Thursday, April 15, 2010

More on Energetic Procession about icons and authority - 3

Continuing at Perry Robinson's blog...

Fr Dcn Patrick (Monk Patrick) Says:

Yes, the Saints have appeared and talked with various people a large number of times and continue to do so to this day.

My guess is that any request for evidence of this will be shadowy and fourthhand accts from the Russian or Armenian frontier.
But heedless, I forge on: Evidence, please?



They know each other and those living and those living know them, this is assumed in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus and the Transfiguration;

How is this assumed in that parable? Abraham specifically refused to send Lazarus back to the rich man's family. Instead, he indicated that the Scriptures should be enough for them. Sage advice for anyone, especially an EOx like yourself who is used to "exceed(ing) what is written" (1 Cor 4:6).



how do you think Peter knew who Moses and Elijah were when he had never seen them in the flesh and there is no evidence of Jesus introducing them?

1) It should be obvious that the Gospel writers rarely include the exhaustive acct of everythg that happened at any given incident; they write what they thought was important.
2) The entire event is miraculous. What's wrong with positing that Peter got a miraculous word of knowledge at that moment?



They do hear our prayers and answer them, especially the Mother of God.

Please provide evidence for this assertion.



There are a large number of miracles worked by the presence of icons and many give off sweet smelling myrrh.

Please give us a reason to think that such things could not be demonic in nature and origin.
When Jesus and the apostles worked wonders like obvious and public complete healings and writing Scripture, what about "giving off myrrh" is supposed to impress?



The alternate reading is not only not in keeping with the text, as Perry has showed, but would conflict with the experience of Christians for centuries.

The action of venerating icons ALSO conflicts with "the experience of Christians for centuries".
This is another double-edged argument.





, the 8th Century matters much because all your Scriptural arguments were brought out against icons and were demonstrated by those who were being killed for continuing to venerate icons that those Scriptures did not forbid the making and veneration of icons.

Really? Can you cite anyone from the 7th Ecum Council who dealt with the Scr and the Scr arguments against iconolatry? I'd be quite interested in seeing that.



You are not raising anything that the Orthodox have not heard before and dealt with 1200 years ago.

Longstanding evidence of longstanding obstinacy against God's commandments is not something I'd bring up or commend.



“Douleo”, to serve as a slave, God is not what we do to icons, so this term is irrelevant.

The point is that the LXX puts douleo and latreuo together numerous times when God says "don't". They go together in God's thinking.
This is yet ANOTHER example of your wrenching one element of the context argument I've brought fwd and complaining that it by itself doesn't mean anythg. It makes me wonder when you'll actually deal with the actual argument. Perry has repudiated the effect of intention, so you need to start showing that it's OK to do ALL OF THE THINGS I've laid out before things that aren't God.



Where does it say that in Scripture that truth is the equivalent of the Scriptures?

I've never made such a statement, as it is very clumsy.
Rather, Scripture is all true, by virtue of its being God's speech.



The Scriptures tell us that the truth is Christ and if the Church is pillar and bulwark of the truth it is so of the faith and preaching of Christ, whether recorded in Scripture or not, (John 21:25)

Yes, now all you need to do is to prove that these other examples of Christ's preaching you apparently have in mind actually are Christ's preaching. Please don't forget to show how you know that they are Christ's preaching.



You dismissed a paragraph of mine as circular reasoning. I wasn’t trying to argue a point based from mutually accepted premises but to explain the premises from which Orthodox are working to show how we understand the matter.

If you think I'm here asking WHAT EOx believe, I'm afraid you've seriously misunderstood. I'm here asking WHY you blv what you do, and how you substantiate it. Arguing in a circle all day just makes my point for me.



unless you suggest that we are not to obey or share the same faith as the Apostles or that each generation is not to imitate the faith of the previous generation

Sure we are, and the way we know what they taught is to study and appeal to the teachings they surely left - the Scripture.
And the Scripture tells me in Mark 7:1-13 to judge all so-called tradition by Scripture to see if it's good or not. I'm just obeying Jesus when I put your church to the test, especially since accepting your position means there's no way to judge whether your church is right or to judge between so-called "infallible interpreters".



So it follows from your own practice that you have a similar practice as we do in recognising the authority of those before us and appealing to them as authorities.

Not really. I have joined a local church, and that church has elders, so I'm in submission to them as far as they are in obedience to the Scripture.



Do you not also pick and choose your elders?

No, the elders identify a man they think would be a good elder, submits the candidate to the church at which point the church has a time period in which to make any concerns or reservations known to the elders; after that the elders add him to the office.



Do you not follow them because you agree with them and not others?

Yes, of course. Just like you do.



which means it is appropriate to appeal to their elders because our elders did and likewise for the previous generation back to the Apostles; the elders in this line we call Fathers.

You forgot that many have fallen into immorality and doctrinal error. So we need a fixed standard by which to judge these claimants to "elder". You use the circular appeal back to Sacred Tradition, even though you claim that this is the same process that brought about Sacred Tradition. I use the Scripture, which is free from this circularity.



Why don’t you imitate the faith and doctrine of say Ignatius of Antioch, the disciple of John, the beloved disciple?

B/c what John wrote was theopneustos, and I have no such guarantees for what Ignatius blvd, for one thing.
Also, for other "Fathers", you don't take everything they wrote, but judge it by what you've already decided is Sacred Tradition.



the Orthodox Church did not start with a group of people deciding a doctrine and then picking Fathers to support it.

If you say so, but that is manifestly how it goes today.



The onus of proof is on you to prove that the Orthodox by their own premises have strayed from the Truth.

That's fine, and I've provided quite a lot of it.



