarnation.

John said...

"The statue of Calvin is not a type of Calvin."

Actually it is. The typology is in the category of visual.

"Why is it so hard to admit the obvious? Is it b/c you know how blasphemous the image is?"

What exactly do you want me to admit? Do you want me to lie and "admit" that Orthodox think this is what the trinity looks like? Would you feel like you'd won a point if I told you that lie?

I guess you never studied art at school if you think all art is supposed to be literal depictions of what things look like.

"So, when he asks "Is the worship passed on to His divine nature?", that's not saying you can worship a nature? I'm confused. How do you figure?"

I can see where he asks if it is passed onto his divine PERSON, but I can't see where he says anything about it being passed on to his divine nature. Can you point out that quote?

"Bowing down to Jesus is not bowing before a created thing!"

Jesus' human body is not a created thing? How do you figure?

"Only, unfortunately when you bown down before images, they're of dead people"

Does that include Jesus as a dead person?

"and you do things that the Israelites never did to the ark or the cherubim. "

Errr, like what?

"and Solomon is a great example to follow. Fail. "

I'll repeat again what God said about what Solomon did: "I have consecrated this house which you have built by putting My name there forever, and My eyes and My heart will be there perpetually."

Viisaus said...

"Errr, like what?"

For starters, you literally sing the praises of your pictures.

How many psalms or kontakions did Israelites compose in order to
praise the cherubim statues and or the ark?

Citing Edward Gibbon:


"After this important service, the image of Edessa was preserved with respect and gratitude; and if the Armenians rejected the legend, the more credulous Greeks adored the similitude, which was not the work of any mortal pencil, but the immediate creation of the divine original. The style and sentiments of a Byzantine hymn will declare how far their worship was removed from the grossest idolatry.

"How can we with mortal eyes contemplate this image, whose celestial splendour the host of heaven presumes not to behold? He who dwells in heaven, condescends this day to visit us by his venerable image; He who is seated on the cherubim, visits us this day by a picture, which the Father has delineated with his immaculate hand, which he has formed in an ineffable manner, and which we sanctify by adoring it with fear and love."

http://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/volume2/chap49.htm

Rhology said...

John,
Actually it is. The typology is in the category of visual.

Then we're using type in two diff ways.
You seem to be throwing, then, a double-layer of typology onto the icon "The Holy Trinity".
1) It's a type by virtue of it being in "the category of visual", whatever that means.
2) It's a visual of a type of the Trinity, that is, the visitation of Abraham at the oaks of Mamre.

By response, I'd remind you that God was probably aware of your arbitrary categorisation of "any visual representation is a type" and still told you not to do it.
And for #2, I'll remind you for the 4th time that it doesn't say "the visitation of Abraham" or anything like that. It says "The Holy Trinity". Why can't you just deal with it?



Do you want me to lie and "admit" that Orthodox think this is what the trinity looks like?

I'd like you to repudiate the image and call it what it is - blasphemy.



I can see where he asks if it is passed onto his divine PERSON, but I can't see where he says anything about it being passed on to his divine nature.

Oops, sorry. You're right.
Now, this is either monophysite or Nestorian reasoning if you think about it. Christ is not two persons (Nestorian) - a divine person and a human person. He's one person with two natures. There is no "divine person" to pass the worship on to; the worship is given to Jesus, Who is one person. There's not another Jesus-person, the divine one, in close communion with the human Jesus-person, to whom the worship could be passed on.
Or worship offered to Jesus has to bypass the human nature and be ascribed to the divine part of Him; in this case the human apparently matters not at all. It's as if it's not even there.
Rather, I confess one person in Jesus with two natures, a divine nature and a human nature, the human nature having been added at the Incarnation and which will be kept unto eternity future.



Jesus' human body is not a created thing? How do you figure?

Where did I say that Jesus' human body is not a created thing? What did I actually say?



Does that include Jesus as a dead person?

Oh, now Jesus is dead, in your opinion?



Errr, like what?

I've told you many times in this thread. If you haven't gotten it by now, there's really not much point.



