Iconoclast heresy

[All Becomes New]

Since there is obviously nothing that would convince you; why keep flogging a dead horse. You made your point, so did we.

I already said what would change my mind.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

You realize that much of the Church is responsible for Anti-Semitism, right? And denying that the Jews have a role in God's plan any longer?

Their role is to convert at this stage of the game; yet they continue to deny our Lord. That is on them.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I already said what would change my mind.

 

[All Becomes New]

View attachment 354703

Really convenient for you to say that. Is this your first time on this forum? People go on and on and on over the same issues all the time. Why is me doing it any different?

 

[The Liturgist]

I already said what would change my mind.

Yes, and then you changed your mind on what would change your mind, twice. I’m not interested in that kind of discussion.

Really convenient for you to say that. Is this your first time on this forum? People go on and on and on over the same issues all the time. Why is me doing it any different?

Mark was one of the most well-regarded members when I joined just before the Covid pandemic, and remains one of the most well-regarded members now, in 2024. And during that time we have seen a great many threads on this forum which follow the same course, of someone attacking the traditional churches, but saying they would change their mind if someone provided them with X, then saying, nope, I also need Y, and if someone provides Y they demand Z, and if someone provides Z they demand α then β then γ then δ ad infinitum.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Yes, and then you changed your mind on what would change your mind, twice. I’m not interested in that kind of discussion.



Mark was one of the most well-regarded members when I joined just before the Covid pandemic, and remains one of the most well-regarded members now, in 2024. And during that time we have seen a great many threads on this forum which follow the same course, of someone attacking the traditional churches, but saying they would change their mind if someone provided them with X, then saying, nope, I also need Y, and if someone provides Y they demand Z, and if someone demands Z they demand α then β then γ then δ ad infinitum.

It goes that way because telling the truth is not a priority in their theology - perhaps once always saved really does lead to some loss of moral rectitude.

 

[All Becomes New]

Yes, and then you changed your mind on what would change your mind, twice. I’m not interested in that kind of discussion.

I changed my mind once which was completely unrelated to your proofs, which I will explain.

Mark was one of the most well-regarded members when I joined just before the Covid pandemic, and remains one of the most well-regarded members now, in 2024. And during that time we have seen a great many threads on this forum which follow the same course, of someone attacking the traditional churches, but saying they would change their mind if someone provided them with X, then saying, nope, I also need Y, and if someone provides Y they demand Z, and if someone demands Z they demand α then β then γ then δ ad infinitum.

I'm sure Mark is a great guy. I am sure he has a lot of knowledge about Christianity. But I don't know Mark from Adam.

Now, you say that I am constantly shifting the goalpost. That is not true in the slightest. FMPOV, you have not even satisfied the first criteria I gave. Sometimes I ask people to give evidence before the sixth century. That has been my go to for evidence for some time. But as I was thinking about it, I realized that would just be "an answer" to me and would not satisfy me. So I thought about what the Bible says about there being 2-3 witnesses. The reason I said the third century or before is because almost all the NT was quoted by the ECF by then. I also think 300 years is plenty of time for any doctrines that really need to be talked about will. The Trinity has precedence far before Nicea. Same sort of thing as the canon of scripture.

So, I am telling you honestly (God is my witness) that my "moving the goalpost" had nothing to do with you. FMPOV, you dropped some names and didn't provide any quotes and I still have not looked up any of the quotes.

 

[All Becomes New]

It goes that way because telling the truth is not a priority in their theology - perhaps once always saved really does lead to some loss of moral rectitude.

You should probably know my position on Eternal Security before you use it to insult me.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You should probably know my position on Eternal Security

You can present it any time you like.

 

[All Becomes New]

You can present it any time you like.

I believe we can lose our salvation. I think the texts that try and argue that we have eternal security don't make sense for the simple fact of asking the question, "Why does the Bible warn the reprobate they are not actually saved?" It makes no sense.

My position is basically this:

1) There is not a single verse in the Bible that says we CAN'T walk away from Christ. The verses used for this are God's promises to us, not our reaction to Him.
2) There are a TON of verses warning against apostasy.

That's my view in a nutshell.

 

[jas3]

Now, you say that I am constantly shifting the goalpost. That is not true in the slightest. FMPOV, you have not even satisfied the first criteria I gave. Sometimes I ask people to give evidence before the sixth century. That has been my go to for evidence for some time.

To be fair, you initially just said "show me one ECF," which may imply that you want a quote, but that was not explicit.

