ECF's -Which ones were right?

[Anglian]

Rick Otto;48173517]I don't pretend to know something the scriptures don't support.
Perhaps if you read what the Bible has to say. Do you have one?

Dear Rick,

Do you mean to give the impression that your own interpretation of the Bible is the only correct one? Do you mean to imply that anyone who disagrees with you must not have read the Bible? This gives an impression of personal infallibility - as well as impatience with views which do not correspond with your own. It rather detracts from the many good points you make, so I thought it worth asking - even at the risk of another of Rick's one-liners

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Montalban]

John 14:9

He is the image of the Father

Exactly. There's a great paradox here. We can not see God in his fullest, though Jesus is fully God. If we could see God to his fullest extent we'd know God as God. And we can't.

So when they saw Jesus, the Apostles knew he was fully God but also the image of God, because God in his fullest could only be 'represented' by Jesus.




It's also interesting to note that the passage you cite would lead some heretics into believing Jesus was nothing but a 'spectre', that is, only image.

 

[Montalban]

Eoin 1:1 Anns an toiseach bha am Facal agus bha am Facal Maille ri Dia, agus b'e am Facal Dia
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Dear Rick,

Do you mean to give the impression that your own interpretation of the Bible is the only correct one? Do you mean to imply that anyone who disagrees with you must not have read the Bible? This gives an impression of personal infallibility - as well as impatience with views which do not correspond with your own. It rather detracts from the many good points you make, so I thought it worth asking - even at the risk of another of Rick's one-liners

Peace,

Anglian

I have the new Orthodox Study Bible - the one that's the whole Bible, not just the New Testament and Psalms (which I also have). I would heartily recommend that Rick and others start with the Bible in the commentary of the church that gave us the Bible

I also have a Gaelic Bible which is also just the NT and Psalms

 

[katherine2001]

Dear Rick,

Do you mean to give the impression that your own interpretation of the Bible is the only correct one? Do you mean to imply that anyone who disagrees with you must not have read the Bible? This gives an impression of personal infallibility - as well as impatience with views which do not correspond with your own. It rather detracts from the many good points you make, so I thought it worth asking - even at the risk of another of Rick's one-liners

Peace,

Anglian

Anglian, remember that we tend to be bothered most when people commit the very sins that they tend to commit. Therefore, many are bothered by the very idea of the infallibility of the Pope (it bothers me too, but it is because NOBODY is infallible, including me), but sees their own interpretations of the Scriptures as being infallible. I can't remember how many times I've seen people say that a case is closed just because they say it is.

Besides, it is rich to ask whether we read the Bible or not and whether we have one. With all due respect, if everyone went strictly by the words actually written in the Bible, there would be NO arguments about whether the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ or just a symbol. Everyone would believe it is the Body and Blood of our Lord, because that is what the Bible says.

 

[Anglian]

If we synthesise the arguments of the ECFs on the iconoclast issue we see something like this.

In the context of the 1st commandment, a 'graven image' is anything that we construct in order to give it the worship that is due only to God.

1 And the Lord spoke all these words: 2 I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. 4 Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. 5 Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them:I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. Exodus 20:1-5

It is clear that the prohibition is based upon the intent of the one making and using the image. So, unless someone really thinks we can't tell the difference between a piece of painted wood and God, then they are off-beam with their cry of 'idolater'. That they are also being judgemental and assuming they know what we are thinking , something which, were I that way, I should have a good think about: who am I that I should judge my fellow Christians thus?

In the Old Testament we are offered an example of the proper use of images which point symbolically toward salvation by the Incarnate Word. If the making of images is wrong how does one account for God commanding the making of images to adorn the top of the Ark of the Covenant and the brass serpent that Moses lifted up to save the Israelites who had sinned, and which in fact is mentioned in the NT as a type of the lifting up of Christ for our sins? The temple of Solomon is described as having been adorned with all manner of images yet God was pleased to be present there and did not condemn them for it.

God commands us to have no other God save Him; He does not command that His worship should take place in whitewashed rooms stripped of adornment. Those who feel the urge to destroy beautiful things because their own minds tell them that is what God wishes, should stop misusing Exodus; if they wish to worship the Lord in the bareness of nothingness, fine, but please stop telling the rest of us we're idolaters.

