Icons...

[simonthezealot]

He goes on with this...So you can understand clearly what he is getting at...

“For why must we tell you who already know, what the craftsmen fashion their material into, by planning and cutting, casting and hammering? And often out of vessels used for dishonorable purposes, by merely changing the form, and making an image of the appropriate shape, they make what they call gods. We consider this not only irrational, but to be even insulting to God, who, though of ineffable glory and form, yet has His name set upon things which are corruptible and need to be cared for.

 

[Thekla]

I would hope not. But many give reverence to them as well as other icons. To revere something is to respect it. Thats why I revere truth. Its not physical...no image can be made of it, perhaps that's why no one seems to identify withit or belief in it.

It doesn't have that 'golden calf' appeal...

I disagree.

Jesus Christ is "the Truth" !
He became flesh for us.

To show honor to something, btw, is not the same as to worship.
We should, imo, show respect to other humans, to the things which are of God, but only worship God.

 

[Thekla]

He goes on with this...So you can understand clearly what he is getting at...

“For why must we tell you who already know, what the craftsmen fashion their material into, by planning and cutting, casting and hammering? And often out of vessels used for dishonorable purposes, by merely changing the form, and making an image of the appropriate shape, they make what they call gods. We consider this not only irrational, but to be even insulting to God, who, though of ineffable glory and form, yet has His name set upon things which are corruptible and need to be cared for.

Icons are not "gods".

(Note that God the Father and God the Holy Spirit both have "ineffable form", or "no form", but Jesus Christ walked as a human, with a human form.)

 

[Tzaousios]

Justin Martyr opposes venerating images of the dead and making images of God:
"And neither do we honour with many sacrifices and garlands of flowers such deities as men have formed and set in shrines and called gods; since we see that these are soulless and dead, and have not the form of God (for we do not consider that God has such a form as some say that they imitate to His honour), but have the names and forms of those wicked demons which have appeared." (First Apology, 9)
He mentions the fact that the entities being honored are dead as a reason for not venerating their images. He criticizes attempts to portray God with images that aren't accurate representations of what God looks like. The same reasoning would prohibit Roman Catholics from venerating images of the deceased and making images of God, since they don't know what God looks like.

Ha! You have to be kidding. This is such an exercise in creative historicizing that it might as well be a parody of the practice. Gotcha, Justin Martyr is a proto-Evangelical Protestant, and this passage speaks exactly and incontrovertibly against the practice of icon veneration as done in the Church, the very Church he is defending against Jews and pagans.

 

[Tzaousios]

He goes on with this...So you can understand clearly what he is getting at...

“For why must we tell you who already know, what the craftsmen fashion their material into, by planning and cutting, casting and hammering? And often out of vessels used for dishonorable purposes, by merely changing the form, and making an image of the appropriate shape, they make what they call gods. We consider this not only irrational, but to be even insulting to God, who, though of ineffable glory and form, yet has His name set upon things which are corruptible and need to be cared for.

No, I think it is you who needs to understand clearly what he is getting at. Your historical revisioning and fantasizing is becoming quite laughable.

So, by this line, everyone should become iconoclasts and drag out their icons of Christ and the saints and set about defacing them, urinating on them, and defecating on them, all things which the historical iconoclasts did?

 

[simonthezealot]

Where in any of the works of the Shepherd of Hermas does he say anything remotely akin to Evangelical Protestant theology or ecclesiology?

Also, it is very strange indeed why you would point to Augustine in this. Does he get an honorable mention as a proto-Evangelical Protestant because he made some different soteriological interpretations? In just about everything, in faith and praxis, he was an ardent catholic Christian, and viciously defended it against groups that tried to break away or operate outside of it.

The shepherd spoke of the elect and of the receiving of Christ as Savior not the infant dunk for the indwelling, for example.

Augustine an ardent Catholic? not compared to what Catholicism is now...
He was a Calvinist.
His view on; justification, scripture sufficiency and perspicuity just to name a few...It was Augustine's work that ignited Luther, surely you are aware of that?

 

[simonthezealot]

So, by this line, everyone should become iconoclasts and drag out their icons of Christ and the saints and set about defacing them, urinating on them, and defecating on them, all things which the historical iconoclasts did?

That's disgusting.