The question of the Body and Blood is the literal reading of Scripture

What does this mean? "The question" is the "literal" reading? Please define "the question" and "the Body and Blood" and "literal".



The decision also had to be made on grounds other than the Scriptures alone, that is the received traditions of the elders, which were largely passed on orally (2 Thess 2:15).

Please provide evidence that these oral teachings were different than what was passed on in writing.
If you can't or think it doesn't matter, then please explain why you bring it up.



ioannis said:
If after supporting trinitarianism for 4 years in your blog, as you claimed, it is so easy for you to abandon it in a conversation in trying to confuse me and in your desperate effort to find errors either in me or in Orthodoxy, it is not my fault if I think of it as a façade of your Judaism.

Um, OK.



If 1 Tim 6 refers for you to the Father then for you only the Father is immortal.

Hmm, I guess I can see what you mean.
Now, we'd need to explain how the Son "alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see". But I suppose your point is that this is God, not simply the Father. I wonder how we'd thus account for how v. 14 says "the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which He will bring about at the proper time - He who is the only blessed...", thus differentiating between "He" and "our Lord Jesus Christ"?
Maybe I'd need to amend my point here to saying that if this is God, yet it does say that He "dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see", and we have to deal with that. Perhaps no one has seen God in His pure essence and glory, yet we saw Jesus, Who is the perfect representation of the Father, b/c He took flesh or clothed Himself in more mundane form to make theophanies in the OT.
HSAT, this does not give any room for making pictures of the Father, as your church has done, and so far nobody has repudiated. Feel free to be the first. Man up, take the lead.


But we do not picture the HS and the Father, not because nobody has seen them so far in a certain form, but because they have not been incarnated.

Exactly.
But you DID in fact picture the HS and the Father, remember? Like I said, feel free to repudiate it, but stop denying it exists.



if we were picturing the event of the baptism of Christ without the HS in the icon you would claim that it isn’t the real event because the appearance of the HS is omitted and the icon is a false one

How do you know? How about you ASK ME instead of trying to psychoanalyse?
FYI, I wouldn't say that.



Well, we do not picture the HS. We picture His epiphany.

That's another discussion, but even if I granted it, that's not the icon I linked to. It says "the Holy Trinity".



Do we venerate Judas when we venerate that icon? Of course, we do not.

1) You venerate plenty of ppl and there's a better than good chance that at least some of them are in Hell; thus you venerate denizens of Hell.
2) B/c you don't venerate an icon of Judas doesn't mean that it's OK to venerate other icons.



We venerate the event that it is depicted in the icon.

Now you're offering religious piety to EVENTS? What would be the excuse on par with "We're just asking the saints to intercede for us" in that case?
Will the blasphemy never end?



That shows that we do not venerate icons in themselves otherwise you have to accuse us for venerating traitors, demons etc.

If the shoe fits...



In Christ’s icons we see Him as He was, more or less, when he lived amongst us and in the human form that He will have when He will return,

How could you possibly know that?



That’s why although we translate His words in other languages we do not “translate” His images.

Most of the icons of Jesus I've seen in EO churches depict a white guy. (At least he doesn't usually have blue eyes, but still!)
Looks like you DO translate the images.



Christ, who gave the law to the Jews, did not say that He does not want us to make icons of Himself.

In the OT He said not to make images and worship and serve them at all, and He made no comment about that in the NT. I'd expect that commandment to go ahead and continue. Jesus never said that bestiality is wrong either, but He did tell us to worship God only and to cleave to our wives and not to others. There's an analogy there, I can feel it.



Why do you include Him and His humanity in all those things referred to as “anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.”?

B/c He was in the form of a created thing - a man.



Besides, Christ does not dwell in the heaven that we see with our physical eyes where the commandment refers to but He is seated on the throne of God.

True, but His body is still physical.



where and when did Christ say that we shouldn’t make icons of the members of His body, His Saints?

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



St John speaks with a presbyter in Revelation. Was that presbyter dead or alive?

Citation, please?



That the Saints partake of Christ’s divine glory is everywhere in the NT, e.g. 2 Corinthians 3:18.

Now you just need to prove how that's relevant.

18 comments:

Viisaus said...

"Please give us a reason to think that such things could not be demonic in nature and origin."

...or mere vulgar hoaxes by mercenary monks.

In pre-modern times (that some people like to romanticize), there was nothing like a nicely arranged miracle to make pilgrimages profit local churches and their humble clergymen.

One of the tell-tale signs of the polytheistic nature of saint-worship is that people feel you cannot really "make an impression" on these low-level intercessors by merely staying at home and praying - you have got to visit the saints personally by travelling to their tombs (preferably with gifts and offerings).

John said...

"My guess is that any request for evidence of this will be shadowy and fourthhand accts from the Russian or Armenian frontier.
But heedless, I forge on: Evidence, please?"

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.

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

"Please give us a reason to think that such things could not be demonic in nature and origin."

Prove that the bible is not demonic in nature.

"When Jesus and the apostles worked wonders like obvious and public complete healings and writing Scripture, what about "giving off myrrh" is supposed to impress?"

What is obviously miraculous about writing books? Is giving off myrhh inherently less impressive that turning water into wine? Prove it. What about healings attributed to icons? Are you going to apply the same skepticism to biblical accounts?

"Can you cite anyone from the 7th Ecum Council who dealt with the Scr and the Scr arguments against iconolatry? I'd be quite interested in seeing that."

Various arguments, scriptural and otherwise had been discussed for decades prior to the 7th council, and everyone was aware of them. John of Damascus' work was one of the well known ones.

"The point is that the LXX puts douleo and latreuo together numerous times when God says "don't". They go together in God's thinking."

And other times, douleo is permitted.

