Eastern Orthodoxy

[Philothei]

The barkings of an idolatrous dog. There is One Intercessor, and this pantheonomy blasphemes His Office.

Blasphemers are the ones who do the talk and do not walk the walk ....Philothei died by the mulsims because of her faith.an innocent nun who spend all her life like Mother Teressa working with poor and orphans feeding ehem educating them etc.... ARe you so great to die by the Islamic sword?? Do you know what a Christian martydom means? She is a shiny and great example of Christian living... Why not pray to her to intercede she is in the bossom of our Lord as all our martyrs are... While in the west they spend too much time burning witches (innocent people) in the middle ages....those were wonderful Christian example to emmulate ...

who was the blasphemer then?]

 

[Philothei]

Do the Orthodox think the Mosaic Covenant was iconoclastic? Was than an aberration of Judaism, or was it consistent with the Commandments, or what status did iconoclasm have in Mosaic Judaism?

Put it simple... icons are teaching tools to some degree. They teach the basics of our religion. i.e. the parables or feast and historical events i.e the 'Victory of the icons". The law displayed such as the mosaic law I do not believe it is iconoclastic.... IMO and plus I need more clarification...

For example Jews have the Shema on their door step They do not worship it is there to remind them to pray in their going in and out of their homes... Is that what you are asking? It is also a teaching tool. The Jews also cannot picture God since God is a spirit and we cannot even possibly "know" how God looks like. For it says "no one has seen God and lived". Also Moses only saw the "back of God" not the his face at the burning bush.

Idolatry refers to making our home and life into an idolater's altar....and we have... we like our electronic devices more than God etc....Christ call this generation adulterous and evil.... why are we supriced that the ones who are really idolaters call the pious idolaters? Not supriced at all. Praying with icons does not distort us but rather making idols all our conforts does.... and shifts our focus not to God but to the idol...

Instead, look for the ones who bear fruit and by that you will know them... sprititual fruit that is....


God bless,
Philothei

 

[Rick Otto]

For it says "no one has seen God and lived". Also Moses only saw the "back of God" not the his face at the burning bush.

News to me, nevertheless, the "back of God" is still God.
Splitting invisible hairs.

 

[SaintPhotios]

And you do have to, or at least, you should be able to admit that statury & iconography are "acquired tastes", not positively exampled in scripture, yes?

Not exactly, as I said before, there were pictures of cherubim sown into the curtains of the tabernacle. And archealogical digs show the churches of the first and second centuries had images in churches of the Apostolic age. I will admit that examples are rare, because the actual methods of worship are rarely gone into indepth in Scripture. But at the same time, there's no specific example of infant baptism in Scripture, yet both Orthodox and Calvinists subscribe to that and it's merely part of a larger theological attitude.

As the volume of interpretational words hits Orthodox listeners, what happens? Does some uniform, unique interpretation strike them all at once? I would say no, it doesn't. I've already cited a number of cases on Soteriology threads where quite a variety of views are embraced among the Orthodox. Essentially the Orthodox individual is not Orthodox in theology.

The deliverance of doctrine from the Church to the laymen is a continuous practice that is very detailed and with no room for error on dogmatic issues. Now, where the Church has not spoken on issues, Orthodox believers are allowed to hold their own private theological opinions, or theologumena. If the Church hasn't spoken explicitly and formed a doctrine about a particular issue, then holding your own idea about it cannot be deemed heresy, and you're free to do so. The late Fr. Seraphim Rose espoused a rather controversial toll house theory about the afterlife. Many Orthodox Christians disagree with his position, but many think he was correct. But the Church has not spoken on that issue, so he is free to espouse that believe, and Orthodox believers are free to accept it or reject it accordingly.

Over the course of history different councils have come to differing conclusions. The use of "homoousios" as heretical in one century, followed by the use of "homoousios" as orthodox in the next, lays the first claim to that history being -- at best subtle, at worst defying reliability.

The use of homoousios(same substance) was settled at the Council of Nicaea and formed the Nicene Creed. The only use of homoiousios (like substance) was used in Arian circles and local synods such as the early local Antiochian Synods. These synods were not infallible and were condemned by Nicaea. So I fail to see the problem here.

Calvinists concentrate on the fact that persons come to Christ, not churches.

I understand that, it's just that Orthodoxy views the Church as the Body of Christ.... and the distinction between the visible Church and invisible Church was a later innovation of the Reformation made necessary by the various divisions.

To say authorities don't exist in Protestantism is to ignore the obvious. We have authorities. They're authorities by their knowledge and learning, their talent and expertise, who have reached such positions by their credibility, not by their succession.

When I say authority, I'm not speaking in the practical sense. Yes... you have people that are in charge, but that's not what I mean by authority. When I say Protestantism has no authorities, I mean sola scriptura eliminates any authorities to determine interpretation of Scripture. Any authorities there are that settle interpretation disputes are only such authorities regarding Calvinistic ecclecialogical views, and philosophically opposes sola scriptura.

Authority without accuracy really yields little better than the Protestant model

Again..... this is begging the question, circular reasoning.... this is becoming a trend on this discussion, and I can't tell you what to do, but it's just really hurting the discussion when I have to object to these logical fallacy arguments against Orthodoxy.

Are individuals saved, or the church tradition?
If it's not relevant to the salvation of the person receiving it, how can it be a substantive argument for the Orthodox Church?

The Church is saved. The Church is the Body of Christ, and only those within it will be saved. We have one faith by which we are saved. So the teaching of the Church, the one faith, is certainlly relevant to salvation.

So if someone expressed the sentiment (here) that they felt icons were barriers to faith, you could find him an iconoclastic church within Orthodoxy? Or would you determine that icons are necessary, and not artificial, notwithstanding the lack of information from the Apostles in this matter?

We would determine that icons are not artificial barriers, but supplement the faith. Neither the Apostles, nor Christ, spoke to every single aspect of the faith. The faith was handed down through the years, and continuously will be.