I'll repeat again what God said about what Solomon did: "I have consecrated this house which you have built by putting My name there forever, and My eyes and My heart will be there perpetually."

Now, where is the example of Solomon you were claiming to follow? Building a temple? My body is the temple of the Holy Spirit - 1 Cor 6, so check and check.
Or did you have in mind bowing down in religious contexts before dead people's pictures? Why would one take that as a good example, from a guy who fell really bad into idol worship?

John said...

Viisaus: Have you done a study on the ark and how similar the references to this icon are to the ark? Like Ps 99:5 saying to bow before his footstool (a synonym for the ark), and references to God who "dwells between the cherubim" (on the ark), or even the way they carried around the ark (1Chr. 15:28) with harps and lyres, or how the Psalms refer to the Ark as "Ark of Thy strength" etc. or even saying that "because the places are holy where the ark of the LORD has entered."

Nothing we do compares to what was done with the ark.

John said...

"It's a type by virtue of it being in "the category of visual", whatever that means."

The visual typology is that of Abraham and the angels.

"It's a visual of a type of the Trinity, that is, the visitation of Abraham at the oaks of Mamre."

No, the trinitarian typology isn't visual, its symbolic in various ways.

"God was probably aware of your arbitrary categorisation of "any visual representation is a type" and still told you not to do it."

God did it when he made Jesus the image of God. And we are told to walk as Jesus did and do what he did.

"I'll remind you for the 4th time that it doesn't say "the visitation of Abraham" or anything like that. It says "The Holy Trinity". Why can't you just deal with it?"

The symbolism is trinitarian.

Let's say I write down the number "3" in really big brush strokes. Then underneath I write "trinity". Have I now depicted God? Of course not. It would be a symbol that indicates threeness. It's the exact same thing here.

"I'd like you to repudiate the image and call it what it is - blasphemy. "

Three angels sitting down is blasphemy? How so?

And need I remind you that the bible refers to the angels as "God".

"Or worship offered to Jesus has to bypass the human nature and be ascribed to the divine part of Him; in this case the human apparently matters not at all. It's as if it's not even there."

This is pretty much Perry's point. If we use an icon, it's not like the worship somehow has to be passed on from the created thing to the divine person, nor that we are worshipping a created thing. The worship is to the divine person, and we know that by the intention of the worshipper. But for someone observing who is merely looking at what is physically happening, a person bowing down to Jesus *appears* to be worshipping a created thing. One created person is bowing in the general direction of some more created flesh. The same thing happened with the ark.

"Oh, now Jesus is dead, in your opinion?"

Not in my opinion, but then again you are talking about the "dead" saints, in contradiction to Matt. 22:32, so how do I know what you are talking about?

"I've told you many times in this thread."

You've told me things you object to, but you haven't told me specifically what practices you claim the Israelites never did. I've shown before that they bowed to the ark for example.

"Now, where is the example of Solomon you were claiming to follow? Building a temple?"

You're off on an irrelevant tangent. The topic is not the place of temples, but the issue of images.

"Why would one take that as a good example, from a guy who fell really bad into idol worship?"

Again another tangent. Can't you just deal with the issue at hand? Solomon put in "unauthorized images", and God approved them retrospectively.

Rhology said...

The first incident I can think of is Mark 9. Continuing in the same vane is Ch VII of the Martyrdom of Ignatius. And then they continue throughout history.

Please provide some evidence of the miracles that are IN DISPUTE. You know, the ones that were performed by not-God in flesh and not-His apostles.
Pointing to Ignatius is just more question-begging - you don't accept EVERYTHING in "church history", but rather pick and choose. So please explain why you accept that part of ch hist and not other parts.



Now why on earth would you doubt miracles which have their first incident occurring in scripture?

I don't doubt the miracles that occurred in Scr.



Prove that the bible is not demonic in nature...What about healings attributed to icons? Are you going to apply the same skepticism to biblical accounts?...And this is not the same process that brought about the canon of scripture because..... ????....??