Discussing lexical meanings of words is a fruitless discussion when devoid of context.

"Perry has repudiated the effect of intention"

I don't know what this means. Perry affirmed the importance of intention.

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

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

"And the Scripture tells me in Mark 7:1-13 to judge all so-called tradition by Scripture to see if it's good or not."

Funny, Mark 7 never mentions scripture.

"You use the circular appeal back to Sacred Tradition, even though you claim that this is the same process that brought about Sacred Tradition. I use the Scripture, which is free from this circularity. "

And this is not the same process that brought about the canon of scripture because..... ????....??

"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?

"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. Why translating the word picture into a real picture is different in substance to translating Greek into English we aren't told.

-------

"In pre-modern times (that some people like to romanticize), there was nothing like a nicely arranged miracle to make pilgrimages profit local churches and their humble clergymen. "

(a) They are still happening with no profit to anyone.

(b) Radical skepticism like this can bring down the whole bible.

Monk Patrick said...

Rhology,

Complete healing from cancer, childless families having children, complete healing of friend's leg are examples of such miracles. This is regular in Greece and other Orthodox countries and elsewhere. However, if you are not open to believe, I don't think I could provide any evidence of miracles, so you can take it or leave it.

The reason for myrrh is not something worth discussing unless one shares the same believe in the matter, else it would not make sense. The fact that it happens and it is not a monastic prank, is something that I have experienced myself in situations that such a "prank" is of no value nor possible.

Please provide evidence that anything you experience is not demonic. Then I can respond in kind. If you cannot tell then how can you accept any answer that I can give you?

The Scriptural issues were one of the central aspects of the early iconoclastic debates. The iconoclasts did not pursue them later because they realised that it was a losing battle. By the way, do you follow the command to keep the Sabbath, that is Saturday? Do you still offer the required sacrifices? Why not? What is the rule that you use to provide a consistent understanding of which OT commandments to obey? Until you provide such an understanding, you have no basis to say it is in or not in the Bible or contrary to the Scriptures without condemning yourself on the same ground.

Regarding douleo and latreio being together. We neither give douleo nor latreio to icons so those commandments are not relevant to the Orthodox veneration of icons. We only serve and worship God. Please address the issue of proskinsis. We disagree on what it means to worship and this is a definition issue. You cannot put your definition on a word and accuse us of doing it contrary to God's command unless you can prove it is the only possible way of interpreting the word. We venerate, nor worship, the image of God which we see in humans, especially those whom God has shown as belonging to Him and being in Him and He in them. We do not venerate saints apart from Christ. We honour them because of Christ. We do not worship them as separate gods. One needs to understand the meaning of union with God and God being all in all and what this means. The words issue is not the centre of the matter because we consider the command not relevant in the case of icons because of the new event since the command of the Incarnation, which changed the situation just as the command regarding the Sabbath, sacrifices and circumcision were also changed with Christ's coming.

Monk Patrick said...

You will have no hope of understanding Orthodox teaching if you are looking at it from a Protestant framework and assumptions. The question is whether these assumptions and framework is correct. This is where the debate should be not on the practices based on a different framework and assumptions. When I tried to explain why we believed something you said it was circular rather than question more deeply to gain understanding. It seems you are not interested in understanding and dialogue with respect but only to convert us because our faith and practices don't make sense in within your framework and assumptions. We work from a different basis and your arguments are ineffectual because they do not address the underlying premises and so the logic is not relevant. The claims of polytheism etc have no weight because we consistently believe from our premises that we are not polytheistic. Please don't treat Orthodox with an assumption that they are anything other than Bible believing Christians, who worship one God in Trinity or that they would paganism influence their worship. I assume that your church is not influenced by modern secular instruments such as guitars and drums.

Obedience to our elders is only to the extent that they are consistent to Christ. Primarily that their teaching is consistent with the Scriptures. We are similar but not the same, as I said. You wouldn't have thought of your position on the Scriptures, if you didn't receive this from your elders and they from theirs. Sacred Tradition is not brought about by the elders but passed on by them just as the Scriptures are. Councils confirm what this Tradition is against those challenging it by making sure that it is the correct tradition using many of the same standards that you would want to know but without limiting things to only Scripture. Tradition is never contrary to Scripture and it is a canon with which we measure things, like you do. All that is different is that we accept in Tradition the oral traditions of the Apostles and that there are benchmarks in history, either Councils or Fathers, that can be relied on as reliable witnesses to the Tradition. Unless, you consider yourself infallible then how do you know that you understand Scripture as the Apostles understood it? How do you know your interpretation is correct rather than another's? It is a great help to read the commentaries of the Fathers to see what they so, as you read other Protestant commentaries because what to see their opinion and reasons. We give strong reliance on those Fathers that have stood the test of time on having reliable interpretations and we say that one should not depart from them otherwise you are likely to be diverting from the meaning as the Apostles intended. This does not mean limiting the meaning to them but remaining consistent with them. We can challenge them but with great care of our own weaknesses and only with abundant support from elsewhere. We allow for potential error etc. I think that you are reading too much into our following the Fathers.

monk Patrick said...

Can you prove that Ignatius was not inspired? Why not? Can you prove that he was not a faithful disciple even if not inspired? Your thoughts of us picking and choosing Fathers is a bit overplayed. If we say that one is a heretic, I think you will see the good reasons why. Tradition is very well supported by the surviving material that we find, even if we include the heretical material; there were many shared aspects and heretics usually only go astray on 5% of the doctrine, the rest is often quite orthodox. The heretics that are well off mark, I am sure that you would agree are not believing any Christianity that you would recognise. It seems that you are making an excuse to avoid really dealing with the historical evidence for what Christianity is and believes. From all historical accounts and evidence, it is not like what modern Baptists are today. Even the iconoclasts were more like modern high Anglicans than Brethren or Pentecostals.

