More on Energetic Procession about icons and authority

Perry Robinson probably has other stuff going on, but some other commenters have taken up common cause with him and been questioning me.  The comments start here.

Here is my reply:

Hi Fr Dcn Patrick (Monk Patrick),

They are only dead in the flesh but otherwise alive.

And yet God makes that distinction too, and tells us not to practice communication with those who’ve passed on. Let God worry about communicating with them, since they’re alive TO HIM, but not to YOU.

Have you considered that being alive incorporates the ability to relate to others and to communicate, without which there is no meaning to being alive?

And yet you have no evidence, whether pragmatic or biblical, that dead ppl can indeed relate to the living or communicate with them.
And a lot of evidence to the contrary, including God’s repeated warnings not to communicate with them. Like I said, I presume He’s got that covered and doesn’t need my help.

Have you considered that communication does not have to be merely through physical means picked up by the senses?

Tell that to all the RCs and EOx who like to make the argument “So what’s the diff between prayer to the dead and asking intercession of the living saints in our church?” I’m glad to hear someone more reasonable like you on this point.

What does alive in Christ mean? Alive in Christ means that you share His life in and with Him.

Yep. And yet it doesn’t necessarily mean you walk and talk on THIS EARTH. It could mean you’re in Paradise/Heaven, and that means your physical body is (for the moment) dead, and God told us not to talk to those ppl. Why would you? Plenty of ppl in your church who are still alive, and Christ Himself is infinite! Yet you insist on talking to ppl who are obviously dead and making excuses for your sin.

To honour the Saints in Him is to honour Christ,

Actually, God doesn’t really agree.
Isaiah 42:8 “I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images.”

I was referring to the theological debates of the eighth and ninth centuries not to the old Testament commandments.

OK, but I’m referring to the OT. You know, what God said. I don’t care much about 8th century stuff when we need to get to the bottom of what God said.

Please point to texts where it says to reverence God alone.

The point over and over again is not to worship or serve idols.
Here – I’ve already written on this.

It is not right (~97% is not right) by your own testimony thus it is heresy by the thought of this commentator.

Oh wow! A Protestant commentator said sthg that is wrong! SHOCK of shocks.
One wonders where he’d find a church that is 100% right.

1 Tim 3:15 taking into account 1 John 2:21

1 Tim 3: 15 but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth
1 Jn 2:21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth.

A pillar and support holds sthg else up – the Scripture, in this case.
Anyway, did not John also write 1 John 1: 8 “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us”?
Presumably you think EOC is 100% right on everythg. If that’s the case, please adjudicate between each of these two warring factions in EOC and tell us who is right, and most importantly, how you know. Thanks!

The Father’s are not chosen arbitrarily so that cuts the circularity on your argument.

I’m sorry (but not surprised) you can’t see it, but naked assertions aren’t particularly helpful.
That whole paragraph was just more circular reasoning, and didn’t prove anythg. Sorry.

There were different lists of Canonical Scripture written by different Fathers in the past.

So which one was right, and how do you know? You were just telling me that anythg less than 100% is unacceptable, and now you want me to swallow “they’re close, and vary by only a few books here and there”? Answer the problem, tell us for sure which ones were right and wrong, and how you know.

You have not demonstrated in your response that you have read Hebrews 13:7-9 with the care that warranted the reason to reference it.

7 Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith. 8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. 9 Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings; for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, through which those who were so occupied were not benefited.

I do remember those who’ve led me. They’re my church elders, and I see them every Sunday.
I also imitate their faith and action.
We don’t hold to a Jesus Who gets eaten and drunk, but rather One Who is actually the same yesterday, today, and forever.
I’m not carried away by innovations, b/c I test everythg by the light of what God has revealed in Scripture.
I don’t practice compulsory fasting, unlike (in practice) EOC.
Looks like YOU’RE the one reading not too carefully. Show me in the text where “those who spoke the word of God to you” = “the early church writers whose writings agree best with our doctrine, whom we accept”.

Elders or teachers either Abbots or Bishops), or Fathers, from generation to generation (does Paul intend this process to last only one generation, if so why?)

No, ELDERS AND TEACHERS are meant to pass on a la 2 Tim 2:2. He doesn’t say anythg about infallibility, however, nor about apostolicity. Watch out for equivocation, no matter how many other EOx run off the cliff before you.

Androgen,
Thanks for your unsupported opinion.

mome,

Forgive me if I was patronizing. That wasn’t my intent in writing about the meaning of prayer

Apology accepted. I hope you’ll make it stick by actually engaging my real objection instead of breaking it up and making me look like I think, say, lighting candles is a bad thing.

I see the distinction you mean to make when you say that it’s untrue to say that Christ WAS eternally the God-man, but it is false.