If you were an atheist and we were having this little talk, I'd be happy to. But since you're not, it's pointless. We both accept the Scr as God's Word. Now please answer the question.
BTW, it says alot that, when pressed, you EOx like to resort to atheistic argumentation. Like I've said many times, you're humanists at the core.



What is obviously miraculous about writing books?

What's miraculous about writing God-inspired books, with prophecies? Gosh, let me think...



Is giving off myrhh inherently less impressive that turning water into wine?

Yes, quite a lot less.



John of Damascus' work was one of the well known ones.

Was his work directly part of the Council proceedings?
I've read that work, and it wasn't very good, BTW. Leans on philosophical argumentation all the time, for one thing.



And other times, douleo is permitted.

Douleo of IDOLS? Please cite examples. By all means, include their context; I did in my blogpost.



Perry affirmed the importance of intention.

Sorry, he repudiated it.
It's tough to argue when you're not paying attention, for sure.
He said: "First, I am not advocating the making of images as disobedience but it is somehow permissible because my intentions were good."
Now, he also affirmed it, so the problem is that he's confused and we can't know which one he meant. But since the point of his I quote here is a much better argument, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt in thinking he made a good argument. It's more charitable to think thus.

Rhology said...

What? Bowing down? Kissing? Tons of example in scripture. If that's all we need, then I guess we just won.

Wow you're dense. I'm sorry, but if you can't bother yourself to keep track of my arguments, why are we even talking?
From here:
Sorry, it strains credulity when 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.


Funny, Mark 7 never mentions scripture.

6 And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS,
BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
7 ‘BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’
8 “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 “For Moses said, ‘HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER’; and, ‘HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”


"Now you're offering religious piety to EVENTS?"
Uh yeah. Like the event of Christ dying on the cross. Are you going to fabricate a fairy tale that protestants don't offer religious piety to events?


1) What is your evidence that Protestants offer religious piety to the EVENT OF THE CRUCIFIXION comparable to EOx' worship of pictures of dead people?
2) What is your argument that I should care what "Protestants" do?



"Where and when did Christ say that we shouldn’t all wear Klingon costumes to church? "

Hardly equivalent, since the bible gives word pictures to describe for example, what the saints are doing in heaven


True, they're not equivalent. The Bible DOES tell us not to talk to dead ppl and not to worship pictures of them, but it doesn't tell us not to wear Klingon costumes. The situation is far worse for you.



Like Ps 99:5 saying to bow before his footstool (a synonym for the ark)

Weren't you listening when Viisaus pointed out that the ark was a representation of God Himself?
How is a picture of a dead saint equivalent? And did anyone in the OT do ALL the things to the ark you do to your pictures of dead ppl?



The visual typology is that of Abraham and the angels.

Prove it. It says "The Holy Trinity".



No, the trinitarian typology isn't visual, its symbolic in various ways.

Now you're moving the goalposts. Dance, monkey, dance!



God did it when he made Jesus the image of God.

Jesus is a picture of a dead person?



Let's say I write down the number "3" in really big brush strokes. Then underneath I write "trinity". Have I now depicted God?

???? You've represented the number 3. Not God, not even close, not even a good try.

Rhology said...

"I'd like you to repudiate the image and call it what it is - blasphemy. "
Three angels sitting down is blasphemy? How so?


Provide evidence that these are angels, and not, as it says, "The Holy Trinity".



And need I remind you that the bible refers to the angels as "God".

1) Begging the question that the icon refers to the visitation of Abraham, which you have not yet done.
2) It refers to ONE of them as God, IIRC.



If we use an icon, it's not like the worship somehow has to be passed on from the created thing to the divine person, nor that we are worshipping a created thing.

But the person is right there. Jesus was right there. There's nowhere else for the worship to "pass on to".



But for someone observing who is merely looking at what is physically happening, a person bowing down to Jesus *appears* to be worshipping a created thing.

Only if you beg the very question at hand. Jesus is not a created thing. The PERSON was standing right there.