Do the Orthodox think the Mosaic Covenant was iconoclastic? Was than an aberration of Judaism, or was it consistent with the Commandments, or what status did iconoclasm have in Mosaic Judaism?

No... it wasn't iconoclastic. First of all, the Commandment specifically mentions heaven, earth, sea, etc. God seems to be pointing out the type of worship the Israelites encountered in their pagan neighbors like [FONT='Arial','sans-serif']Egypt[FONT='Arial','sans-serif'], Babylonia, Philistia, Canaan, etc. In other words, “heavens,” meaning astrology, “earth,” meaning animism and nature worship, and “sea” meaning various forms of aquatic idolatry, such as Nile worship. So, God is not railing against the inherent evil of an image, but against the practices of the Israelite neighbors[/FONT] Secondly, God had not revealed himself in form at that point in time. So it would make sense that they were not to attribute form to Him at that time, Christ had not yet come and assumed form Himself. And Orthodox still do not represent God the Father icons, because God the Father has not attributed form to Himself. The only times we represent the Divinity is when the Divinity has already been attributed form..... we have images of Christ, the burning bush, the Holy Spirit in the form of tongues of fire and as a dove.... The Father has never assumed form, and therefore we do not represent Him.[/FONT]

The word "venerate" is in Hebrew a word that literally means to bow, as in to show respect or honor. And that same word is used when David bowed to Jonathan. It was done often when greeting someone as a show of honor or respect. So..... if you would argue that David was worshipping Jonathan and committing idolatry, then your accusation against Orthodox Christian might hold some weight. But otherwise, it makes no sense.

Also, if we look to Numbers..... when people were bit by snakes in the wilderness, Moses made a brass serpent.... and when people looked at it in faith, they would be healed. It seemed like this would be idolatrous if images were inherently evil. And above all else... idolatry is worship of a false God. We do not commit idolatry because we do not worship images.... we venerate. The same word for veneration was used for how people were supposed to treat the King. The people never worshiped the King, they just showed him due respect as king.


bradfordl: I didn't respond to your posts because they were one long line of begging the question/circular reasoning..... please address the relevant issues without the spurious argumentation.

 

[heymikey80]

Uh, Scripture points to Jesus as the image of the invisible God. That is, His manifestation is irony and paradox, not a reversal of God's invisibility. Scripture -- and Calvin -- don't appeal to a narrowing of reference within the 10 Commandments. As you must remember, the 10 C. were delivered before Israel entered Canaan.

Depictions of human beings qualify as images of people on land. Pharaoh would not qualify as worthy of idols in Israel.

 

[SaintPhotios]

Uh, Scripture points to Jesus as the image of the invisible God. That is, His manifestation is irony and paradox, not a reversal of God's invisibility. Scripture -- and Calvin -- don't appeal to a narrowing of reference within the 10 Commandments. As you must remember, the 10 C. were delivered before Israel entered Canaan.

Depictions of human beings qualify as images of people on land. Pharaoh would not qualify as worthy of idols in Israel.

right.... so God is visible insofar as He is represented by Christ or any of his other physical manifestations. He still hold that God is otherwise invisible and incomprehensible.

 

[heymikey80]

The use of homoousios(same substance) was settled at the Council of Nicaea and formed the Nicene Creed. The only use of homoiousios (like substance) was used in Arian circles and local synods such as the early local Antiochian Synods. These synods were not infallible and were condemned by Nicaea. So I fail to see the problem here.

The problem of course is that if you condemn enough local you'll find there's not enough left to condemn heretics like sabellians; and if you embrace enough locals you'll find there's not enough of a vocabulary to say there's an Orthodox faith explicated.

I understand that, it's just that Orthodoxy views the Church as the Body of Christ.... and the distinction between the visible Church and invisible Church was a later innovation of the Reformation made necessary by the various divisions.

Revising history as we go ... how's "City of God" faring in your reading?

It's remarkable to me how Paul can state the assertion, "Not all Israel is Israel", that "an outward Jew isn't one, but an inward", and yet his (?!) "innovation" is attributed to his interpreters 400 and 1400 years later.

When I say authority, I'm not speaking in the practical sense. Yes... you have people that are in charge, but that's not what I mean by authority. When I say Protestantism has no authorities, I mean sola scriptura eliminates any authorities to determine interpretation of Scripture. Any authorities there are that settle interpretation disputes are only such authorities regarding Calvinistic ecclecialogical views, and philosophically opposes sola scriptura.

As I've pointed out and the Reformers pointed out too, sola Scriptura doesn't eliminate these authorities. It limits them.

Human beings decide to jump further, to defy authorities all the more. That's what Luther faced within years in the serfs' rebellion in Germany. Splits are a result of rebellion against Protestant ecclesiology -- either on the part of authorities capitulating their responsibilities, or church members seeking that power for themselves. They come from people openly opposed to spiritual authority in any form, originating with the radical Reformers, traced through unitarians like Thoreau and Emerson, and out to spiritual cowboys of the present day.

I could make the exact same assertions of Christians in general, and just include you under the same label. You can express "guilt by association" in a variety of forms, but that's the logical fallacy you're working with here.

Again..... this is begging the question, circular reasoning.... this is becoming a trend on this discussion, and I can't tell you what to do, but it's just really hurting the discussion when I have to object to these logical fallacy arguments against Orthodoxy.

I would rather say it's you who are begging the question. On what basis is your claim that you're more accurate than those who strive for accuracy, and not conformity to the potentially inaccurate?

And as I say this I point it out: the Protestant magisteria often fly into this same fault. It's why I first said what I said. "Authority without accuracy really yields little better than the Protestant model." Because we're left vulnerable to falling into the trap of heritage as well as you, and then we would cease to be always reforming.

The Church is saved. The Church is the Body of Christ, and only those within it will be saved. We have one faith by which we are saved. So the teaching of the Church, the one faith, is certainlly relevant to salvation.