So Jesus HAS ALWAYS BEEN the God-man? The Incarnation is not an event in time?
You’ve got some problems here…

It is incorrect Christology to understand the Word as ever anything other than the incarnate, crucified and risen Jesus Christ.

Now all you need is an argument.
Now, THIS statement is correct: It is incorrect Christology to understand the Word as, from the point of the Crucifixion on, anything other than the incarnate, crucified and risen Jesus Christ, or from the Incarnation on anything other than the incarnate Jesus Christ, the 2nd person of the Trinity.
But you’re assigning “crucifiED and risEN” before He was crucified or risen. That’s the disconnect.

Eternity doesn’t admit stages of being or becoming.

It’s funny that most EOx have a hard time verbalising their doctrines, retreating to “mystery” all the time with their apophaticism. Maybe this is why – you’re not allowing enough mystery to the Incarnation. How did the eternal God enter into flesh, time, and matter? I don’t know, but I do know one thing – He did so. You need a bigger dose of mystery.

“In the beginning” is a reference to time, the beginning of time, the beginning of creation.

And the Bible uses it multiple times, in reference to the Logos and God’s action in creation.

However, the incarnate Christ has returned to his Father, as incarnate. His crucified and resurrected flesh is now eternal,

Are you using arguments about His nature and state of existence INTO THE FUTURE as justification for reading events that happened in His incarnate life on Earth back into His existence before all that happened? Why would you do that? Is it b/c you don’t have an argument?

Of course, while on earth, Christ as a man moved through time, and events in his earthly life have a temporal “location.”

And of course, since He retains a physical body now and forevermore, Jesus *still* has a temporal and physical location.

The lamb is slain “from the foundation of the world.” The interpretation you offer, that this indicates that his death was planned from the beginning, does not match what the verse actually says.

Thank you for your opinion. Now please offer an argument.

Such a notion is not wrong as far as it goes, but the way you are using it is slightly reminiscent of platonic idealism

I doubt you have any idea what that means; you just like to throw it out there b/c it’s popular among EOx to say “Platonic”. Read Acts 2:23 and get back to me.

God’s foreknowledge and plan is not a knowledge of things that God has yet to witness coming to pass.

That’s rich, coming from an EOx to a Calvinist.
Of course, I never said that it’s “knowledge of things that God has yet to witness”; that would be totally against my view.

Book XI of Augustine’s “Confessions” might provide some decent grist for the mill.

Perry tells me not to trust Augustine. But you’re recommending him? How can I know whom to trust?

Well, first off, I don’t consider my motivations to be “pure.”

Good first step. How about just offering your worship and prayer to God, then?

First, in Moses’ time, the dead were in Sheol and were not accessible to those living on earth except in certain God-deigned cases.

And now the dead are in Hades or Paradise and are not accessible to those living on earth except in certain God-deigned cases.

The Orthodox, however, are not conjuring the dead; they are living in the reality of the Church brought about by the advent of Pentecost.

That’s nothing more than fancy wordplay. Of course you’re COMMUNICATING with the dead. Deal with what you actually do. See, here you’re back to patronising not only me but all the other Reformed critics of EO necromancy that are reading this. It’s disrespectful for those of us who’ve witnessed EO practice with our own eyes and who are concerned for your very souls.

In that reality, all those in Christ, those alive on earth today and those who have fallen asleep, share one life, which is that of the Holy Spirit

What makes you think that the OT reality is so diff than the reality of today? Were not the dead “alive in God” then?

Peter, Paul, Maximos the Confessor? Yes, they have died to this life, which is really something that happened when they died with Christ in baptism, but they are not “dead.”

They’re not “dead”? Where do they live, then?
Haha, trick question – they don’t LIVE anywhere. They’re DEAD, their bodies have rotted in the grave. God has not resurrected them yet.

There is no other life.

EOx are fond of accusing the Reformed of being Docetists, but this is far more Docetistic than anything I’ve ever even gotten *close* to saying.

The command is there because the idols aren’t gods at all.

And are the saints gods at all? What about angels?

No Orthodox makes the claim that any saint is God or equal to God

Aaron didn’t claim that for the Golden Calf.
Nor did the Israelites that worshiped Nehushtan.
Your distinction is not God’s.

ioannis,

You’d asked: “Where does God say that He disapproves of making icons of Himself?”
That’s where it all began. “Of Himself” is not specific enough to be useful, so that’s why I quoted 1 Tim 6.

That means that you do not believe Christ as God.

Hopefully you’ll understand better now. You should know better than to say that.

That fact and your interpretation of 1 Tim 6 confirmed to me your judaism.

Now you’re just being idiotic, sorry. You know, I have a 4-yr old blog with 1000s 100s of posts, and thus a massive paper trail. You’re engaging in willful ignorance. Have a good day.