Have you ever played that game?

[Ainesis]

I have no problem with folks saying "I'll only do something if Scripture says so" or with you wanting to see proof of an Apostle doing something before you'll do it, as long as you are consistent. By that I mean there are probably lots of things you and your church do that don't fit either of those criteria. Do you have Sunday School? An organ or piano in your church? Those things aren't Biblical, nor do we have video tape of an Apostle doing them, but I don't see anyone getting worked up over them.

There's no instruction manual that lays out exactly what we're supposed to do to worship God. Some people say they only do what the Bible says. These are the same people who invented Sunday School and altar calls, so you can see that the logic is flawed.

I agree completely Ufonium2. That is why I said that a lack of Scriptural evidence does not necessarily mean something is wrong. I am not one who believes "Unless it is in the Bible, it is wrong." My concerns about this particular topic is not that it is not specifically mentioned in the Scriptures, but that it seems to contradict the Scriptures (from my perspective). So, I am trying to find the Truth. If my understanding of Scripture is wrong, then I will have to change it. But I will not do that on a whim, so I am seeking to study the subject further.

Our Church is comprises four Apostolic Sees. So, when we say Christians were doing something in the first century we're not talking about random offshoot groups or individuals, we're talking about churches that were headed by Apostles. These Apostles and those who came after them met synodally (this actually is Biblical, the first synod is recorded in Acts) to ensure agreement on all doctrine, and nobody had a problem with icon veneration until 700 years after the Apostles. You would think that if the practice had sprung up out of nowhere in one See, that the others would have rejected it. Since the practice was approved by all five Apostolic Sees (including Rome) and nobody thought anything could be wrong with it until hundreds of years later, that would seem to indicate that there was a universal tradition of veneration from the get-go.

I understand that perspective and I by no means meant to offend those who believe this tradition to be correct.

God Bless!

 

[linden branch]

Perhaps you could spell out how you believe iconography to be a violation of Scripture? I could make some educated guesses, but they could be wrong and then I would have wasted your time.

As an interesting aside, Calvin in his institutes doesn't offer any actual arguments against iconography per se, but rather directs his objections to the abuses of images that he considered to be occuring in his day. On the subject of permissibility, he is largely silent (well, not exactly, he would probably be negatively biased against them, with the understanding that these things would naturally lead to the abuses he found objectionable, but this isn't the same as objecting to icons on a principle basis).

 

[Kripost]

This may be off topic, but the reason why icons are used in the Orthodox Church can be found in the 7th ecumenical council, which deals with iconoclasm. In a nutshell, icons affrim the Incarnation and shows that matter is/will be redeemed.

 

[Oblio]

There were many errors being practiced in the early church, even as illustrated in Scripture.

I think it is reasonable to expect that if the veneration of icons and the request for intercessory prayer of the reposed Saints were in error, that we would see corrective epistles to affirm this. We do not see verses that list common Orthopraxis as anathema along with other things that were being spoken against in the early Church.