You don't know it all, so if teaching knowledge leads to salvation, the argument falls by its own pen.

We would determine that icons are not artificial barriers, but supplement the faith. Neither the Apostles, nor Christ, spoke to every single aspect of the faith. The faith was handed down through the years, and continuously will be.

So in your interpretation the Apostle is saying God has settled back into His old pattern of speaking? After so much greater has spoken?

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. Heb 1:1-3
​

The word "venerate" is in Hebrew a word that literally means to bow, as in to show respect or honor. And that same word is used when David bowed to Jonathan. It was done often when greeting someone as a show of honor or respect. So..... if you would argue that David was worshipping Jonathan and committing idolatry, then your accusation against Orthodox Christian might hold some weight. But otherwise, it makes no sense.

Jonathan was an image? An interesting thought, but no, it doesn't really qualify.

What is the direct thing that God is prohibiting? That people knowingly worship idols as if the idol is something? That it's OK as long as you know that the idol is not anything?

That thought was pretty strong among western polytheists around 100 BC - 300 AD, who were considered idolaters by the Jewish and later the Christians.

It isn't fitting with history.

Also, if we look to Numbers..... when people were bit by snakes in the wilderness, Moses made a brass serpent.... and when people looked at it in faith, they would be healed. It seemed like this would be idolatrous if images were inherently evil. And above all else... idolatry is worship of a false God. We do not commit idolatry because we do not worship images.... we venerate. The same word for veneration was used for how people were supposed to treat the King. The people never worshiped the King, they just showed him due respect as king.

Cool. So do you have God's command to create icons? Moses did.

What's the word for "worship" in Exodus 20 in comparison with the word you're translating, "venerate"?

 

[heymikey80]

right.... so God is visible insofar as He is represented by Christ or any of his other physical manifestations. He still hold that God is otherwise invisible and incomprehensible.

To me this implies that God has to direct us to form images for His purposes. That doesn't absolutely preclude any obeisance to derivative authorities given to us by God even. It certainly doesn't preclude God from specifying the images by which He's worshipped.

But it seems to me God ordained these images, particularly Jesus Christ, and also Jesus Christ's Church, but also the Angel of the Lord, and even lower derivative authorities as His visible representatives. Each has a different level authority, most don't deserve the worship due God, but all are designated by God.

If images are normative for use in evoking worship, I haven't seen this stated in Scripture at all?

 

[SaintPhotios]

The problem of course is that if you condemn enough local you'll find there's not enough left to condemn heretics like sabellians; and if you embrace enough locals you'll find there's not enough of a vocabulary to say there's an Orthodox faith explicated.

Okay, you're speaking in generalities... exactly which condemned local councils or embraced local councils pose a problem from Orthodoxy?

Revising history as we go ... how's "City of God" faring in your reading?
It's remarkable to me how Paul can state the assertion, "Not all Israel is Israel", that "an outward Jew isn't one, but an inward", and yet his (?!) "innovation" is attributed to his interpreters 400 and 1400 years later.

Admittedly, Augustine is probably one of the most innovative Church Fathers.... so there's a lot Orthodoxy wouldn't agree with him about. But also, though Augustine did emphasize an invisible Church, his other writings would suggest that he didn't adhere to the strict distinction that Protestantism makes. Orthodoxy does believe in an invisible Church in a sense. But it isn't totally indepentant of the Church on Earth. It is simply acknowledged that not all within the Church on Earth will be saved.

The Church is the Body of Christ. And just as Christ has two natures, Divine and human, so does the Church. But Christ's two natures, as the Council of Chalcedon proclaims, are without confusion, division, or separation. But honestly, this issue isn't really related to the relevant aspects of the debate.

As I've pointed out and the Reformers pointed out too, sola Scriptura doesn't eliminate these authorities. It limits them.

No... it does logically eliminate it. That's precisely the purpose of it.

I would rather say it's you who are begging the question. On what basis is your claim that you're more accurate than those who strive for accuracy, and not conformity to the potentially inaccurate?

Do you guys even know what begging the question is? Read his statement: it was a textbook case of begging the question. And I'm not claiming that I'm more accurate, I'm just pointing out the logical implications of sola scriptura. Don't generalize my statements because it's difficult to respond to generalized questions... point to something that I've said directly.

It's why I first said what I said "Authority without accuracy really yields little better than the Protestant model."

See.... I'll take this chance to point out an example of begging the question/circular reasoning. Your first premise is Orthodoxy's system claims authority. Your second premise is that Orthodoxy's system isn't accurate. Your conclusion is that Orthodoxy isn't a real solution to the supposed problems of Protestantism due to its inaccuracy. This is fallacious because your conclusion (Orthodoxy is no better than Protestantism due to its inaccuracies) is already presupposed in your premise. This is begging the question/circular reasoning, and it's a logical fallacy.

So in your interpretation the Apostle is saying God has settled back into His old pattern of speaking? After so much greater has spoken?

I don't follow.

Jonathan was an image? An interesting thought, but no, it doesn't really qualify.

No.... Jonathan was venerated. If Jonathan being venerated wasn't idolatry, then venerating images isn't idolatry. Idols aren't bad because of what they are.... they're bad because they're being falsely worshipped. A rock is an idol if it is worshipped. If it is not worshipped, then it is just a rock. Likewise, if you worship an image, then it is idolatry. If you do not worship the image, then it is not idolatry. So if it's not idolatry to venerate a person, then it's not idolatry to venerate an image.

Cool. So do you have God's command to create icons? Moses did.

Haha? What? So you're admitting that God gave Moses a command to create what is essentially an icon. But because God didn't command me to, I can't. But by that same reasoning, God didn't directly command us to celebrate communion or witness to non-Christians. He simply told the Apostles to do that... not us. If it was okay for Moses to do it, then the 2nd commandment obviously doesn't mean what you think it means, and it can't be objectionable for us to use icons.

What's the word for "worship" in Exodus 20 in comparison with the word you're translating, "venerate"?