The seventh council at Nicaea (787) considered all the iconoclast arguments and rejected them, so citing the earlier iconoclastic council won't wash. If you have a personal preference, fine, but please consider that there are millions of your fellow Christians who have perfectly good reasons for wishing to worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness, and respect that, as you wish your views to be respected. Also consider just accepting that others read the Bible too, and have come to views rather different from those you entertain; no one is forcing you to have icons, stop trying to force your views on others by implying they worship statues.

Try a little love and tolerance.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[bbbbbbb]

Dear bbbbbbb,

I appreciate your engagement with this one, and where you are coming from.

What I find difficult to understand is how those Reformer knew what the motives of other people were? I would be fearful of pride being involved here, and a sense of being, if you like, 'holier than thou'. It seems like setting yourself up to judge what others are doing and thinking, assuming that you, yourself, are in some way immune from the sin you attribute to others - but perhaps ignoring the other sin to which you might be succumbing?

I do not doubt the sincerity of iconoclasts - just their humility. If the veneration of a statue of the Blessed Virgin gave people comfort and a way of concentrating their prayer, who were the Reformers to tell them they were worshipping a statue and smash it up? It is this mentality which I have a real problem grasping, I fear.

Peace,

Anglian

Actually, in many cases, although certainly not all, the actions were conducted by the parishioners themselves and not the Reformers. The Reformers generally did not lead crusades against churches. However, the parishioners knew well what the clergy had been promoting and teaching, so that there was no doubt concerning the purpose of these features of worship and veneration. It is similar to the present day when, at least here in the U.S., Roman Catholic parishioners know the character and practices of their priests. In many cases they are fine men, but in too many they are deeply flawed sinners, as in the recent cases of pedophilia. When I was young we all knew that the priests in a particular church were alcoholics because of the cases of liquor bottles set out each Monday in front of the rectory for trash pickup.

The actions of the iconoclasts can be viewed as being no different than that of King Josiah and other similar reformers in the Old Testament. There was a righteous indignation at the rank idolatry and superstition being promoted at least on the parish level by the clergy.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Personally, Anglian, I would be worried about being judged by Christ Himself for thinking that I know what is in someone else's heart and their motives and judging them on those assumptions. Isn't that exactly what Christ and the apostles warned us about? Only God has the right to judge anyone on those things because He is the only one who can know. It is the same with those who think they know who is saved and who is going to Hell. Not to mention that the Devil is rejoicing because we're looking at others instead of looking into our own hearts and motives. That's where Christ wants us looking, not at others. For most of us, that is probably a full-time job.

I also have trouble with destroying statues or icons and burning books. That is not how Christ handled things, and it is not how people are won to Christ. It's one of the reasons many people want nothing to do with Christ. They make the mistake of thinking that He is like us, when we are supposed to be like Him. Theosis (or becoming like Christ) is the goal of the Christian life. Of course, Christ did destroy the money-changers tables, but that was because of what they were doing at the Temple.

Thank you for providing your insight. Your final statement I think captures the idea of my understanding. What was happening was not what any of us would currently understand to be veneration. Instead, much of it was the worship of bleeding and crying statuary and the promotion of various superstitions. I have no doubt that Jesus would have opposed such things in similar ways. By the way, this did not happen everywhere and there were many exceptions where idolatry and superstition were not being promoted.

 

[Anglian]

Dear bbbbbbb,

Again, thanks for the continued engagement and the interesting information.

Actually, in many cases, although certainly not all, the actions were conducted by the parishioners themselves and not the Reformers.

Professor Duffy's Stripping of the Altars presents a picture somewhat at odds with the one you present here; but even if you are right, this looks a little like mob-rule. It sounds like the same rationale behind lynching mobs, who were also actuated by their own righteous indignation. If people have complaints, there are legal ways of making them; mobbing a Church seems one of the least Christian ways to deal with anything.

What you say here of some priests is true of us all:

In many cases they are fine men, but in too many they are deeply flawed sinners

we require help, not judgement by our fellow-sinners. The difference between 'righteous indignation' and self-righteousness judgementalism may be apparent to those in the mob; it is less so to those at the receiving end.

