• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

History of Icons

Discussion in 'St. Justin Martyr's Corner: Debate an Orthodox Chr' started by JM, Jan 14, 2015.

  1. ommnone

    ommnone Newbie

    59
    +2
    Agnostic
    Certainly understood.
     
  2. buzuxi02

    buzuxi02 Veteran

    +1,682
    Eastern Orthodox
    Single

    Im being hostile to Calvin and his wahabist belief as presented in the OP's. Listen to what Calvin said and see how he agrees with this fatwa issued a few days ago by a prominant islamic scholar:


    Calvin could not comprehend the grassroots origins of illustrations and how they enhanced the Church's outreach. Icons exist becasue they play a role in the promotion of the gospel and enhance piety.

    1. Did Calvin believe that a pictorial image of Christ is nestorian? Did he believe it promotes eutychianism?

    2. What was his understanding of the incarnation and how does he view the Eucharist? Is it literal or figurative? Is the Eucharist a graven image, an idol, the Lord's actual body?

    3.Did he believe that the uncircumscribeable Logos assumed humanity and clothed himself with flesh, thus becoming circumscribeable? Or does he believe as the Docetists that he was only an 'illusion'?

    4.When Christ assumed matter did Calvin think that material hypostasis who walked on earth cannot be recorded with paint and color from an artist? If so why even assume an image and likeness of a servant? Christ said that He was the visible image of the invisible God.

    5.Does Calvin believe that the image depicts the prototype of whom is depicted or just shapes and figures symbolically labeled as such as did the heathen? If so how is it that Christ recognized the image of Caesar on the coin, and why were these coins not rejected?


    If the image depicts the prototype then it can be venerated just like the living person was venerated, when Abraham did obesiance to the three men that appeared to him at the oak of mamre.

    Daniel did not stop King Nebuchanezzer from offering incense to him because it was for the glory of Daniel's God:


    I guess Calvin didnt even know the scriptures too well, let alone have the mind of the Fathers.
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2015
  3. Ignatius21

    Ignatius21 Can somebody please pass the incense?

    +291
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    Buzuxi02, brother, your post here has the feel of something being fired off without really taking aim first. Before I get into things, I'll simply ask:

    How much of Calvin's own writing have you read yourself?

    Maybe you've read much of it, I don't know. It's a sincere question. But I suspect that if someone came in here railing against, say, Gregory Palamas, and then revealed he'd read little or nothing by him, or by learned scholars about him, you'd probably dismiss that guest as simply having an axe to grind.

    I spent a good 7 years in Calvinism (well, one particular conservative American strand of it) and in that time I read all of Calvin's Institutes. I can't claim to remember it that well, nor to have ever been even close to having expertise. But I remember enough to think your points below are bordering on the absurd. Please don't take offense, but there are many well-intentioned Calvinists out there who are used to thinking in a certain way, and making over-the-top allegations about their beliefs is no way to hold their attention or make them want to look into Orthodoxy.

    I was once one of them.

    Calvin opposed the building of snowmen? I know nothing about these wahabi people, but to draw a comparison between them and Calvin would be like...well, comparing Orthodox mystics to Buddhists (which our friend WP seems to have done earlier in this thread). "Hmm, let's see, they both repeat short phrases and control their breathing...so...Orthodox and buddhist monks are basically the same." Absurd, right?

    I think you're conflating Calvin's beliefs about religious art with his beliefs about art in general. I would strongly suggest you read this summary before comparing him any further to Islamic fundamentalists who oppose the creation of snowmen:

    Colin Harbinson - Teaching

    Some relevant quotes for perspective:

    And

    And

    My best recollection of studying this issue years ago, is that Calvin and many oof his followers were favorable to the flourishing of art and music outside the Church. Calvin's contention was that religious art, used in the context of Christian worship would lead to idolatry.

    I clearly reject his contention. But to cast him as some iron-fisted numbskull who hated all art, and especially snowmen (;)) is just flat-out wrong.

    I believe he used the iconoclastic argument that depicting Christ can only show his humanity, and not his divinity, and therefore separates the two natures and is thus Nestorian.

    He certainly had a real belief in the real union between Christ's natures. I don't believe his view of the Incarnation as such, could really be said to be anything other than Chalcedonian. However the outworkings of his theology, I think, came into conflict with his Chalcedonian views. I believe he invoked that very council against his Roman opponents and tried to trap them into running afoul of Chalcedonian christology.