The question may be better read "the issue". The issue is that when Christ is speaking of eating His Body and drinking His blood, he meant it plainly as He said, which was how it was understood by those listening, who were offended by it on this account, as are many people today. Christ did not correct this plain understanding but reinforced it. To read the passages as being symbolic is quite a forced meaning on the text and is only done because the plain meaning in unacceptable based on other principles.

Read Basil the Great regarding oral traditions, especially Chapter 27 of his work on the Holy Spirit where he answers your question.

I admire your love of the Scriptures, but I think you need to be more careful how you read them. There are many paradoxes and it is difficult not to end up contradicting oneself when we are too narrow in interpreting a particular text. The Father's are invaluable to show us all the pitfalls and the best way of reconciling texts to be consistent. Also, I think that a viable distinction can be made between the questions "is it in the Bible" and "is it consistent with the Bible". Orthodox understand that the Canon of Scripture was made to help answer the latter rather than the former. We both believe in the inspiration of the Scripture and its value in testing doctrine. However, we do not believe that doctrine is derived from Scripture but was passed on through the Apostles, largely orally. The NT is an inspired and infallible testimony to this teaching but not an exhaustive source of the teaching, and the nature of the Gospels and letters of Paul prove this, because they are unlike the OT, which is a source of teaching with extensive laws laying out every detail of worship and life. Scripture is clear that not everything Christ said was written down and that traditions were both written and oral, thus not everything was in the written Scriptures. This is what we believe but you do not seem to accept the clear testimony of Scripture. This is largely due to the fact that you have lost the oral tradition and not seeing it, cannot believe it exists. The Orthodox Church has always known its existence, so it cannot reject it.

Rhology said...

John,

The first incident I can think of is Mark 9. Continuing in the same vane is Ch VII of the Martyrdom of Ignatius.

Please provide some evidence substantiating the Ignatius one. That God said it is sufficient evidence for the Mark 9 one. Besides, miracles in Scr are not under dispute.



Prove that the bible is not demonic in nature.

The impossibility of the contrary.
What do you know? ANOTHER atheistic argument. How about arguing like you're a theist, an EO?



What is obviously miraculous about writing books?

Prophecies that came true? Gosh, you're right, I can't think of anything.



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

One way is that Jesus did the one, and I have every reason so far to think demons are responsible for the former. Please provide an argument that the weeping myrrh is not demonic in origin, or is the best you can do to call the Bible into question?



Are you going to apply the same skepticism to biblical accounts?

Why would I (or you) do that? Aren't we believers in Jesus (well, don't you SAY you are one)?



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

Yep, read that one. It was poor.
So are you saying that you don't have any specifics?



And other times, douleo is permitted.

To idols?



Discussing lexical meanings of words is a fruitless discussion when devoid of context.

I discuss the context in the linked blogpost. Try reading it.



Perry affirmed the importance of intention.

Yes, but he also contradicted himself when he said: "First, I am not advocating the making of images as disobedience but it is somehow permissible because my intentions were good."
Pick one, and explain why he REALLY meant that one and not the opposite.



"you need to start showing that it's OK to do ALL OF THE THINGS I've laid out before things that aren't God."
What? Bowing down? Kissing? Tons of example in scripture. If that's all we need, then I guess we just won.


If you're unwilling to go back and check what I've said, I don't see why I should keep talking to you.


"Now you're offering religious piety to EVENTS?"
Uh yeah. Like the event of Christ dying on the cross.


Please cite me an EO prayer to the EVENT OF CHRIST DYING ON THE CROSS.
So, not only do you pray to non-personal things such as "a nature", now you're getting even farther away from the meaning of prayer, in that you pray to events.
Why would any reasonable person think that you'd have any mental safeguards in place to prevent you from worshiping dead people? I mean, you're already praying to events and natures and stuff.


(b) Radical skepticism like this can bring down the whole bible.

1) That's rich, coming from a guy who makes atheistic arguments against the Bible repeatedly.
2) No, it doesn't, b/c proposing that people are in sin b/c they're doing things identified as evil in the Bible doesn't hurt the Bible; it confirms it. Let's not be dense, K?

Rhology said...

Monk Patrick,

Hopefully you did better than John. Let's see...

Complete healing from cancer, childless families having children, complete healing of friend's leg are examples of such miracles.

By themselves, these prove nothing. It is easy to propose that Satan performed these works to lead ppl to a false church and a false Gospel. Indeed, the Bible warns us of just that kind of deception, even miraculous. You need a diff kind of argument. You recognise this in the next statement: However, if you are not open to believe, I don't think I could provide any evidence of miracles, so you can take it or leave it.



Please provide evidence that anything you experience is not demonic.

Oh, goody, another atheistic argument. Is this what you learn at the monastery? To argue like an atheist?
And I've already dealt with this before. The impossibility of the contrary.



By the way, do you follow the command to keep the Sabbath, that is Saturday?

Misinterp of the Bible as argument. Another atheist specialty, but at least it's not limited to them.
I keep Sabbath in having faith in Jesus Christ as my Sabbath rest. Please read the Epistle to the Hebrews. Put down your Palamas and pick up the Word of God.


Do you still offer the required sacrifices? Why not?

Yes, b/c I have faith in Christ. Seriously, Hebrews. Read it.


What is the rule that you use to provide a consistent understanding of which OT commandments to obey?

Already written about that too.
Now, I have some questions for you:
Do you follow the command to keep the Sabbath, that is Saturday?
Do you still offer the required sacrifices? Why not?
What is the rule that you use to provide a consistent understanding of which OT commandments to obey?