King Josiah had authority as an anointed king for his actions; those who invaded Churches and smashed and burned had no such authority; they were acting as vigilantes. I really do find it awfully difficult to know how anyone else can know what is in my mind when I bow before an icon of the Blessed Theotokos; and what worries me is what is in the mind of anyone who thinks they can make that judgement of another.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[simonthezealot]

John 14:9

He is the image of the Father

And we Him...

1 joh 3:2 Beloved[SIZE=+0], now[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] are we[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] the sons[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] of God[/SIZE][SIZE=+0], and[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] it doth[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] not yet[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] appear[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] what[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] we shall be[/SIZE][SIZE=+0]: but[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] we know[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] that[/SIZE][SIZE=+0], when[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] he shall appear[/SIZE][SIZE=+0], we shall be[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] like[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] him[/SIZE][SIZE=+0]; for[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] we shall see[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] him[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] as[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] he is[/SIZE][SIZE=+0].[/SIZE]


I don't see anything that says reproduce a specific image and then pray and meditiate to that image...

 

[Anglian]

Dear Simon,

Welcome back.

1 And the Lord spoke all these words: 2 I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. 4 Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. 5 Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them:I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. Exodus 20:1-5

And where, here, does it say we cannot make an icon and offer veneration to God through it? We are not to offer to anything the adoration and service we offer to God. From whence, Simon, do you derive the knowledge that those who bow with respect to an icon are serving it or mistake it for God?

There's a couple of long posts on this above; be interested in your views.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Uphill Battle]

I've always figgered that the way used to figure out what ECF's to trust, is to take the quotes that support/confirm what my chosen church teaches, and repeat them ad nauseum.

at least, you'd THINK that was the method of norming.... as it happens more than anything else.

 

[simonthezealot]

I've always figgered that the way used to figure out what ECF's to trust, is to take the quotes that support/confirm what my chosen church teaches, and repeat them ad nauseum.

at least, you'd THINK that was the method of norming.... as it happens more than anything else.

UB your the first to actual nail down the purpose for this thread...Yet we see tons of theological weight put into them, makes no sense.

 

[simonthezealot]

Dear Simon,

Welcome back.

And where, here, does it say we cannot make an icon and offer veneration to God through it? We are not to offer to anything the adoration and service we offer to God. From whence, Simon, do you derive the knowledge that those who bow with respect to an icon are serving it or mistake it for God?

There's a couple of long posts on this above; be interested in your views.

Peace,

Anglian

My view is that if you can show where God has ordained the approval of ICONS as worship aides that would make things more understandable and it would help remove the pagan practice label.

 

[Anglian]

My view is that if you can show where God has ordained the approval of ICONS as worship aides that would make things more understandable and it would help remove the pagan practice label.

Dear Simon,

To save time, I'll quote what I wrote above:

In the Old Testament we are offered an example of the proper use of images which point symbolically toward salvation by the Incarnate Word. If the making of images is wrong how does one account for God commanding the making of images to adorn the top of the Ark of the Covenant and the brass serpent that Moses lifted up to save the Israelites who had sinned, and which in fact is mentioned in the NT as a type of the lifting up of Christ for our sins? The temple of Solomon is described as having been adorned with all manner of images yet God was pleased to be present there and did not condemn them for it.

It was good enough for God; it was good enough for the 2nd Council at Nicaea; so why won't it do for you?

Having answered you question as best I can, will you answer me this one; what gives you the insight into what is in the heart of another that you can convict them of a pagan practice?

Peace,

Anglian

 

[simonthezealot]

In the Old Testament we are offered an example of the proper use of images which point symbolically toward salvation by the Incarnate Word. If the making of images is wrong how does one account for God commanding the making of images to adorn the top of the Ark of the Covenant and the brass serpent that Moses lifted up to save the Israelites who had sinned, and which in fact is mentioned in the NT as a type of the lifting up of Christ for our sins? The temple of Solomon is described as having been adorned with all manner of images yet God was pleased to be present there and did not condemn them for it.