Oh, now Jesus is dead, in your opinion?"
Not in my opinion,


So your challenge was stupid. Gotcha.



Solomon put in "unauthorized images", and God approved them retrospectively.

Citation?

Apophatically Speaking said...

You people have too much time on your hand.

Stop quibbling.

The truth is not an argument, our faith not a philosophy. There's no one to convince.

John said...

"You know, the ones that were performed by not-God in flesh and not-His apostles."

John 14:12 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do;

Why on earth would you be drawing a box around what they did, when they said others will come later doing the same things plus even greater things? If you don't believe that others did the same things as what happened with Jesus, then you don't believe Jn 14:12.

"you don't accept EVERYTHING in "church history""

I'm not sure what you mean that I don't "accept" everything in church history. Like what?

"BTW, it says alot that, when pressed, you EOx like to resort to atheistic argumentation."

Nonsense, its called calling you to consistency. It's pointing out that your radical skepticism undermines your own world view. It's like a Muslim pointing out issues with the bible, when the same approach to the Koran would demolish their own position. The fact that you cast doubt with arguments that when applied to your own position would leave it in just the same position, and that you can't deal with this inconsistency, speaks volumes. You are no better than a Muslim appealing to liberal Christian arguments as an attack on the bible.

"What's miraculous about writing God-inspired books, with prophecies? Gosh, let me think..."

No... listen this time. What is _obviously_ miraculous about it. What is obviously miraculous about 3 John for example. Point out the obvious miracle so all the atheists I know can see it.

"Is giving off myrhh inherently less impressive that turning water into wine?

Yes, quite a lot less. "

Prove it.

"Was his work directly part of the Council proceedings?"

None of the councils from Nicea I on downwards have much to say about the source of their doctrines, scriptural or otherwise. There is nothing unusual about Nicea II.

"I've read that work, and it wasn't very good"

I'm sure they said that about Jesus' exegesis when he said that nothing going into a man can make him unclean, apparently in contradiction to Leviticus. And he didn't even put forward a philosophical explanation.

"Douleo of IDOLS? Please cite examples. By all means, include their context"

Nobody I know is venerating idols.

No, I'm talking about δουλεω of people.

"Now, he also affirmed it, so the problem is that he's confused and we can't know which one he meant."

What he meant is that he isn't defending the worship of idols with good intentions. What he is saying is that intention distinguishes between divine worship and mere veneration. For example, someone bows before King Solomon. Is it divine worship? No, because of intention. On the other hand, worshipping the golden calf, yet with "good" intentions, he is not defending.

John said...

"Sorry, it strains credulity when you tell me that it’s OK to do all of the above:
1) Kiss their image. While they’re not there."

The challenge you set forth is to show that: (quote)

"That it's OK to do ALL OF THE THINGS I've laid out before things that aren't God."

If I can show a kiss taking place in the bible to anything that is not God, then I win. And that challenge is so simple, I need not even demonstrate it.

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

Since Rev 5:8, 8:3 says that the saints in heaven take the incense and present it to Christ, it is very symbolic of the scriptural situation to burn the incense to the saint. Surely you're not saying it is a sin to reenact what happens in heaven?

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

You mean like the Cherubim in the temple? When 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. "

Rev. 5 says that they carry our prayers to God. So unless you want to deny what the bible says...

"And you can’t say it audibly to their ears since the dead don’t hear with their physical ears."

I don't know the mechanism that makes it work. All I know is the bible says it, therefore I believe it.

"Funny, Mark 7 never mentions scripture."

Still no mention of scripture. Why claim that Mark 7 is a lesson about scripture, when scripture is not even mentioned?

"1) What is your evidence that Protestants offer religious piety to the EVENT OF THE CRUCIFIXION comparable to EOx' worship of pictures of dead people?"

Err... isn't Christianity in all its forms about the EVENT of the crucifixion, and religious piety related to that event? I can't even begin to imagine how you would deny this.

"2) What is your argument that I should care what "Protestants" do? "

Errrrk, then how about what baptists do? Is that circle small enough? Do I need to mention your congregation by name?