Until you provide such an understanding, you have no basis to say it is in or not in the Bible or contrary to the Scriptures without condemning yourself on the same ground.

This must be one of the first times you've talked to a knowledgeable Reformed person. No fault in that, but I do hope you'll learn instead of stubbornly repeating the same elementary arguments the next time you meet one of us.



We neither give douleo nor latreio to icons

What is the qualitative difference between what pagans did to idols and what you do to icons? Don't say intention, either. God never mentioned it.
<a href='http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1874">Here</a> are <a href="http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1527">some instructive</a> <a href="http://ntrmin.org/rccorner.htm">articles</a> <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/04/queen-mother.html">on the topic</a>.

The long and short of my response:
-In the OT LXX, the phrase "worship and serve" occurs many times, and is translated from "douleo" and "latreuo" (or sthg like that). They are very often in conjunction with each other.
-Sometimes they are even juxtaposed within the same thought, demonstrating that they are similar ideas.
-Thus it is unbiblical to create an artificial distinction between them, even less to ignore biblical revelation for the sake of human traditions (Mark 7:1-13).
-Scenario: an Israelite has been calling up a dead believing ancestor and has been caught and brought before Moses for judgment.
His defense: I was dulia-ing my ancestor, not latria-ing him.
Is it your position that he would be exonerated? Should he be?

Rhology said...

Please address the issue of proskinsis.

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.



You will have no hope of understanding Orthodox teaching if you are looking at it from a Protestant framework and assumptions

So explain it in a rational or biblical way. 1 Peter 3:15, you know? I'm asking you for a reason for the hope (ie, the hope that you can be good enough to achieve theosis partly thru your own works, which isn't much of a hope, but I digress) that lies within you.



It seems you are not interested in understanding and dialogue with respect but only to convert us because our faith and practices don't make sense in within your framework and assumptions.

And given your clumsy questions about the OT above, it seems you are not interested in understanding and dialogue with respect but only to convert us because our faith and practices don't make sense in within your framework and assumptions.
In other words, this is a throwaway statement.


that they would paganism influence their worship.

You can say that all you want, but it looks the same. What's the difference?



Obedience to our elders is only to the extent that they are consistent to Christ. Primarily that their teaching is consistent with the Scriptures

1) Given your utter ignorance of Hebrews, I doubt you're qualified to make that kind of statement stick.
2) Do you propose to tell me that you can judge your church in the light of Scripture? Wouldn't that be a fallible private individual telling the authoritative apostolic church and the successors of the apostles that they've got it wrong?



Sacred Tradition is not brought about by the elders but passed on by them just as the Scriptures are.

Sure it is brought about by them! Who were Irenaeus, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, etc, but elders and teachers of their own generation? SOME OF what they wrote and what you claim they said is passed on as authoritative, and the parts that don't agree with the contemporary church's dogma are jettisoned. But there is NO doubt that they make little-t tradition as well as big-S Sacred big-A Apostolic big-T Tradition. Don't patronise me, please.



Tradition is never contrary to Scripture and it is a canon with which we measure things, like you do.

I'm sorry, but you are either lying to me or are very ignorant. Please supply me with even a fallible (never mind infallible) canon of Sacred Apostolic Tradition, with definite, concrete, recognisable boundaries.



you consider yourself infallible then how do you know that you understand Scripture as the Apostles understood it?

Another elementary, throwaway 'argument'.
Unless you consider yourself infallible then how do you know that you understand Sacred Apostolic Tradition as the Apostles understood it? Unless you consider yourself infallible then how do you know that you understand what the EOC says as the clergy understood it?

Rhology said...

How do you know your interpretation is correct rather than another's? It is a great help to read the commentaries of the Fathers to see what they so

How do you know your interpretation of the Fathers is correct rather than another's?



Can you prove that Ignatius was not inspired? Why not?

Prove a universal negative? I prefer to deal with what it is sure that God has said and go ahead and take Jesus' example that we "not exceed what is written" (1 Cor 2) and judge all so-called traditions in light of Scr (Mark 7:1-13). You can have those idle wanderings of mind, and I'll take the sure Word of God.



If we say that one is a heretic, I think you will see the good reasons why.

Naked assertion. Judging potential tradition by the light of all formerly-potential-but-now-approved tradition is just an exercise in navel-gazing.



The heretics that are well off mark, I am sure that you would agree are not believing any Christianity that you would recognise.

I'm sorry you're having trouble following my arguments. this has nothing to do with me. I judge EVERYTHING by Scripture. Unfortunately, by your own confession that option is not open to you, so I'm telling you that you SHOULD go Sola Scriptura, if for no other reason than to escape the mess you're in.



From all historical accounts and evidence, it is not like what modern Baptists are today

So? I just go with what the Bible says.



The issue is that when Christ is speaking of eating His Body and drinking His blood, he meant it plainly as He said

1) And did He mean it when He said John 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst"?
2) Where's the argument that this is a Eucharistic teaching? Had He already introduced the Eucharist as a sacrament?



There are many paradoxes and it is difficult not to end up contradicting oneself when we are too narrow in interpreting a particular text. \

1) Which is why I read carefully and subject all my reasoning to the Scr.
2) At least the Scr never actually contradicts, unlike Sacred Apostolic Tradition.



Scripture is clear that not everything Christ said was written down and that traditions were both written and oral, thus not everything was in the written Scriptures.

Please prove that what the Bible says was passed on as oral tradition is different in content from that which was passed on in writing.



The Orthodox Church has always known its existence, so it cannot reject it.

That's a pity - the EOC can only self-correct so far before it runs facefirst into the wall of its own making. That's no way to submit to what God said.