But as I was thinking about it, I realized that would just be "an answer" to me and would not satisfy me. So I thought about what the Bible says about there being 2-3 witnesses. the reason I said the third century or before is because almost all the NT was quoted by the ECF by then. I also think 300 years is plenty of time for any doctrines that really need to be talked about will.

It's fine to ask for more than one source in support of a doctrine, but it's also easy to avoid having to change your beliefs by demanding a high enough standard of proof. I knew an atheist a few years ago who told me the only way he could be convinced of God's existence would be for a miracle to happen to him that couldn't be explained as anything other than a miracle, and he gave as an example a high school dropout suddenly turning to him and giving him a lecture on advanced mathematics. Given that we don't have much Christian writing that has survived from the third century to today (and you seem to believe that even in the second century people were changing the faith on infant baptism) this seems like an equally arbitrary standard.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I believe we can lose our salvation. I think the texts that try and argue that we have eternal security don't make sense for the simple fact of asking the question, "Why does the Bible warn the reprobate they are not actually saved?" It makes no sense.

My position is basically this:

1) There is not a single verse in the Bible that says we CAN'T walk away from Christ. The verses used for this are God's promises to us, not our reaction to Him.
2) There are a TON of verses warning against apostasy.

That's my view in a nutshell.

Okay, so ... will any evidence change your mind?

 

[All Becomes New]

To be fair, you initially just said "show me one ECF," which may imply that you want a quote, but that was not explicit.

It's fine to ask for more than one source in support of a doctrine, but it's also easy to avoid having to change your beliefs by demanding a high enough standard of proof. I knew an atheist a few years ago who told me the only way he could be convinced of God's existence would be for a miracle to happen to him that couldn't be explained as anything other than a miracle, and he gave as an example a high school dropout suddenly turning to him and giving him a lecture on advanced mathematics. Given that we don't have much Christian writing that has survived from the third century to today (and you seem to believe that even in the second century people were changing the faith on infant baptism) this seems like an equally arbitrary standard.

Okay, so ... will any evidence change your mind?

I think my standard of evidence is reasonable and I said what it would have to be for me to seriously reconsider my position. You can say that my standard of evidence is too high, but it does not seem that high to me if Icon Veneration goes back to the Apostles.

 

[jas3]

I think my standard of evidence is reasonable and I said what it would have to be for me to seriously reconsider my position. You can say that my standard of evidence is too high, but it does not seem that high to me if Icon Veneration goes back to the Apostles.

Well consider an analogous standard:

"Show me three ECFs who taught the Trinity in the third century or earlier. Not 'one God, three persons.' Not the Son being God. The Trinity, meaning, three hypostaseis, homoousios, all unambiguously uncreated."

Is that standard too high if the doctrine of the Trinity goes back to the Apostles?

 

[All Becomes New]

Not 'one God, three persons.'

That is the Trinity.

 

[jas3]

That is the Trinity.

No, because there were Gnostic and Arian and semi-Arian cosmologies that could also use that phrase but mean something heretical by it, although in practice they were primarily focused on the relationship between the Father and the Son.
If you're going to use Nicaea II for a definition of icon veneration, it's just as legitimate to use Nicaea I and Constantinople I for a definition of the Trinity.

 

[All Becomes New]

If you're going to use Nicaea II for a definition of icon veneration, it's just as legitimate to use Nicaea I for a definition of the Trinity.

I think there is precedence for the Trinity before Nicea. If not, then Nicea was an accretion and should be rejected. I do not feel that there is precedence for Icon Veneration until the sixth century, so you are still a way out from when Nicea was to Icon Veneration unlike Nicea 1 where there is precedence for the Trinity before then.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I think my standard of evidence is reasonable and I said what it would have to be for me to seriously reconsider my position. You can say that my standard of evidence is too high, but it does not seem that high to me if Icon Veneration goes back to the Apostles.

You said a lot of words but didn't answer you question.

 

[All Becomes New]

You said a lot of words but didn't answer you question.

I am open to changing my mind if the evidence supports it. I could be wrong. I am fallible. However, I would need some evidence that bowing down and kissing and praying through an icon goes back to the Apostles. I think 2-3 witnesses and withing 300 years of Church history is reasonable.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I am open to changing my mind if the evidence supports it. I could be wrong. I am fallible. However, I would need some evidence that bowing down and kissing and praying through an icon goes back to the Apostles. I think 2-3 witnesses and withing 300 years of Church history is reasonable.

Sounds like a game to me. You can do google searches as well as the next chap so you can get the evidence that you say you want without engaging if fruitless 'debates' on CF. Just get on with it and tell us that you failed to be convinced.