The word "worship" is not in Exodus 20.

If images are normative for use in evoking worship, I haven't seen this stated in Scripture at all?

This is why I'm trying to take the discussion away from these issues..... because if the primary focus of the debate is on the worldviews of Protestantism and Orthodoxy, then Sola Scriptura is precisely the issue for debate. And yet here, while arguing against Orthodoxy, you're assuming the very thing that is up for debate. You can't use sola scriptura as a presupposition in your argument if sola scriptura is the very thing we're debating. PLEASE try to at least attempt to stop using circular reasoning. You haven't been the primary person using it, but it's making the whole discussion fruitless.

 

[Rick Otto]

Their is a basic ambiguity in the identity because a cognitive dissonance &/or intellectual dishonesty is allowing antithetical beliefs to co-exist, eg. omniscience & free will.

Any one thing good is a part of Rome until it turns bad, and then it was just an isolated element, not Rome itself, person place or object. Standard Roman Apologist Procedure, right out of the manual.

 

[SaintPhotios]

Their is a basic ambiguity in the identity because a cognitive dissonance &/or intellectual dishonesty is allowing antithetical beliefs to co-exist, eg. omniscience & free will.

Any one thing good is a part of Rome until it turns bad, and then it was just an isolated element, not Rome itself, person place or object. Standard Roman Apologist Procedure, right out of the manual.

I don't follow.... was this a response to my post or someone else's?

 

[Rick Otto]

Just a general observation about how we define ourselves & reality, & how the way we decide to define it affects our further observations thereof.

Our disagreements usualy stem from different definitions, in my opinion.

 

[Alchemist]

Hey heymikey,

That doesn't mean their authority is absent. It means their authority isn't comprehensive.

True, most churches have authorities of some kind.

In the present day I haven't seen the Orthodox do much else, either. In point of fact the exercise of authority is not very obvious among the Orthodox.

Well, I think could be at most partially true. In an Orthodox worship service, priests, deacons and other members of the congregation have specific roles - for example, never would anyone but a priest serve the Eucharist apart from in very specific circumstances (i.e. when the congregation does not have a priest and a special modified liturgy is held). And in most cases, the priest has spiritual leadership over the congregation also, being ultimately the one to decide who may take the Eucharist.

But contrary perhaps to popular belief, even patriarchs (bishops of an entire See) have no authority in the Church except by God - supposed "ecumenical councils" of tens of bishops in which statements of dogma have been made have been overturned before because they proposed innovative, heretical doctrine. Leadership in Orthodoxy, though important, has no meaning of itself. This is why while the Roman Catholic Church considers Orthodox , Lutherans and Anglicans to be in "schism" with itself, we do not consider the RCC part of the Church visible and reject the Pope's claims of supremacy - you can only be the Catholic Patriarch of Rome when you actually teach true Catholic (Orthodox) doctrine, in our opinion anyway!

Were I to trace the spiritual paths of the Orthodox laity, do you think I wouldn't find them walking outside of Orthodoxy into more than 50 churches a year? ...

There are people in many congregations that are not strong in their faith, and perhaps you would find some who do this. But on the whole, I think even most but-nominal Orthodox do not regularly attend other churches.

... Is Protestant openness somehow more damning than Orthodox privacy?

Not at all. But really, the point is that there is only one Orthodox church; there are thousands of Protestant churches, and it is because of sola scriptura.

Ironic. Credibility to whom ...?

To the living Bride of Christ . No different to how you pick your leaders really.

To me this implies that God has to direct us to form images for His purposes.

And He did - by oral tradition and the Bible.

That doesn't absolutely preclude any obeisance to derivative authorities given to us by God even. It certainly doesn't preclude God from specifying the images by which He's worshipped.

Certainly, and like we say, we only make icons of those with physical manifestations, such as Christ, who became man, the Holy Spirit, who appeared as a dove at the Baptism of Christ, the saints, who were men, or angels, who appear in visible form. The only way in which God the Father is ever represented in Orthodox iconography is as one of the three messengers who visited Abraham, whom we believe represent the Holy Trinity.

But it seems to me God ordained these images, particularly Jesus Christ, and also Jesus Christ's Church, but also the Angel of the Lord, and even lower derivative authorities as His visible representatives. Each has a different level authority, most don't deserve the worship due God, but all are designated by God.

Indeed!

If images are normative for use in evoking worship, I haven't seen this stated in Scripture at all?

Ah, you probably missed it; ma2000 posted a link to an article from an Orthodox deacon about icons back in the fun on page 9 .

Peace,
Nick

 

[bradfordl]

Apparently some of the EO apostates that have been swarming over here in SR to assist their master in trying to stumble (if it were possible) the elect of God have a problem with anyone stating that their idolatry is what it is; a putrid affront to God and His word. I see no call in scripture to be 'diplomatic' with those that proclaim a false gospel. Please continue to report my posts and have them deleted. You may think it helps in your strategy to proselytize God's people away into apostasy, but He protects His own. Besides, my posts aren't all that important as to think getting rid of them will help your cause.

Iconagraphy is idolatry, PERIOD. You can spout that this is circular reasoning or whatever you like, it remains the truth. Perhaps you've been permitted here for the purpose of shaking out a few tares. Please take your fellow sons of destruction and be on your way.

 

[Ceridwen]

Owned!!!

 

[bradfordl]

Owned!!!

I don't know the meaning of that term as used here.

 

[Kvikklunsj]

Apparently some of the EO apostates that have been swarming over here in SR to assist their master in trying to stumble (if it were possible) the elect of God have a problem with anyone stating that their idolatry is what it is; a putrid affront to God and His word. I see no call in scripture to be 'diplomatic' with those that proclaim a false gospel. Please continue to report my posts and have them deleted. You may think it helps in your strategy to proselytize God's people away into apostasy, but He protects His own. Besides, my posts aren't all that important as to think getting rid of them will help your cause.