Monk Patrick said...

Rhology,

Firstly, have you read the essay that I suggested and that you said you would? And have you read the passage of Basil the Great?

You asked for evidence and then simply refused to believe it when provided. What evidence were you expecting to be given on a blog? Why ask if you are not ready or able to accept it? Regarding the miracles being demonic please read the Scriptures regarding the replies to the Jews who accused Christ of the same.

Monk Patrick said...

Thank you for agreeing that the coming of Christ means that we no longer follow the OT commandments literally nor exactly but we interpret them as fulfilled in Christ. This applies also to the commandment concerning images. You already accept making the image of Christ contrary to the first part of the command and you accept the principle that the second part of the command, concerning veneration, can also be seen anew in Christ, which means taking a qualified or spiritual meaning rather than necessarily the plain literal meaning. So, from a principles of interpreting the OT as a Christian, which you acknowledge, you cannot argue that the OT command forbids veneration of icons unless you can prove that it cannot be given a qualified nor spiritualised meaning in Christ. You would have to find that command in the NT for it to be still binding without qualification.

Regarding the OT words latreia and douleo. I said that we do neither to icons so the commandments are irrelevant to the issue. The only command that is relevant is the one forbidding proskinsis and latreia. I am saying that you confuse latreia and douleo with proskinsis. You may argue want you want about the meaning but you are arguing against the Greeks, whose language this is, so effectively arguing that they don't understand their own language. This is not a tenable position.

Prokinisis is not just kissing but points to all acts of reverence including kissing, bowing, and placing/holding in an honourable position. None of these this is considered latreia or doulea, which imply sacrifice and service. Incense is offered and candles/lamps lit, continuing legitimate OT practices, to God and are used to honour His presence in man because man is in the image of God, the Gospels, and the Holy of Holies within each Christian temple. If you respect your national flag and are offended when it is desecrated then you accept that honour can pass through an image to the person (or persons) which it represents. This is an intuitive human understanding because in most cultures we see the burning of effigies and flags as means of venting anger on a person (or persons), or a similar use of images for honouring or dishonouring.

I repeat that saints are living and not dead. I cannot accept your position that they are dead people. This is contrary to Scripture and based on human observation not Scripture. I would say the same even as a Sola Scripture Protestant; it is not good exegesis.

Monk Patrick said...

We cannot achieve Theosis by being good enough through our own works. It is by grace through faith. We must accept God's righteousness as our own which is not some legal status but a life of real acts of righteousness. Be holy, for I am holy; means a real free choice and a real free work of each person because this must be assumed else it is meaningless to give a commandment. Unless, we manifest such acts or works, which are both of God and of us, then our faith is dead and we are not progressing to Theosis. Faith alone does not justify man.

The difference between pagan and Christian practice is not in the form of what is done but to whom it is directed. Please list those supposed pagan practices of Orthodox Christians that are not found being approved in the worship of the OT, excepting the veneration of icons and honouring of the Saints, which are the points of dispute.

We are each responsible for our own faith and as such we either accept or reject the claims of a particular group on whatever grounds we wish. This does not mean picking our own beliefs but accepting one package or another that has been passed down to us. I would only hesitate to agree with an elder where I think that he is speaking contrary to the tradition, which we both have accepted, not contrary to my own opinion. Even then, formal condemnation is only made in council so that it is not the single opinion of one but the consensus of a number, with appeals available to wider authorities.

The very few parts of the teachings of the early Fathers that were not accepted were parts that were not in keeping with the teaching held by others at that time. Later, the Fathers had to make a call on which line of teaching was consistent to orthodox teaching from the beginning. Orthodox did not and do not constantly change doctrine and change Fathers nor what is accepted from the Fathers. It neither does nor can work in such a manner unlike the potential in the Roman Papacy. There simply is not the co-ordinated and centralised leadership among the Orthodox churches with the authority to impose such changes. The churches remain together because they agree to a common tradition and this goes back each generation to the Apostles; the system of organisation has remained the same.

The doctrines and canons of the Ecumenical Councils provide the canon of Sacred Tradition for which you are asking. They provide the definite, concrete, recognisable boundaries of Sacred Tradition.

I have a great number of authorities sharing the same opinion about the understanding of Scripture with whom to check my own understanding. If I diverge from this then I know that I am probably mistaken. You can accept no authorities, so you have no formal rule to protect you from deceit. I cannot dismiss the witness of the Fathers because I am obliged to follow them except where a particular Father is shown to be inconsistent with the other Fathers.

While we can go into potential infinite spiral of levels of understanding, the point is that Orthodox have a formal structure of formally recognised Fathers with whom we share the Faith. The chances of being mislead into false positions are much less but this is not to say that it cannot happen. It is not an infallible position but one which is far safer than your own and recognises our weaknesses and is based on the belief that Christ has always remained with the Church and the Holy Spirit has led us into the whole Truth by continually inspiring Fathers. You seem to reject this Scripture and you cannot accept yourself as inspired and guided by the Spirit, if you cannot recognise this in others.

"Exceed what is written"? Where and how? Paul does not specify. As most Holy Tradition is now written down somewhere, one does not exceed "what is written."

Monk Patrick said...

If you were going by what the Bible says then you would be doing the same things as those Christians did in the early church, who understood the writings of the Apostles first hand and still had the Apostles around or their disciples to ensure that they understood it correctly. Historical evidence shows that you are not doing so, which implies that you are either not doing what the Bible says or you are following your own opinion on what the Bible says, and falling into the group that Peter highlights in 2 Peter 3:16.