John said...

"The Bible DOES tell us not to talk to dead pp."

You mean "calling up the dead"? Err, is that what Jesus did? Are you telling me that Jesus was a breaker of the Law? That means he was a sinner and you are still in your sins.

‏דרש אל המתים refers to those who try and divine the future or seek the truth from spirits. Unless you believe this, you make Jesus a sinner.

"not to worship pictures of them"

Except we don't do that.

"Weren't you listening when Viisaus pointed out that the ark was a representation of God Himself?"

Weren't you listening when we pointed out that icons of Jesus are representations of God himself? Or have you dropped objections to icons of Jesus and are now only objecting to the saints?

"How is a picture of a dead saint equivalent?"

For one thing, the ark was covered in pictures of the Cherubim. So whatever was done with the ark was done with pictures of heavenly beings.

" And did anyone in the OT do ALL the things to the ark you do to your pictures of dead ppl?"

I would say so, yes. Well, they didn't hang the ark from the wall. A bit impractical I would think.

"Prove it. It says "The Holy Trinity"."

Some versions say that. Other versions of the same icon, like this one here say "Hospitality of Abraham".

Everybody who is Orthodox knows that the literal depiction is the Hospitality of Abraham, but that it contains symbolic reference to the trinity. Since people are more interested in the trinity than Abraham, it is often labeled the latter, but it doesn't mean everyone doesn't know what it is about.

"Now you're moving the goalposts. Dance, monkey, dance!"

I'm moving the goalposts? Information about this icon is widespread and easily available. I can't change the goalposts even if I wanted to. Everything I'm saying is well documented.

"Jesus is a picture of a dead person?"

(a) There are no "dead" saints per se, they are just as alive as Jesus.

(b) Jesus is the image of God, and apparently the image of God is what you are concerned about.

"You've represented the number 3. Not God, not even close, not even a good try. "

How do you know I haven't represented God?

The Baptists here have created a new logo of three rings, which apparently has several meanings, one of which is to represent the triune God. Are you going to break the news to them that it doesn't represent the triune God? Are you going to break the news it is blasphemous because in their explanation of the logo they make reference to the triune God?

John said...

"But the person is right there. Jesus was right there."

Do you believe God is omnipresent?

"Citation?"

1Kings 9:3

John said...

"Simply provide citations that you've been commanded by God to worship pictures of dead ppl and I'll be on board! "

Why, did Moses have to provide "citations"?

Rhology said...

John 14:12 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do;
Why on earth would you be drawing a box around what they did


Now please provide the exegesis by which you determined that statues weeping myrrh = "he will do also". Thanks!


I'm not sure what you mean that I don't "accept" everything in church history. Like what?

I've told you many, many times. A pity you don't take into acct what the other side says, b/c you have EO blinders on.
Read Webster & King's "Holy Scripture, the Ground and Pillar of Our Faith" for starters. Also my article on Athanasius, Chrysostom, and the Modern EOC. And my article on sola fide in 1st Clement.


Nonsense, its called calling you to consistency.

Using atheistic arguments is calling me to consistency? Right, whatever.
When you start answering the same questions about your own position, then we can talk.


It's pointing out that your radical skepticism undermines your own world view.

Not at all! I'm not skeptical OF THE BIBLE! I'm skeptical about things I have identified as contradictory to it. The Bible calls me to be skeptical of man's inventions. So, try again.


No... listen this time. What is _obviously_ miraculous about it.

If you don't think God revealing His revelation to people and prophecies that come true in 100s of yrs, I can't help you.


I'm sure they said that about Jesus' exegesis when he said that nothing going into a man can make him unclean, apparently in contradiction to Leviticus.

Oh, and they had good reasons to argue with God, eh?


"Douleo of IDOLS? Please cite examples. By all means, include their context"
Nobody I know is venerating idols.


Um, yes you are. They're pictures. Of dead people. That you talk to inaudibly. What is the difference to any observer? Forget motivation - Perry has. Tell me the difference.