    His view of the eucharist is hard to describe. He believed that the real presence was "spiritual" in the sense that the believer is "lifted up" into the heavenly banquet to "spiritually" feast upon the whole Christ, body, blood and spirit--but that the elements remained simple bread and wine.

    Also recall that he was reacting against a particular view. I don't know whether his arguments against real presence can be separated from (a) Transubstantiation or (b) adoration in which the host was paraded through the streets of cities while people fell down and worshiped it. Orthodoxy rejects both of these things also.

    I think (and could be wrong) that he was trying to come as close as he thought he could to retaining the belief in real presence, while closing the door permanently on transubstantiation and adoration of the host, Roman-style.

    Still today, Calvinist arguments against the Lutheran view of the eucharist often are that it comes too close to Rome's.

    He absolutely did not believe it was an illusion. He was no gnostic or docetist. To even ask this question shows a pretty barren lack of understanding of his views.

    I would guess "yes" in that he would not believe that Christ's material body could be shown in paint and color...not that he lacked a real body, but that anything other than that actual body itself, is man's own attempt to portray the living God, and is therefore an idol.

    His belief is WRONG by our understanding, but it didn't stand alone. It was intertwined with his rejection of Roman Catholicism, his Western philosophical approaches, and his view of Scripture saying that whatever isn't commanded in the text, is therefore not permissible (a philosophical presupposition imposed upon Scripture).

    I don't know...he rejected the 7th Council so I imagine he also rejected teh distinction between veneration and worship--pretty certain he did--and thus rejected the idea of depicting a prototype. I have no idea how he'd answer the question about Caesar's image...nor why you're asking it (I'm missing your connection, I think)

    Yes, I agree of course.

    He wrote enough commentaries on every book of Scripture (except Revelation...I think he died before he got to it) that would fill several shelves in your house. It's hard to imagine anyone of his era more familiar with the text of Scripture than Calvin.

    Rather than view him as some demonic enemy of truth, having actually read him, I think it's much more accurate to see him as someone who was trying to free people of his era from the burdens imposed by the medieval Roman Church (burdens that even many modern Catholics would agree were excessive and often abused--remember that the Reformers were not the only ones trying to reform the Roman Church! Many within its own ranks sought to curb the excesses). He was a polemecist for sure, but his sharp-tongued and rather arrogant writing style was par for the course in polemical rhetoric. Many Orthodox writers certainly didn't hold back from their opponents. You aren't ;)

    Did he have the "mind of the Fathers?" By Orthodox standard, definitely not. He quoted many of them everywhere, but was a huge fan of Augustine, while still rejecting much of Augustine. I think he had his own view of what Scripture taught when interpreted as he thought was correct, then he marshalled those patristic writings that seemed to agree with him.
     
  4. ArmyMatt

    ArmyMatt Regular Member Supporter

    +11,043
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    US-Republican
    that's why you should go there. would it not make sense that the monks there would have a greater personal knowledge of the history of the icon, and a better knowledge then what you can find on the Net or in a book?

    well, not if you merely look at Church history through the eyes of the post enlightenment way of thinking. if you read the councils and their canons and minutes, you can see that their standard was always what had always been believed. icons are no different. the fact that the word Trinity is not used until Tertullian does not negate the fact that the Trinity is a belief from Pentecost.

    yes, imagery is not the issue, it's what kind of imagery, and WHY. the Jews used images from when they were in the Tabernacle in the wilderness.

    no, you are fine and have been nothing but polite.
     
  5. ommnone

    ommnone Newbie

    59
    +2
    Agnostic
    Without reliably dated materials, either in terms of records or in terms of dating the actual materials of the icon, it's really just taking the your and some monastics' word for it. I'll drop it because I'm not going to go to Cyprus.


    Again, this is equivalent to saying people who agree with Eastern Orthodoxy generally will often agree with specific claims made my Eastern Orthodoxy. You must realize that approaching historical sources assuming the character of what they're going to say beforehand could lead to a biased understanding of those sources. I'd assume from here that this an insurmountable obstacle between two different historical methodologies.


    The above being a response to the quotes from Josephus, it almost sounds like you're saying that second temple Judaism in Judaea interpreted the prohibition against images as forbidding everything but venerated religious images (an unrecorded practice). I'm curious if you have actual sources for post-Babylonian practices of image veneration. What kind of images are you suggesting they used in ritual contexts, and what did they do with them?