Christ presents the truth of Himself being genuine food and drink that is necessary for our life; and with which we will no longer hunger and thirst. Latter He establishes the Eucharist as the means through which we partake of Him and this is done is the context of His sacrifice. The parallels between the texts are make it clear that He is talking about the same thing.

If you do not know what Sacred Tradition is then how can you claim that it contradicts? Demonstrate it. The oral traditions were consistent with the Scriptures but that included elements about communal prayer and worship, baptism, organisation, the ministry, which are not found in the NT collection of canonical texts but are often found in other canonical texts, such as the Apostolic Canons, which are also recognised inspired writings. They were not considered appropriate for public proclamation in the NT but provided for Bishops to guide them in organising worship, and communities. Paul would not have referred to both written and oral traditions if they did not contain different content from each other; it would have been redundant to the point he was making.

Rhology said...

have you read the essay that I suggested and that you said you would

I seem to recall reading sthg at your request. Please relink to it so I can say for sure.


And have you read the passage of Basil the Great?

Why would I bother? It's always good to increase one's knowledge, but in this case you should know that Basil the Great is not an authority in any way. He has value only insofar that he exposits the Scripture correctly.



You asked for evidence and then simply refused to believe it when provided.

And gave reasons. I commend the practice to you.



Regarding the miracles being demonic please read the Scriptures regarding the replies to the Jews who accused Christ of the same.

Haven't you read that Christ also warned us about false prophets and performers of false signs to deceive, if possible, even the elect?
My challenge remains.



This applies also to the commandment concerning images.

Please prove it. Quote Scr. Quote Hebrews, in particular, which would be great.
In fact, quote ANYwhere in the NT where idols and icons are dealt with.



You already accept making the image of Christ contrary to the first part of the command

??? It's precisely b/c I DON'T consider that to be a violation of the 2nd commandment that I think it's OK to make an image of Christ, as long as you don't worship it.



unless you can prove that it cannot be given a qualified nor spiritualised meaning in Christ

What did you have in mind? I can be very specific about what I was saying b/c Hebrews is. Where does the NT help you?



. I said that we do neither to icons so the commandments are irrelevant to the issue.

And I've already asked you at least twice to demonstrate how what you do is different. It looks the same. How is it different?
(And don't say "intention".)



the Greeks, whose language this is, so effectively arguing that they don't understand their own language.

1) Who says they took a look at that issue?
2) Iconoclastic writings were largely destroyed. Who says that wasn't mentioned but then destroyed?
3) Tradition can be very powerful. Many ppl ignore facts for the sake of tradition.



Prokinisis is not just kissing but points to all acts of reverence including kissing, bowing, and placing/holding in an honourable position

But in a RELIGIOUS CONTEXT. that's always been my point, and so far nobody has dealt with that. You always reduce to picking it apart and taking just one or two elements of my entire argument and saying "that's no big deal!" You're clearly afraid of the argument, since you won't touch it.



If you respect your national flag and are offended when it is desecrated then you accept that honour can pass through an image to the person (or persons) which it represents.

And so what? I think God's probably aware of that too, and yet He commanded us not to bow down to images. Simple as that.

Rhology said...

I repeat that saints are living and not dead

They're dead TO US. Alive in Christ, yes, but not accessible to us. You prove that every time you PRAY INAUDIBLY to them. To which living person do you PRAY INAUDIBLY?



We cannot achieve Theosis by being good enough through our own works...Unless, we manifest such acts or works, which are both of God and of us, then our faith is dead and we are not progressing to Theosis. Faith alone does not justify man.

You give with one hand and take with the other. I'm sorry you don't recognise how you're self-contradictory within the same paragraph.



The difference between pagan and Christian practice is not in the form of what is done but to whom it is directed.

-Scenario: an Israelite has been calling up a dead believing ancestor and has been caught and brought before Moses for judgment.
His defense: I was dulia-ing my ancestor, not latria-ing him.
Is it your position that he would be exonerated? Should he be?



Please list those supposed pagan practices of Orthodox Christians that are not found being approved in the worship of the OT

Bowing down to, kissing, lighting incense before, and praying inaudibly to pictures of dead people.
You know, I was a missionary to Japan for a while. What you do is indistinguishable from what the Shinto pagans do before their altars of their dead ancestors/relatives every day. Prove how it's different (and don't say "intention") (don't say "to whom it's directed" either, b/c you don't pray to GOD, you're praying to dead people).



I would only hesitate to agree with an elder where I think that he is speaking contrary to the tradition, which we both have accepted

So you'd correct your leader. So you're not really in submission to him.
You sound like your strawman caricature of a Protestant. Only when it's convenient for you, though, whereas I strive to be consistent at all times.



Orthodox did not and do not constantly change doctrine and change Fathers nor what is accepted from the Fathers.

Sure you do! Some in your church thought Arius was a great guy, and an authority to be cited. More of you decided that's a no-go and so you booted the Arians out. To claim victory for "orthodoxy" based on "tradition" is simply to beg the question.



The doctrines and canons of the Ecumenical Councils provide the canon of Sacred Tradition for which you are asking.

What is the exact list, please?
(Remember, I'm asking you for it b/c you ripped my position for not having one. I'm simply returning the favor and showing that you can't provide what you claim I need.)



You can accept no authorities, so you have no formal rule to protect you from deceit.

Does your monastery give classes on strawmen? Or did you learn this valuable skill all by yourself?



While we can go into potential infinite spiral of levels of understanding, the point is that Orthodox have a formal structure of formally recognised Fathers with whom we share the Faith.

While we can go into potential infinite spiral of levels of understanding, the point is that Reformed have a formal structure of formally recognised Scripture with whom we share the Faith. The chances of being misled into false positions are much less but this is not to say that it cannot happen. It is not an infallible position but one which is far safer than your own and recognises our weaknesses and is based on the belief that Christ has always remained with the Church and the Holy Spirit has led us into the whole Truth by continually illuminating hearts to read and understand the Scripture.