Iconagraphy is idolatry, PERIOD. You can spout that this is circular reasoning or whatever you like, it remains the truth. Perhaps you've been permitted here for the purpose of shaking out a few tares. Please take your fellow sons of destruction and be on your way.

Apparently you misunderstand the idea of civil debate. The rest of us are here to debate and learn - if the idea of discussion bothers you enough to just keep spouting childish insults in an attempt to shut down the people who are actually interested in discussing with others, maybe you should spend your time in other less "offensive" threads.

 

[Philothei]

a cognitive dissonance &/or intellectual dishonesty is allowing antithetical beliefs to co-exist, eg. omniscience & free will.


Read these first and then speak our theology the fathers "used" Greek philosophical methods for their arguments.... thus do not talk about antithetical beliefs.... and plus you will have to learn Greek first to even learn the terminology of it....

here: for beginners... You cannot even imagine what you are missing of the East.... If you wanted to buy milk you would not go to a shomaker to buy it.... Christianity started in the East... not the West my friend ...where were you before 1500 AD? .....

Read St. Ireneus FYI on free will:

Irenaeus Against Heresies Book IV

• Chapter XXXVII.[SIZE=+0]-Men are Possessed of Free Will, and Endowed with the Faculty of Making a Choice. It is Not True, Therefore, that Some are by Nature Good, and Others Bad.[/SIZE]

1. This expression [of our Lord], "How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not,"597 set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests (ad utendum sententia) of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves. On the other hand, they who have not obeyed shall, with justice, be not found in possession of the good, and shall receive condign punishment: for God did kindly bestow on them what was good; but they themselves did not diligently keep it, nor deem it something precious, but poured contempt upon His super-eminent goodness. Rejecting therefore the good, and as it were spuing it out, they shall all deservedly incur the just judgment of God, which also the Apostle Paul testifies in his Epistle to the Romans, where he says, "But dost thou despise the riches of His goodness, and patience, and long-suffering, being ignorant that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest to thyself wrath against the day of wrath, and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God." "But glory and honour," he says, "to every one that doeth good."598 God therefore has given that which is good, as the apostle tells us in this Epistle, and they who work it shall receive glory and honour, because they have done that which is good when they had it in their power not to do it; but those who do it not shall receive the just judgment of God, because they did not work good when they had it in their power so to do.

2. But if some had been made by nature bad, and others good, these latter would not be deserving of praise for being good, for such were they created; nor would the former be reprehensible, for thus they were made [originally]. But since all men are of the same nature, able both to hold fast and to do what is good; and, on the other hand, having also the power to cast it from them and not to do it,-some do justly receive praise even among men who are under the control of good laws (and much more from God), and obtain deserved testimony of their choice of good in general, and of persevering therein; but the others are blamed, and receive a just condemnation, because of their rejection of what is fair and good. And therefore the prophets used to exhort men to what was good, to act justly and to work righteousness, as I have so largely demonstrated, because it is in our power so to do, and because by excessive negligence we might become forgetful, and thus stand in need of that good counsel which the good God has given us to know by means of the prophets.
3. For this reason the Lord also said, "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good deeds, and glorify your Father who is in heaven."599 And, "Take heed to yourselves, lest perchance your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and worldly cares."600 And, "Let your loins be girded about, and your lamps burning, and ye like unto men that wait for their Lord, when He returns from the wedding, that when He cometh and knocketh, they may open to Him. Blessed is that servant whom his Lord, when He cometh, shall find so doing."601 And again, "The servant who knows his Lord's will, and does it not, shall be beaten with many stripes."602 And, "Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? "603 And again, "But if the servant say in his heart, The Lord delayeth, and begin to beat his fellow-servants, and to eat, and drink, and to be drunken, his Lord will come in a day on which he does not expect Him, and shall cut him in sunder, and appoint his portion with the hypocrites."604 All such passages demonstrate the independent will605 of man, and at the same time the counsel which God conveys to him, by which He exhorts us to submit ourselves to Him, and seeks to turn us away from [the sin of] unbelief against Him, without, however, in any way coercing us.
4. No doubt, if any one is unwilling to follow the Gospel itself, it is in his power [to reject it], but it is not expedient. For it is in man's power to disobey God, and to forfeit what is good; but [such conduct] brings no small amount of injury and mischief. And on this account Paul says, "All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient; "606 referring both to the liberty of man, in which respect "all things are lawful," God exercising no compulsion in regard to him; and [by the expression] "not expedient" pointing out that we "should not use our liberty as a cloak of maliciousness,607 for this is not expedient. And again he says, "Speak ye every man truth with his neighbour."608 And, "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor scurrility, which are not convenient, but rather giving of thanks."609 And, "For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord; walk honestly as children of the light, not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in anger and jealousy. And such were some of you; but ye have been washed, but ye have been sanctified in the name of our Lord."610 If then it were not in our power to do or not to do these things, what reason had the apostle, and much more the Lord Himself, to give us counsel to do some things, and to abstain from others? But because man is possessed of free will from the beginning, and God is possessed of free will, in whose likeness man was created, advice is always given to him to keep fast the good, which thing is done by means of obedience to God.
5. And not merely in works, but also in faith, has God preserved the will of man free and under his own control, saying, "According to thy faith be it unto thee; "611 thus showing that there is a faith specially belonging to man, since he has an opinion specially his own. And again, "All things are possible to him that believeth; "612 and, "Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee."613 Now all such expressions demonstrate that man is in his own power with respect to faith. And for this reason, "he that believeth in Him has eternal life while he who believeth not the Son hath not eternal life, but the wrath of God shall remain upon him."614 In the same manner therefore the Lord, both showing His own goodness, and indicating that man is in his own free will and his own power, said to Jerusalem, "How often have I wished to gather thy children together, as a hen [gathereth] her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Wherefore your house shall be left unto you desolate."615
6. Those, again, who maintain the opposite to these [`conclusions], do themselves present the Lord as destitute of power, as if, forsooth, He were unable to accomplish what He willed; or, on the other hand, as being ignorant that they were by nature "material," as these men express it, and such as cannot receive His immortality. "But He should not," say they, "have created angels of such a nature that they were capable of transgression, nor men who immediately proved ungrateful towards Him; for they were made rational beings, endowed with the power of examining and judging, and were not [formed] as things irrational or of a [merely] animal nature, which can do nothing of their own will, but are drawn by necessity and compulsion to what is good, in which things there is one mind and one usage, working mechanically in one groove (inflexibiles et sine judicio), who are incapable of being anything else except just what they had been created." But upon this supposition, neither would what is good be grateful to them, nor communion with God be precious, nor would the good be very much to be sought after, which would present itself without their own proper endeavour, care, or study, but would be implanted of its own accord and without their concern. Thus it would come to pass, that their being good would be of no consequence, because they were so by nature rather than by will, and are possessors of good spontaneously, not by choice; and for this reason they would not understand this fact, that good is a comely thing, nor would they take pleasure in it. For how can those who are ignorant of good enjoy it? Or what credit is it to those who have not aimed at it? And what crown is it to those who have not followed in pursuit of it, like those victorious in the contest? 7. On this account, too, did the Lord assert that the kingdom of heaven was the portion of "the violent; "and He says, "The violent take it by force; "616 that is, those who by strength and earnest striving axe on the watch to snatch it away on the moment. On this account also Paul the Apostle says to the Corinthians, "Know ye not, that they who run in a racecourse, do all indeed run, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. Every one also who engages in the contest is temperate in all things: now these men [do it] that they may obtain a corruptible crown, but we an incorruptible. But I so run, not as uncertainty; I fight, not as One beating the air; but I make my body livid, and bring it into subjection, lest by any means, when preaching to others, I may myself be rendered a castaway."617 This able wrestler, therefore, exhorts us to the struggle for immortality, that we may be crowned, and may deem the crown precious, namely, that which is acquired by our struggle, but which does not encircle us of its own accord (sed non ultro coalitam). And the harder we strive, so much is it the more valuable; while so much the more valuable it is, so much the more should we esteem it. And indeed those things axe not esteemed so highly which come spontaneously, as those which are reached by much anxious care. Since, then, this power has been conferred upon us, both the Lord has taught and the apostle has enjoined us the more to love God, that we may reach this [prize] for ourselves by striving after it. For otherwise, no doubt, this our good would be [virtually] irrational, because not the result of trial. Moreover, the faculty of seeing would not appear to be so desirable, unless we had known what a loss it were to be devoid of sight; and health, too, is rendered all the more estimable by an acquaintance with disease; light, also, by contrasting it with darkness; and life with death. Just in the same way is the heavenly kingdom honourable to those who have known the earthly one. But in proportion as it is more honourable, so much the more do we prize it; and if we have prized it more, we shall be the more glorious in the presence of God. The Lord has therefore endured all these things on our behalf, in order that we, having been instructed by means of them all, may be in all respects circumspect for the time to come, and that, having been rationally taught to love God, we may continue in His perfect love: for God has displayed long-suffering in the case of man's apostasy; while man has been instructed by means of it, as also the prophet says, "Thine own apostasy shall heal thee; "618