    It seems unlikely to me that the Hasmonean through Roman era strictness on images in Judaea was somehow happening at the same time as image veneration in the same place and time.
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2015
  6. ArmyMatt

    ArmyMatt Regular Member Supporter

    +11,043
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    US-Republican
    well, this is understandable, and I know because I have friends who have been there many times, not because I personally have been there.

    of course, we profess it to be true not because we read a book by some PhD, but because we know Christ who IS truth.

    of course, we don't claim our history as a mere subject in academia, but that since Gos is outside of time, we can experience things in the past (and even in the future) now. it is in that experience that our writings and their interpretation come from (to include the Bible).

    it can be for sure.

    well, if you read the OT, and know of what the Jews did for their feast days, you would see the veneration of the images. every diagram I have ever seen of the post Babylon Temples had images on the walls. but even if not, in the Torah we see what God commanded that became the standard, and that involved imagery.
     
  7. buzuxi02

    buzuxi02 Veteran

    +1,682
    Eastern Orthodox
    Single
  8. JM

    JM Absolute Predestinarian Supporter

    +1,972
    Canada
    Protestant
    Married
    CA-Others
    Hey folks,

    I cannot respond to every comment but I'll try to answer to get to some of them now.

    Strawman. Once we understand the differences between the covenants, the old covenant and the new, there is no issue. A robust theological understanding of the biblical covenants would be all you need to give an answer. No Aristotelian argument needed. Do you have a Neoplatonic argument contra the biblical prohibitions of using images of God in worship?

    The issue at hand is the practice of looking into a painting of God or His saints and pretending to be "looking through a window to heaven." The concept is completely foreign to the Old and New Testament. The heart of the issue is looking at history and scripture, not layers of tradition accepted only by your church, to discover what the Apostle taught and believed. It would be abhorrent for a Jew to paint an image of God and bring it into the Temple for worship. We both agree on that. Let's find a biblical basis for their belief. Heck, I would even be willing to consider Jewish tradition on the idea of images of God and worship.

    We also need to find examples of Saints being given a role as mediator. The New Testament, a snap shot of "Holy Tradition" according to your church, doesn't record any examples of Christians asking the dead to intercede for them. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

    I don't mean to be, honest. It seems anytime I challenge someone from the Eastern Orthodox denomination they get offended and fail to see the benefit of rigors discussion of their beliefs.

    Shieldmaiden said I was insulting! You just called me a terrorist who murder inocent men, women and children.

    Essentially...I have to pick the right club to belong to if I want salvation?

    A difference not made until 700 years after the Apostles! Don't you see that?

    Guess why it's impossible...because the Bible doesn't teach it. The recorded words of the Apostles do not instruct us to paint images of Christ for worship. It's that simple and I agree, those who profess to believe in the Bible alone for doctrine and create images for worship are inconsistent at best, hypocritical at worst.

    It's not meant to be hurtful. Should I take those claiming that "he's Western therefore wrote," and an "ignoramus," etc.as hurtful? ;-)

    That is your party's line. Essentially, the Christian church happened and was serverly prosceuted by the State. Once the State involved itself in the church many areas of theology were bought and sold. The issue over Icons being one of them.

    As ommnone wrote, "Yes, that's your church's position. But it's not anyone else's. People shouldn't be forced to phrase their wording in a way that doesn't actually conform to their own beliefs just because you all have strong a conviction on a particular subject. This especially true in a space explicitly defined as one of contest against your group's convictions."

    I won't defend Calvin or any other man. He was a sinner and therefore saved by grace alone. He was probably a hypocrite but at least he could spell the word.

    Yes buz, by your denominational standard, Prots and RC's are heretics and those who deny we are heretics should be given over to Satan. So let's not pretend that I'm being rude or impolite to you folks when your church teaches I'm a heretic going to hell. The best thing ya'll can do is be straight with me and speak the truth in love.