What he meant is that he isn't defending the worship of idols with good intentions.

And so it would be begging the question at hand to assume that the worship of ICONS with good intentions would be OK, now wouldn't it?


For example, someone bows before King Solomon. Is it divine worship? No, because of intention

No, b/c it's NOT A RELIGIOUS CONTEXT.
Fail, try again.


If I can show a kiss taking place in the bible to anything that is not God, then I wi

Since you're dividing up my context argument, you're simply responding to a strawman.
What do you know, another fail.


Since Rev 5:8, 8:3 says that the saints in heaven take the incense and present it to Christ, it is very symbolic of the scriptural situation to burn the incense to the saint...Rev. 5 says that they carry our prayers to God.

Please prove that those prayers were not directed to Christ but to the saints.


You mean like the Cherubim in the temple? When they're not there?

Oh, ppl talked to the cherubim? Where?


Still no mention of scripture in Mark 7

Shaking my head now.


Errrrk, then how about what baptists do? Is that circle small enough? Do I need to mention your congregation by name?

Talking about Southern Baptists or Reformed ppl would be plenty specific. But "Protestants" is not.

Rhology said...

Err, is that what Jesus did?

Jesus is God. All are alive to Him. Are you God now?


Lots of stupid stuff

Not worth responding to.


"Prove it. It says "The Holy Trinity"."
Some versions say that. Other versions of the same icon, like this one here say "Hospitality of Abraham".


So why does THAT ONE say "the Holy Trinity"?


Everybody who is Orthodox knows that the literal depiction is the Hospitality of Abraham

Except apparently for the guy who wrote "The Holy Trinity" on the icon.


"Jesus is a picture of a dead person?"
(a) There are no "dead" saints per se, they are just as alive as Jesus.


Utterly, utterly false. Read 1 Cor 15. Jesus rose from the dead. No one else has done so. Yet.


(b) Jesus is the image of God, and apparently the image of God is what you are concerned about.

Sorry, Jesus' being the image of God is not equivalent to a picture drawn with paint on a piece of wood of a dead person. You're just desperate now; you'll say anything to defend your sinful allegiance to EOC. It's really sad.


The Baptists here have created a new logo of three rings, which apparently has several meanings, one of which is to represent the triune God. Are you going to break the news to them that it doesn't represent the triune God?

1) I might, to be consistent, have to oppose that.
2) Tu quoque argument. Does nothing to rescue you.
3) Nowhere is it written "The Holy Trinity" on there. Doesn't claim to be depicting the actual Trinity. Fail again.


Do you believe God is omnipresent?

Do you believe Jesus Himself since the Incarnation is omnipresent?
Monophysite.


Why, did Moses have to provide "citations"?

Oh, I get it. I'm just supposed to accept what you say b/c you said it. That makes a lot of sense! Then I could be a drone apparatchik like you!
You, sir, are no Moses.

Viisaus said...

"Utterly, utterly false. Read 1 Cor 15. Jesus rose from the dead. No one else has done so. Yet."

Indeed, while we may have different viewpoints about the status of the spirits of departed saints, it should be obvious that they haven't received their glorified resurrection bodies yet.

In Revelation 6, we see the souls of righteous martyrs (just the sort of people RCs/EOs like to pray to) making anxious requests for God to execute judgments on earth, but their wish is not granted (they are rather merely personally comforted with white robes).

Nathan said...

If you weren't so blinded in your zeal to falsely ascribe Nestorianism to me, you'd understand that what I said can easily be understood in the way I actually meant it

I'm not particularly concerned with accusing you of anything, I'm just pointing out what you're actually saying. Since you seem to mean something different, by all means clarify, but it wasn't clear the first time.

Oh, BTW, no, I don't admit that [the Word is passable]. I'm unsure what to say positively, however, which is why I've been consistent in referring you to the mystery of the Incarnation.