 

[Philothei]

And, "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor scurrility, which are not convenient, but rather giving of thanks."609 And, "For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord; walk honestly as children of the light, not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in anger and jealousy. And such were some of you; but ye have been washed, but ye have been sanctified in the name of our Lord."610 If then it were not in our power to do or not to do these things, what reason had the apostle, and much more the Lord Himself, to give us counsel to do some things, and to abstain from others? But because man is possessed of free will from the beginning, and God is possessed of free will, in whose likeness man was created, advice is always given to him to keep fast the good, which thing is done by means of obedience to God.

5. And not merely in works, but also in faith, has God preserved the will of man free and under his own control, saying, "According to thy faith be it unto thee; "611 thus showing that there is a faith specially belonging to man, since he has an opinion specially his own. And again, "All things are possible to him that believeth; "612 and, "Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee."613 Now all such expressions demonstrate that man is in his own power with respect to faith. And for this reason, "he that believeth in Him has eternal life while he who believeth not the Son hath not eternal life, but the wrath of God shall remain upon him."614 In the same manner therefore the Lord, both showing His own goodness, and indicating that man is in his own free will and his own power, said to Jerusalem, "How often have I wished to gather thy children together, as a hen [gathereth] her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Wherefore your house shall be left unto you desolate."615
6. Those, again, who maintain the opposite to these [`conclusions], do themselves present the Lord as destitute of power, as if, forsooth, He were unable to accomplish what He willed; or, on the other hand, as being ignorant that they were by nature "material," as these men express it, and such as cannot receive His immortality. "But He should not," say they, "have created angels of such a nature that they were capable of transgression, nor men who immediately proved ungrateful towards Him; for they were made rational beings, endowed with the power of examining and judging, and were not [formed] as things irrational or of a [merely] animal nature, which can do nothing of their own will, but are drawn by necessity and compulsion to what is good, in which things there is one mind and one usage, working mechanically in one groove (inflexibiles et sine judicio), who are incapable of being anything else except just what they had been created." But upon this supposition, neither would what is good be grateful to them, nor communion with God be precious, nor would the good be very much to be sought after, which would present itself without their own proper endeavour, care, or study, but would be implanted of its own accord and without their concern. Thus it would come to pass, that their being good would be of no consequence, because they were so by nature rather than by will, and are possessors of good spontaneously, not by choice; and for this reason they would not understand this fact, that good is a comely thing, nor would they take pleasure in it. For how can those who are ignorant of good enjoy it? Or what credit is it to those who have not aimed at it? And what crown is it to those who have not followed in pursuit of it, like those victorious in the contest?
7. On this account, too, did the Lord assert that the kingdom of heaven was the portion of "the violent; "and He says, "The violent take it by force; "616 that is, those who by strength and earnest striving axe on the watch to snatch it away on the moment. On this account also Paul the Apostle says to the Corinthians, "Know ye not, that they who run in a racecourse, do all indeed run, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. Every one also who engages in the contest is temperate in all things: now these men [do it] that they may obtain a corruptible crown, but we an incorruptible. But I so run, not as uncertainty; I fight, not as One beating the air; but I make my body livid, and bring it into subjection, lest by any means, when preaching to others, I may myself be rendered a castaway."617 This able wrestler, therefore, exhorts us to the struggle for immortality, that we may be crowned, and may deem the crown precious, namely, that which is acquired by our struggle, but which does not encircle us of its own accord (sed non ultro coalitam). And the harder we strive, so much is it the more valuable; while so much the more valuable it is, so much the more should we esteem it. And indeed those things axe not esteemed so highly which come spontaneously, as those which are reached by much anxious care. Since, then, this power has been conferred upon us, both the Lord has taught and the apostle has enjoined us the more to love God, that we may reach this [prize] for ourselves by striving after it. For otherwise, no doubt, this our good would be [virtually] irrational, because not the result of trial. Moreover, the faculty of seeing would not appear to be so desirable, unless we had known what a loss it were to be devoid of sight; and health, too, is rendered all the more estimable by an acquaintance with disease; light, also, by contrasting it with darkness; and life with death. Just in the same way is the heavenly kingdom honourable to those who have known the earthly one. But in proportion as it is more honourable, so much the more do we prize it; and if we have prized it more, we shall be the more glorious in the presence of God. The Lord has therefore endured all these things on our behalf, in order that we, having been instructed by means of them all, may be in all respects circumspect for the time to come, and that, having been rationally taught to love God, we may continue in His perfect love: for God has displayed long-suffering in the case of man's apostasy; while man has been instructed by means of it, as also the prophet says, "Thine own apostasy shall heal thee; "618 God thus determining all things beforehand for the bringing of man to perfection, for his edification, and for the revelation of His dispensations, that goodness may both be made apparent, and righteousness perfected, and that the Church may be fashioned after the image of His Son, and that man may finally be brought to maturity at some future time, becoming ripe through such privileges to see and comprehend God.619