    “Whoever denies Orthodox hesychasm is excommunicated by this Council (of St. Gregory Palamas), and whoever cannot understand the hesychastic life shows that he does not have the mind-set of the Church.” Eminence Hierotheos Vlachos, Metropolitan of Nafpaktos

    Concerning the necessity of not permitting heretics to come into the house of God, so long as they persist in their heresy. (Canon 6 of the Council of Laodicea)

    Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. St. Ignatius Of Antioch, Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1

    He that saith not ‘Anathema’ to those in heresy, let him be anathema. (Seventh Ecumenical Council) [I can agree with this statement depending on who means what by heresy]

    Neither the Papist nor the Protestant church can be considered as the True church of Christ. The first was altered by a number of innovations and the accursed despotism (Primacy) due to which resulted the schism from the Orthodox. The same goes for the Protestants whose innumerable innovations lead to total anarchy and chaos. Only the Orthodox church maintained the teachings of Christ flawlessly without a single innovation (St. Nektarios of Aegina)

    Those that are not reborn by the divine grace in the only One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, they do not consist of (comprise) any church, neither visible nor invisible. (St. Nektarios of Aegina) https://bayouhuguenot.wordpress.com/category/eastern-orthodoxy/

    We have plenty of false experiences, numerous examples of false traditions creeping into the old covenant faith. Why do you think you would be immune to such things? The heart is deceitful above all things...

    Exactly. They are being touchy because I challenge their idea of authority. ommnone, they don't see how rude they're being to me, they view my questioning of their dogma to be a personal attack on them, but it isn't. The Eastern Orthodox did not have to deal with the Enlightenment, not like the West, so defining and discussing doctrine/dogma in detail often leads to the EO declaring, "WE ARE THE CHURCH AND OUR DOCTRINES ARE TRUE BECAUSE WE SAY SO!"

    That's the rub isn't it. For the Eastern Orthodox believer they only accept the history as written and understood by their church hierarchy. This is similar to views held by JW's and Mormons who reinterpret history to bolster and support their assumptions rather than looking at history and struggling to see what is true and what isn't. Besides, the New Testament is a snap shot of history...the church that believes, worships and acts like the New Testament church is the church. A succession, of errors, doesn't guarantee truth.

    If you define "church" as what the State supported and recognized, maybe, but not by biblical definition.

    That's right...I'm a complete loon. Excellent argument. First you claim I'm using Aristotle, now I'm just completely out of touch with reality.

    Unsubstantiated nonsense.

    You really don't know what you're talking about.

    Which fathers? All of them? Some of them? Do they have to be accepted by East and West as Saints? Just the East? Does it matter which jurisdiction? Can I selectively quote only those who seem to agree with me which is what "tradition" does.

    The truth is yes, Eastern Orthodoxy is denominated by nation and/or location.

    ...kind of like you folks dismisses me as "Western" and therefore wrong. Without question. Or the looking down your nose at me, "I remember when I thought like a dumb Westerner like you..." etc. If the Eastern Orthodox denomination believes the closer to God you are the more humble you'll be, I haven't had the pleasure of meeting any Eastern Orthodox that are close to God. If belonging to the right church, like belonging to a club, is all that it takes to be a Christian I want no part of it.

    Ahhh, now who is being offensive? You are now disrespecting the Oriental and Roman denominations. lol

    The Bible disagrees especially on images of God in relation to worship.

    Ignatius21 wrote, "I remember enough to think your points below are bordering on the absurd. Please don't take offense, but there are many well-intentioned Calvinists out there who are used to thinking in a certain way, and making over-the-top allegations about their beliefs is no way to hold their attention..."

    Very true. The questions you asked buz seems a little unbalanced.

    I was speaking directly to Orthodox mystical experience and the mystical experience found in Buddhism. Plenty of studies online about it.
     
  9. JM

    JM Absolute Predestinarian Supporter

    +1,972
    Canada
    Protestant
    Married
    CA-Others
    That's exactly right.

    I saved this one for last because it actually deals with the issue.

    I'm not sure if you were being vague or not on purpose so I'll narrow down the passage to the angels.

    Let's put these passages in a biblical context by viewing others that contain more information about the subject. By doing this we can gleam how Christ our Lord would have understood it. The Holy Scripture declares, "Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:" Isa. 29 We must always be moving toward Jesus Christ as revealed in scripture and away from the precepts of man.

    Deut. 12:

    v. 1.-2 destroy Temples belonging to false religion
    v. 4-19 worship is prescribed where God reveals His name…the Tabernacle
    v. 4. “You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way.”
    v.8 “You shall not do according to all that we are doing here today, everyone doing whatever is right in his own eyes,”
    v. 20-21 the revealed will of God regulates worship
    v. 29-21 we are not to be influenced by culture
    v.31 “You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way, for every abominable thing that the Lord hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods.”
    v. 32 “Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it.”