Except you haven't been consistent, at least not in what you say. Perhaps your meaning has been consistent, but not your words. You seemed to pretty clearly state that the Word changed at the incarnation, which I would consider to be saying something positively. At any rate, I can't know what's inside your mind (your meaning) except through how you write, and all I've done is point out the implications of what you've written.

John said...

"Now please provide the exegesis by which you determined that statues weeping myrrh = "he will do also". Thanks!"

We were discussing appearances of departed saints. Can we keep the topics a little bit on track?

"Read Webster & King's "Holy Scripture, the Ground and Pillar of Our Faith" for starters. "

(a) Apples and Oranges. I accept the factual quotes in Webster are part of Church History. Do you accept appearances of Ignatius are factual parts of Church History?

(b) I've read Webster, but when he makes out every Church Father contradicts themselves, how honest is that? How rational is it to take a bunch of quotes from say Basil that taken out of context sound vaguely supportive of sola scriptura, and then ignore all the quotes that flatly contradict sola scriptura?

(c) Every quote in Webster can be easily understood in an Orthodox sense, and the Orthodox sense is the only way to understand them and not have them contradicting themselves from one page to the next. On the other hand, there is no way you can make, oh say all Basil's quotes to be sola scriptura.

"And my article on sola fide in 1st Clement. "

Ahh yes, the letter in which he says "justified by our works", and you made a lot of claims in that thread you refused to justify.

"Not at all! I'm not skeptical OF THE BIBLE!"

The point is, you apply skepticism to the beliefs of Christians through the ages that you don't apply to the bible. That's called inconsistency. It's like a Muslim taking a modernist attitude to the miracles in the New Testament, but then not applying the same skepticism to their own tradition. Until you can learn to be consistent, you don't have a rational argument. Consistency is synonymous with a rational argument.

"Oh, and they had good reasons to argue with God, eh? "

Do you?

"Forget motivation"

(a) Why?

(b) No he didn't. I explained what he meant.

"What is the difference to any observer?"

What is the difference bowing down to a cherubim encrusted box to an observer?

"And so it would be begging the question at hand to assume that the worship of ICONS with good intentions would be OK, now wouldn't it?"

We don't worship icons any more than the Jews worshipped Solomon.

John said...

"No, b/c it's NOT A RELIGIOUS CONTEXT. "

STILL waiting for a biblical definition of this mysterious "regligious context" concept. Never heard of it. Your whole system lives and dies by your failure to show this.

"Please prove that those prayers were not directed to Christ but to the saints. "

We were discussing incense. Try and stick to one topic at a time.

"Oh, ppl talked to the cherubim? Where?"

One topic at a time.

"Shaking my head now."

Why? If it's not there, and you can't show its there, why not give up a failed argument.

"Jesus is God. All are alive to Him. Are you God now?"

Did Jesus perfectly obey the law, yes or no? As a human being was he obliged to follow the law, yes or no?

"Except apparently for the guy who wrote "The Holy Trinity" on the icon."

Please explain why the literal depiction is the only valid labelling scheme. These are not even the only schemes for labelling. Some icons are labelled by the context of their creation. There are lots of ways of labelling things. The term is taxonomy. There is not just one taxonomy.

"Jesus rose from the dead. No one else has done so."

Different category, different question. Luke 20:38

"Sorry, Jesus' being the image of God is not equivalent to a picture drawn with paint on a piece of wood of a dead person. "

They are equivalent in so far as being images, which is apparently the point of contention.

"I might, to be consistent, have to oppose that."

Funny how you have to make your fellow reformed to be monophysites and your fellow baptists to be idolaters just to win an argument.

"Doesn't claim to be depicting the actual Trinity."

The people making the logo claim it is. Is it ok to merely think it represents the trinity, if one omits the physical label? Desperation.

"Do you believe Jesus Himself since the Incarnation is omnipresent?"

Uh, yes. Humanity is something added onto his divine person, not something that subtracts divinity from his divine person.

You're again going to accuse your fellow reformed of being monophysite. "Christ is present according to his omnipresent deity, which includes the humanity".

"You, sir, are no Moses."

Why is Moses more credible than the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?