• [SIZE=+0]Chapter XXXIX.-Man is Endowed with the Faculty of Distinguishing Good and Evil; So That, Without Compulsion, He Has the Power, by His Own Will and Choice, to Perform God's Commandments, by Doing Which He Avoids the Evils Prepared for the Rebellious.[/SIZE]

1. Man has received the knowledge of good and evil. It is good to obey God, and to believe in Him, and to keep His commandment, and this is the life of man; as not to obey God is evil, and this is his death. Since God, therefore, gave [to man] such mental power (magnanimitatem) man knew both the good of obedience and the evil of disobedience, that the eye of the mind, receiving experience of both, may with judgment make choice of the better things; and that he may never become indolent or neglectful of God's command; and learning by experience that it is an evil thing which deprives him of life, that is, disobedience to God, may never attempt it at all, but that, knowing that what preserves his life, namely, obedience to God, is good, he may diligently keep it with all earnestness. Wherefore he has also had a twofold experience, possessing knowledge of both kinds, that with discipline he may make choice of the better things. But how, if he had no knowledge of the contrary, could he have had instruction in that which is good? For there is thus a surer and an undoubted comprehension of matters submitted to us than the mere surmise arising from an opinion regarding them. For just as the tongue receives experience of sweet and bitter by means of tasting, and the eye discriminates between black and white by means of vision, and the ear recognises the distinctions of sounds by hearing; so also does the mind, receiving through the experience of both the knowledge of what is good, become more tenacious of its preservation, by acting in obedience to God: in the first place, casting away, by means of repentance, disobedience, as being something disagreeable and nauseous; and afterwards coming to understand what it really is, that it is contrary to goodness and sweetness, so that the mind may never even attempt to taste disobedience to God. But if any one do shun the knowledge of both these kinds of things, and the twofold perception of knowledge, he unawares divests himself of the character of a human being.

2. How, then, shall he be a God, who has not as yet been made a man? Or how can he be perfect who was but lately created? How, again, can he be immortal, who in his mortal nature did not obey his Maker? For it must be that thou, at the outset, shouldest hold the rank of a man, and then afterwards partake of the glory of God. For thou dost not make God, but God thee. If, then, thou art God's workmanship, await the hand of thy Maker which creates everything in due time; in due time as far as thou art concerned, whose creation is being carried out.624 Offer to Him thy heart in a soft and tractable state, and preserve the form in which the Creator has fashioned thee, having moisture in thyself, lest, by becoming hardened, thou lose the impressions of His fingers. But by preserving the framework thou shalt ascend to that which is perfect, for the moist clay which is in thee is hidden [there] by the workmanship of God. His hand fashioned thy substance; He will cover thee over [too] within and without with pure gold and silver, and He will adorn thee to such a degree, that even "the King Himself shall have pleasure in thy beauty."625 But if thou, being obstinately hardened, dost reject the operation of His skill, and show thyself ungrateful towards Him, because thou weft created a [mere] man, by becoming thus ungrateful to God, thou hast at once lost both His workmanship and life. For creation is an attribute of the goodness of God but to be created is that of human nature. If then, thou shalt deliver up to Him what is thine that is, faith towards Him and subjection, thou shalt receive His handiwork, and shall be a perfect work of God.
3. If, however, thou wilt not believe in Him, and wilt flee from His hands, the cause of imperfection shall be in thee who didst not obey, but not in Him who called [thee]. For He commissioned [messengers] to call people to the marriage, but they who did not obey Him deprived themselves of the royal supper.626 The skill of God, therefore, is not defective, for He has power of the stones to raise up children to Abraham;627 but the man who does not obtain it is the cause to himself of his own imperfection. Nor, [in like manner], does the light fail because of those who have blinded themselves; but while it remains the same as ever, those who are [thus] blinded are involved in darkness through. their own fault. The light does never enslave any one by necessity; nor, again, does God exercise compulsion upon any one unwilling to accept the exercise of His skill. Those persons, therefore, who have apostatized from the light given by the Father, and transgressed the law of liberty, have done so through their own fault, since they have been created free agents, and possessed of power over themselves. 4. But God, foreknowing all things, prepared fit habitations for both, kindly conferring that light which they desire on those who seek after the light of incorruption, and resort to it; but for the despisers and mockers who avoid and turn themselves away from this light, and who do, as it were, blind themselves, He has prepared darkness suitable to persons who oppose the light, and He has inflicted an appropriate punishment upon those who try to avoid being subject to Him. Submission to God is eternal rest, so that they who shun the light have a place worthy of their flight; and those who fly from eternal rest, have a habitation in accordance with their fleeing. Now, since all good things are with God, they who by their own determination fly from God, do defraud themselves of all good things; and having been [thus] defrauded of all good things with respect to God, they shall consequently fall under the just judgment of God. For those persons who shun rest shall justly incur punishment, and those who avoid the light shall justly dwell in darkness. For as in the case of this temporal light, those who shun it do deliver themselves over to darkness, so that they do themselves become the cause to themselves that they are destitute of light, and do inhabit darkness; and, as I have already observed, the light is not the cause of such an [unhappy.] condition of existence to them; so those who fly from the eternal light of God, which contains in itself all good things, are themselves the cause to themselves of their inhabiting eternal darkness, destitute of all good things, having become to themselves the cause of that.

