More on Energetic Procession about icons and authority - 4

Continuing with Monk Patrick:

From the essay:
Also, the reason used to deny icons would also mean the denial of the Incarnation. How so? The iconoclasts assume that it is the nature that is portrayed in the icon and that the icon can only represent Christ if both His natures are somehow represented on the icon because he has two natures

Since I deny neither the Incarnation, nor the Hypostatic Union, nor the permissibility to make an image of Jesus in His Incarnation (whereas it IS impermissible to bow down to it and give it religious piety), hopefully you'll commendably break ranks with your other EO brethren and no longer use the idiotic claim that I somehow deny the Incarnation b/c I reject icons.  To do so would be the only honest thing to do, since the arguments I'm using are not cited at this point (or actually, anywhere) in the essay. 
Interestingly, that's exactly what Perry Robinson is doing when he asks whether Thomas' worship of Jesus was "passed on to the divine person".  One hopes (probably in vain) that you'll correct him on that. 



However, Christ and His icon receive the same veneration because they have the same hypostasis even though there is a difference in essence

Here the author jumps to this conclusion w/o the necessary adjoining argument.  Where's the argument that ANY image is due veneration?



This would support then the position of St Theodore that prototypes have an image and the necessity that that image is displayed.

Now you're getting into Platonic realms.  Let me also recommend an essay to you.



Thus, Christ is present in His icon not in essence but in His energies.

Asserted but not argued-for.




the main cause of Protestant iconoclasm may be explained with the association of revelation of the Word with Scripture and hence the impossibility of using images.

No, the main cause is b/c Scripture tells us not to use them in worshipful piety.  So we don't.  Simple as that. 

All in all, an essay that misses the point.  Thanks for the link though.



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.

1) Please provide an argument why it is not sufficient reason.
2) Demonic activity is identified in the Scr in many ways, not least of which is provoking ppl to sinful and idolatrous activities in collusion with groups that deny the Gospel.  Um, yeah, that would be EOC.
3) Category error - you pejoratively describe as "your choice of doctrine" what Scripture actually teaches.  This shows no recognition of the fact the Scripture means things, since words mean things.  If I identify and submit to what Scr teaches, that's hardly "my choice".



I provided the evidence of miracles and you attributed them to demons

I was granting you the miraculous for the sake of argument and asking you to prove that they came from God, not from demons.  Your response so far is indignity, but that's not my problem. 



If you wish to attribute these fruits to demons fell free but Scripture says that a bad tree does not yield good fruit.

1) Good trees don't yield sinful activities such as worshiping pictures of dead ppl.
2) Good trees don't yield sinful activities such as ascribing to a false Gospel.
3) You've not yet made the connection you need to make between the fact of "the icon is weeping myrrh" to the prescriptive command, "You must bow down and worship it".  Get on it.



Exodus 20:4. The text does not say you can make images but not bow down nor worship them. You are inconsistent.

So what's your argument against that very condemnation?  I have some, but I'd like to know yours.  Unless it's "I don't care about the 2nd cmdmt", which wouldn't surprise me.
You said a little lower:  "Making images is not a moral issue and is not forbidden in itself because God commanded them to be created of cherubim."
Correct, I agree, thank you.  Done and done. 
Now, you need to move from "God commanded cherubim be made" to "God thinks it's OK to bow down to and worship pictures of dead people".  Get on it.



How do you mean that no-one had dealt about that with you?

I said it b/c no one has.  You keep dividing up the elements that I've numerous times identified as occurring ALL TOGETHER AT THE SAME TIME in EO dead-people worship.  Don't divide it all up if you think your case is so strong.



Audible or inaudible prayer is irrelevant

Sorry, it's not irrelevant.  You don't talk to other ppl INaudibly.  You talk to dead people INaudibly.  Thus you show that you recognise the diff between the living and the dead, even though you won't admit it now when it's convenient to obfuscate for the sake of the debate. 



The fact that God calls them living means that they can communicate and not only among themselves but with us also.

Please provide the backing exegesis of the relevant Scr psgs to substantiate this.




Read Volume 14 of the Second Series of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series.

Why would I do that?  What specifically is it answering?



The scenario that you raised about Moses is irrelevant because it is before Christ's incarnation because this changes how the law works.

You who've shown no familiarity with the Epistle to the Hebrews are hardly in a position to tell me that "this changes how the law works". 
Exegesis, please.  Show me where the NT says it's in fact OK to worship pictures of dead people.



You keep saying that we give latreia and doulea to icons because that is what you think these words mean.

I provided plenty of exegesis here.  Anyone can see what I meant. 



The Holy Scriptures are a set canon of Apostolic writings which were accepted as genuine. As such it is a closed canon.

Bishop Kallistos Ware disagrees.  I'm going with him rather than some anonymous blog commenter.
Further, I didn't see anywhere in your comment a specific and infallible canon of Sacred Apostolic Tradition.  You claimed it exists; I'd really like to see it.  Thanks!



This does not mean that other writers are not equally inspired even if we do not include their writings in the Scriptures

If other writings are equally inspired, how is that a closed canon? What is the meaning of "canon" at all if other writings are just as breathed out by God?




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

List a few what?  I don't understand the question.



Why do you care about obeying the OT in any case? Are you under the law?

If you had any understanding of the NT presentation of one's relationship to the OT Law, you'd know that "under the law" means "under the curse of the law", ie, I am not under the curse of the law b/c I am forgiven in Christ, not by works, not by personal doing good and obeying the Law.  The law condemns me (Gal 3) but Christ forgives sinners. 
The OT moral law is still in effect.  Did you read my post on that?  Sounds like you didn't.  Read it.



Are you not saved by faith alone?

Are you so foolish as not to understand that being justified is not the only goal of the human? 



Do we not believe in Jesus?

You believe in a false Jesus, One Who communicated a flawed revelation, spoke where He in fact did not speak (ie, in "inspired" patristic writings), and Whose work on the Cross requires man's cooperation to become sufficient to save, etc. 



Do we not confess Him as Lord?

"Depart from Me; for I never knew you."