BTW, you think that Fathers are also "inspired"? Like, their writings are theopneustos, on the same level as Scripture?

Rhology said...

"Exceed what is written"? Where and how?

Oops, it was 1 Cor 4.
5Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men’s hearts; and then each man’s praise will come to him from God.
6Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other. 7For who regards you as superior? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?

And here you are claiming Fathers are "inspired", much later than Paul. I'd say you're exceeding what's written quite a bit.




If you were going by what the Bible says then you would be doing the same things as those Christians did in the early church

What a coincidence! I DO do that. I submit all things, all traditions, to the apostolic teaching found in the Scr.
I also recognise that the apostles spent around half their time and letters correcting heresies and errors in the early churches. Romans, 1&2 Cor, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1&2 tim, Titus, Jude, 1-3 John, Hebrews, Rev 1-3 were written for that purpose. So I go ahead and judge all by Scr. I commend the practice to you.



Historical evidence shows that you are not doing so,

Or maybe I submit historical "evidence" to Scripture, and if it's wanting, it's wanting.



If you do not know what Sacred Tradition is then how can you claim that it contradicts?

1) If you do not know what Sacred Tradition is then how can you claim that it is consistent? Show me your canon!
2) I can know what individual EOx say is ST, so I can deal with that particular claim with that particular person.
3) take a look at this.

Monk Patrick said...

I was not asking you to read St Basil as an authority but because speaks very well on the matter, which we are discussing. He also sets out a good number of parts of the unwritten tradition, which you want me to show you. So, please read him.

Here is the link to the Icons essay:

http://sacredtraditions.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/icons/

Attributing evidence to demons in not a sufficient reason, unless you can prove demonic activity on grounds other than the miracle does not support your choice of doctrine. I provided the evidence of miracles and you attributed them to demons. There is nothing more to say in that regard other than the fruits of the lives of those affected by the miracles or who are the guardians of a miraculous icons are those recorded in Scripture as being from the Holy Spirit. If you wish to attribute these fruits to demons fell free but Scripture says that a bad tree does not yield good fruit.

Why is making an icon not in itself a violation of the second command? It is clear that we are not to make any images. Exodus 20:4. The text does not say you can make images but not bow down nor worship them. You are inconsistent.

I assume that the entire debate at hand is about the religious context. How do you mean that no-one had dealt about that with you? It is surely the central theme of the whole debate.

The so what of the flag is that honouring an icon of Christ is to honour the person of Christ, who is divine and so one is honouring God. (Your answer indicates that you accept this point.) Reading the command carefully one can see that God forbids honouring images that directs honour to another apart from Him because He is a jealous God. Making images is not a moral issue and is not forbidden in itself because God commanded them to be created of cherubim. Also, worship and bowing down are not prohibited in themselves as is clear in the Psalms and NT. Only making images of things that are not God, or not connected to God, and bowing down to and worshipping these images is forbidden. So, if you honour an image of Christ and so you honour God then this is not forbidden by the command when understanding its purpose. The Saints are in God and so honour to them is not apart from God but goes to God, there is no reason for Him to be jealous of this, especially considering that He is not jealous to share His reign with us and call us His sons. The Son is not jealous of other sons. Hence, honouring images of Saints is also not forbidden by the purpose of the commandment.

Monk Patrick said...

Audible or inaudible prayer is irrelevant. We may communicate by writing, which is inaudible, but that does not mean that we are dead. How communication takes place is irrelevant. The fact that God calls them living means that they can communicate and not only among themselves but with us also. To live is to relate to God and to other men, it is not to God alone because Christ adds immediately after the command to love God to also love our neighbours because the two are inseparable.

Your evidence of pagan practice was not something other than the point of dispute. Please try again.

Read Volume 14 of the Second Series of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series. You can find this online. The whole volume contains a vast portion of Sacred Tradition in terms of its canons and definitions of Faith.

The scenario that you raised about Moses is irrelevant because it is before Christ's incarnation because this changes how the law works. If you believe it is relevant then please explain why. If it is only about latreia and doulea then there is no point. You keep saying that we give latreia and doulea to icons because that is what you think these words mean. I told you that we do not and this is not the meaning of the words in a religious context that are understood by Greek speakers. I have defined the terms, so you know what I mean. You cannot define a foreign legal word and then charge those foreigners for not obeying your interpretation when they tell you that is not what the word means.

Please describe the straw man that I set up and then explain why it is not an adequate description of you.

The Holy Scriptures are a set canon of Apostolic writings which were accepted as genuine. As such it is a closed canon. This does not mean that other writers are not equally inspired even if we do not include their writings in the Scriptures often we read them with the Scriptures, such as the Holy Canons and definitions of Faith buy the Councils or by recognised Fathers.

Paul does say which writing that we are not to exceed, only to not exceed what is written in order to curb pride. We cannot definitely read much more out of this text. Neither can we can say that later Fathers did exceed what was written, if we mean by this consistency and not literally only the words written on some undefined page, which, by the way, Paul himself contradicted by continuing to write material in that letter and later letters that cannot be traced as OT quotes.

Do you submit to all things in the NT Scriptures both personally and corporately in your parish? Please list a few.

Why do you care about obeying the OT in any case? Are you under the law? Are you not saved by faith alone? Are you not free under the Gospel? Are we not so also? What right have you to judge us on our actions? Are you our master? Do we not believe in Jesus? Do we not have a personal faith with Him? Do we not confess Him as Lord? Why are you placing other requirements of salvation on us? All things are lawful to us.