    Under the old covenant God directed every aspect of Israel's worship in His revealed word. God alone determines how we come to God in worship and this excluded any practices that were not revealed in His word. Why? According to the Old Testament extra biblical practices nullified true biblical worship and call into question God's holy revelation (the Bible) by adding to it. All worship not commanded by God in His word is condemned as false worship. I ask that you have a look at a few passages on your own for further clarification. Listing them would make my reply even longer.

    Lev. 10.1-3; Deut. 4.2, 12.29-32, 17.3; Josh. 1.7, 23.6-8; Matt. 15.13; Col. 2.20-23

    Many Christians will claim that images aid a believer in devotion, help make worship more beautiful and move along the worship serve. Icons were chosen by some, fought over for a few hundreds years, and now enforced upon all as "Orthodox." This runs contrary to the old covenant revelation concerning images and worship, what changed between the covenants? We'll get to that in another post, but for now lets continue with the old covenant.

    The angels ArmyMatt mentions are decorative angels, directly revealed by God, to be added to the top of the Ark of the Covenant. Keep in mind it was a direct command by God recorded in His written word. It must be noted that only the High Priest, Jesus Christ is our High Priest (Hebrews 4), and no one else was allowed to enter into the Holy of Holies to even see these angels. You will also not find any example of the High Priest bowing down before the angels, kissing them, or praying to them or what they represented. So what was the purpose of the angels? Were worshipers to gaze upon them in adoration, asking them for assistance or looking through them into heaven? Absolutely not. Paul tells us in Hebrews, "And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat" (Hebrews 9) They simply pointed to the middle of the top of the table which was the mercyseat and it did not contain any image. The Psalmist tells us that our God "dwellest between the cherubims" (Ps. 80) in the empty space and in or through images. When Christ came He replaced the old covenant so that we may, "come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." (Hebrews 4) This throne of grace does not contain images.

    This is running a little long now. Perhaps we could discuss New Testament passages now. Hebrews contains a wealth of information about Jesus Christ and how He alone is to be worshiped in truth and in the spirit. Any of the beggarly elements of the old covenant have been fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

    Yours in the Lord,

    jm
    PS: I'll refrain from saying, "The Eastern Orthodox denomination" from now on.
     
  10. ArmyMatt

    ArmyMatt Regular Member Supporter

    +11,043
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    US-Republican
    um, I actually said that we are a denomination, I just clarified how we could think it.....

    I don't think anyone said you were a dumb Westerner.......I think folks might have said when they were in the Christian West, but I don't think anyone made it that personal.

    well for one, this is the EO position and you are on an EO forum. for two, the OO historically set up the renegade episcopate, and for three Roman Catholics have admitted that the EO have maintained the ancient thinking and the ancient worship focus.

    what about the angels that were on the walls and the curtains, which the people saw? and this only shows that God is not anti image, but anti graven image. you have to show that icons are graven images, and not just images.
    no, HOW the images were venerated may have changed, but THAT they were venerated were not.

    um, we are not talking about saint veneration, we are talking about the use of imagery in Orthodox Churches.

    I honestly don't know why you are posting here aside to just get under our skin.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2015
  11. Ignatius21

    Ignatius21 Can somebody please pass the incense?

    +291
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    Like any online discussion, this has diverged into lots of little mini-threads. So let's try to pull it back to the level of examining assumptions.

    You've pointed out that Orthodoxy is bound to its traditions. Yup, no secret there. That we look at history through the lens of our own traditions and seek to understand it that way. Yup. No secret there. You also point out, quoting the other participant in the discussion, "Yes, that's your church's position. But it's not anyone else's. People shouldn't be forced to phrase their wording in a way that doesn't actually conform to their own beliefs just because you all have strong a conviction on a particular subject. This especially true in a space explicitly defined as one of contest against your group's convictions."

    Then, you make a statement like the following, that is simply filled to the brim with assumptions, traditions and presuppositions of your own! And, clearly, expect us to accept your theological/philosophical/historical methods so that we can engage you in conversation. Despite the fact that your methods are "in a space explicitly defined as one of contest against [our] group's convictions."

    This simple statement is pretty well packed with dynamite. You're implying that YOU understand the differences between the old covenant and new. What, please tell, to you is a "robust understanding of the biblical covenants" if not a Reformed understanding of the Biblical covenants? The stark line drawn between various covenants (whether two or three) in "Covenant Theology" is a distinctively and thoroughly Reformed Protestant traditon. The "grammatical-historical" methods of exegesis by which we can supposedly arrive at the objectively true meanings of texts is likewise a distinctively Reformed tradition.