The shadows of the Old Testament had their immediate use, that was to know God was a living God whether the Cherubim or the serpent on the pole it was about HIS word ... Jesus is the eternal reality. To argue for the shadow is to miss the mark. Moses and his people didn't have the revelation of Jesus we have today, and one of God's purposes in giving His First Commandment was to prevent Israel's clinging to an outward form. Instead of setting up an image of Himself, God gave His word to His people, so that they would come to know Him as the Living God. And through the centuries, He prepared them to recognize His Son when He would finally come. Jesus would be "the brightness of his [the Father's] glory, and the express image of his person" (Hebrews 1:3). As "the image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15), Jesus would put an end to any spiritual need for lifeless images.

 

[simonthezealot]

Dear Simon,

To save time, I'll quote what I wrote above:

It was good enough for God; it was good enough for the 2nd Council at Nicaea; so why won't it do for you?

Organized Christianity was so bungled by 787 their basis for what truth was was merely a shadow of the reality.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Montalban;Did he fully portray/appear as God? Yes/No?

That wasn't the false assertion I addressed. I addressed your false assertion that :

Jesus Himself is God in the image of Man (for we are in the image of God).
Thus for Jesus to appear in human form is to be a living icon

You constantly try to corner me & bust me on stuff I neither say nor imply & then you come out with this ridiculous nonsernse which you can't defend, only squirm & run away from. We could be great friends in spite of our differences, but you won't have it. You need to disparage & despise others & it must be because that is how you feel about yourself & your own beliefs. Which is completely understandable considering the caliber of thought behind the statement of yours I just quoted.

That again! Just pretend again that everything you need to know is in the Bible... speaking of which...

I have many.

It was a rhetorical question, which means it wasn't asked to be answered, it was asked to make a point, which was that you have an attitude problem that makes you ask rude questions & provoke negative feelings.

Apparently you're unable to answer my questions.

Apparently you are unable to ask an honest one that isn't meant to provoke strife.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Simon,

I mentioned the 2nd Nicene Council only because you introduced it much earlier; if it has no relevance I'm not sure why you first raised it?

The shadows of the Old Testament had their immediate use, that was to know God was a living God whether the Cherubim or the serpent on the pole it was about HIS word ... Jesus is the eternal reality. To argue for the shadow is to miss the mark.

No one is arguing for a shadow; the icons, too, are about His word; it is this you seem to feel you have some greater insight into. Why is it you feel able to tell others that they are worshipping things when they tell you they are worshipping only God; whence do you derive this insight?

As "the image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15), Jesus would put an end to any spiritual need for lifeless images.

This last underlined phrase is not in my Bible.

I, like others, have explained at some length what we are doing and why it is not forbidden by the Holy Scriptures; if you have some reason for knowing that we are worshipping statues and icons, do let us know what it is.

To reiterate; no one is worshipping lifeless images; we are using them as an aid to prayer and to worship the One God. If that doesn't suit you, well, that's sad, but upsetting Simon is not the same as upsetting God. God does not forbid the making of images - He forbids us to worship them. All there in that book canonised by the same Church which also allows the use of icons.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[simonthezealot]

To reiterate; no one is worshipping lifeless images; we are using them as an aid to prayer and to worship the One God. If that doesn't suit you, well, that's sad, but upsetting Simon is not the same as upsetting God. God does not forbid the making of images - He forbids us to worship them. All there in that book canonised by the same Church which also allows the use of icons.

Peace,

Anglian

A simple reading of Isaiah 44, essentially says the stuff you use to create these images is also used to make a fire to cook your food, and people wish to create images "in their view" of God out of this??? Don't we know? nothing man can create could ever do Him the honor and justice?
Ya know, whats gonna be next?

 

[Anglian]

A simple reading of Isaiah 44, essentially says the stuff you use to create these images is also used to make a fire to cook your food, and people wish to create images "in their view" of God out of this??? Don't we know? nothing man can create could ever do Him the honor and justice?
Ya know, whats gonna be next?

Dear Simon,

Yes, we can worship the Lord in all the things He created.

Now then, at the risk of being importunate. What is it gives you the right to tell the rest of us that we are worshipping statues and icons when we tell you we are not?

Peace,

Anglian