 

[Philothei]

"Also for the icons western theologians talk about them and they declare :


WHY were the Israelites commanded not to make graven images?...Graven images were the standard method of pagan worship. They were representations of false gods...an "image" NOT made for worship is acceptable. In fact, we should not really call things like the cherubims "images" at all -- an "image" in ancient thought is not merely something that has an appearance, like a statue or a picture, but something that serves as a focal point for the presence and power of a deity. Thus for example ancient rulers in Egypt, Babylon, and elsewhere were referred to as the "image" of a certain deity, not because they looked like the deity, but because the deity's power and authority was thought to operate through them.
With this understanding in mind, does the Orthodox use of icons violate the command against graven images? Based on Sparks' and Whiteford's description, and even though they seem unaware of this understanding of "image," the answer seems to be no. Although Sparks correctly notes the use of cherubim on the Ark (which Barker saw as contrary to the restriction), as well as the fact that the other images were used as idols; and though he also notes the existence of paintings and statues depicting the likes of Peter and Paul, and notes that people were apparently "deeply moved" by them, he does not apparently know the background meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words for "image". Still, if he did, it would not work against Orthodox use of icons as Sparks and Whiteford describe them. His defense offers these points, however:

1. The icons make no effort to depict God. If they did, then they would be objectionable.
2. Icons are actually word-pictures. In fact, Sparks uses the very proverb above ("a picture is worth a thousand words") to describe the purpose of icons.

On this accounting, reason 1 is a good point, but does not address the key argument. Reason 2 has a much stronger basis -- the early church (indeed the ancient world as a whole) was 90-95% illiterate. If icons are understood as memory aids, then they are far, far from being "images" of the sort forbidden by the Bible, no more so than would be a Children's Picture Bible. Whiteford quotes Pope Gregory (590-604) as saying, "For what writing presents to readers, this a picture presents to the unlearned who behold, since in it even the ignorant see what they ought to follow; in it the illiterate read." He then notes the problems of functional illiteracy today, and notes as well that many people (especially children) are pre-literate.
But that leads to the question, what of the parishoner I saw praying before the icon? What of those who kiss or bow before icons in reverence (and also may make the sign of the cross, recalling Christ's sacrifice)? Sparks replies that icons are "windows to heaven, revealing the glory of God" and actually "help to protect us from idolatry" by pointing us in the right direction. They also "bring a revelation, a manifestation of the unseen heavenly host of angels, saints and martyrs--yes, even the eternal saving events--into our presence." [8-9] By comparison he points to Daniel and Joshua bowing in veneration before an angel of God, and the honor persons give one another in daily life (such as honoring one's father and mother).
Sparks' example of Joshua and Daniel is open to question; Joshua at least may have been seeing an example of the pre-incarnate Christ. Yet Sparks' description, if we take it as doing justice to the Orthodox view, does make it clear that icons and their use are not a violation of the graven images command, even if they appear to be on the surface. Though Sparks' language is a little vague, it does not indicate that the icons are points of presence for a deity in the same sense that the ancient Baal or Dagon figurine was. As he describes them, icons are visual aids, and those who kiss and bow before them are giving respect, not worship. Whiteford compares it to an American saluting a flag as a "veneration" not of course of the cloth and dye, but of the ideal represented by the flag; or he compares it to Jews kissing their copy of the Torah.
Whiteford does, however, provide a rather questionable example as well. He notes that when Polycarp was martyred, several disciples tried very hard to retrieve his body. This actually reflects an ancient desire that ANY body should be buried honorably -- not any particular veneration for Polycarp. The ancients were deeply concerned for the preservation of ANY body for reasons of honor, and this was an honorable burial for a person deserving of honor, which to the ancients was as important as we would regard paying the bills (per the work of Malina and Rohrbaugh). The further observations of the date of martyrdom are a similar reflection.
Sparks notes the reply, "Why not just worship God?" His response: blank walls are of no use, for "such barrenness [does not] serve to speak of the presence of a living God." [9] One might remark in reply that the Holy Spirit indwelling the believer bespeaks of that well enough. But if we follow Sparks' explanation, icons might be best described as visual aids for visual thinkers; the kissing and praying as a way (if rather emotional and by Western standards, excessive) of saying "thank you" and giving respect to those depicted, as one may kiss one's mother or father and give them a hug. And if that is all there is to it, the "no graven images" command is not applicable. The Orthodox use of icons is no violation of the graven image command in and of itself.


God bless,
Philothei