    When you ask us to "provide Biblical context" are you not asking us to, essentially, engage in a scripture-vs-scripture debate along the lines of those found within and among Protestant denominations?

    In order to engage you in the way you seem to find meaningful and "robust," would mean that we would need to adopt your methods, your assumptions, and your view of how Scripture is to be interpreted and applied.

    In other words, what you are offering as a counter-point to our group's traditions, are your own group's traditions.

    So, again:

    Do you disagree that you are asking us to accept "layers of tradition accepted only by your church?" Looking at history and scripture, how? Through what lens? By what traditions?

    So, my contention is this: what you are doing is twofold: (a) sincerely believing that you are adhering to Scripture where we are adhering to our own traditions, while (b) in actuality, you are adhering to your own traditions, and opposing them to ours.

    If I'm wrong, demonstrate to me that I am. In fact let's keep it to three points:

    1) Why is your method of applying Scripture to worship, which basically is "If it isn't explicit in the NT, then it is not to be done by Christians" (i.e. the "regulative principle") not a Reformed Tradition?

    2) Why is your "robust understanding" of the relationship between Old and New Covenants not a Reformed Tradition?

    3) Why are your methods of exegesis not Reformed traditions?

    You may think I'm leading you down a rabbit trail, but I believe wholeheartedly that I'm actually bringing us back to the core of our disagreement. Until this is really put out on the table, any discussion of icons or other contended topics will just spin hopelessly in circles.

    I'd propose furthermore, that going forward, we drop extraneous subjects like whether or not the EO are a denomination, or whether the EO canons consider those outside the EO to be saved, and quit complaining on both sides about whether or not we've been insulted or talked down to. I'd like to think we're all grown up enough to roll with a few insults, and not respond in kind. (And yes, I'm talking to my own side also...calling Calvin names is hardly a responsible way to promote dialogue).
     
  12. JM

    JM Absolute Predestinarian Supporter

    +1,972
    Canada
    Protestant
    Married
    CA-Others
    At this point in the convo people tend to dig in. I believe both sides have had their say and with that I'll leave the final comment, thank you.

    Yours in the Lord,

    jm
     
  13. Ignatius21

    Ignatius21 Can somebody please pass the incense?

    +291
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    People usually dig in before a conversation ever begins.

    I hope you will consider answering my questions above. I haven't yet found many Protestants willing to engage in discussions about their own presuppositions and traditions.
     
  14. JM

    JM Absolute Predestinarian Supporter

    +1,972
    Canada
    Protestant
    Married
    CA-Others

    Hey Ignatius (great name),

    I'll try to answer your questions tonight, perhaps tomorrow. I post a lot from my phone which leads to errors so I'll try to sit down in the near future and give some time to your questions. Unlike most Prots I'm aware of my traditions and embrace them. I am, after all, a confessional Baptist. That in and of itself places me in the stream of catholic Christianity. I'm too catholic to be Roman and too orthodox to be Eastern.

    Your irenic spirit is refreshing.

    Yours in the Lord,

    jm
     
  15. ArmyMatt

    ArmyMatt Regular Member Supporter

    +11,043
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    US-Republican
    that's the kind of unneeded dig at us that adds nothing to the discussion.
     
  16. Shieldmaiden4Christ

    Shieldmaiden4Christ Eastward bound

    858
    +80
    Christian Seeker
    Single
    US-Libertarian
    You are neither catholic nor orthodox; the way you interpret Scripture from your heretical Calvinistic lens shows this.
     
  17. JM

    JM Absolute Predestinarian Supporter

    +1,972
    Canada
    Protestant
    Married
    CA-Others
     
  18. Ignatius21

    Ignatius21 Can somebody please pass the incense?

    +291
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    I would second this.
     
  19. Ignatius21

    Ignatius21 Can somebody please pass the incense?

    +291
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    Shield maiden ...

    I appreciate your zeal but could you kindly back off the flaming attacks a bit? Screaming "heretic" at people over and over adds nothing to this discussion.
     
  20. Shieldmaiden4Christ

    Shieldmaiden4Christ Eastward bound

    858
    +80
    Christian Seeker
    Single
    US-Libertarian
    Yeah, that's fine. I just see Calvinism as deeply in error in how Scripture is interpreted.
     
Loading...