 

[cobweb]

How appropriate that icons are attacked on the Feast of St. Luke. Perfect timing.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

How appropriate that icons are attacked on the Feast of St. Luke. Perfect timing.

There is a feast for St Luke

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I would hope not. But many give reverence to them as well as other icons. To revere something is to respect it. Thats why I revere truth. Its not physical...no image can be made of it, perhaps that's why no one seems to identify withit or belief in it.

It doesn't have that 'golden calf' appeal...

 

[Tzaousios]

The shepherd spoke of the elect and of the receiving of Christ as Savior not the infant dunk for the indwelling, for example.

Many of the Church Fathers speak of "the elect," predestination, and the conceptual matter. They did so because it is biblical in vocabulary and concept. It does not mean that they were proto-Evangelical Protestants, proto-Calvinists, or believed in the same manner about election. Just because the Shepherd does not talk about "infant dunking" (your derisive description), does not mean he did not believe it or was not a practicing catholic Christian. It is just more creative historicizing and revisioning on your part.

Augustine an ardent Catholic? not compared to what Catholicism is now...

Well, you would have my agreement that Augustine would be disgusted with post-Vatican II Catholicism and would likely be cleaning house with a detachment of Roman soldiers.

Nevertheless, he thoroughly supported religious iconography, the cult of Mary and the Saints, the real presence in the Eucharist, and sacramental grace. There is no denying this.

He was a Calvinist.
His view on; justification, scripture sufficiency and perspicuity just to name a few...It was Augustine's work that ignited Luther, surely you are aware of that?

No, Augustine did not believe in double predestination as defined by Calvin. It is true that Augustine's soteriology became very monergistic after 395 AD, but he never denied the existence of free will or a sacramental, synergistic relationship between Christians and God. It is also true that Luther and Calvin developed their soteriologies based upon the foundation that Augustine established.

That's disgusting.

Well, why don't you take this as an opportunity to distance yourself from the actions of iconoclasts? But this then begs the question of what you would do to icons or think permissible. Should they just be placed in a dusty corner and covered with a sheet or something?

You need to come to grips with the thoughts and deeds of real iconoclasts in history. They did these things and subscribed to the same notions of iconoclasm/aniconism which you espouse, using the same prooftexts and rhetorical constructions that you employ.

 

[Thekla]

How appropriate that icons are attacked on the Feast of St. Luke. Perfect timing.

 

[Thekla]

There is a feast for St Luke

We commemorate all the NT Saints, and OT Saints, too

A commemoration can also be called a feast.

("The righteous shall be in everlasting remembrance." Psalm 112)

 

[ivebeenshown]

I would hope not. But many give reverence to them as well as other icons. To revere something is to respect it. Thats why I revere truth. Its not physical...no image can be made of it, perhaps that's why no one seems to identify withit or belief in it.

It doesn't have that 'golden calf' appeal...

I don't think the icons themselves are the object of the reverence. But we do respect the Saints, even as I respect my parents. I am simply not of a culture where bowing and kissing and lighting candles is the norm, so I do not do such things. But for others who may do such things, they do not equate to worship, because worship is truly with the heart. The most I might do is participate in a candlelight vigil for a deceased friend or family member. We light candles at funerals, in front of a picture of a loved one, but we are not respecting the picture -- we are showing respect for the person the picture represents.

 

[simonthezealot]

Nevertheless, he thoroughly supported religious iconography, the cult of Mary and the Saints, the real presence in the Eucharist, and sacramental grace. There is no denying this.

the cult of Mary?
NOT regarding sinlessness,
Augustine wrote about Christ being the *only* post-Adamic human conceived without original sin, you can find that in (On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin, 2:47-48)

he did not consider her the mother of all Christians either you'll find that in his tracates on John 119 1-3

Also Augustine did not view Mary as the ark or the queen of Psalms as catholics suggest.

Also his view on the real presence was nothing even close to transubstantiation, i've got a whole thread on that...

Augustine was a sola scripturist through and through.

 

[simonthezealot]

and sacramental grace. There is no denying this.

ahh not so much,
"When ye have been baptized, hold fast a good life in the commandments of God, that ye may guard your Baptism even unto the end. I do not tell you that ye will live here without sin; but they are venial, without which this life is not. For the sake of all sins was Baptism provided; for the sake of light sins, without which we cannot be, was prayer provided. What hath the Prayer? 'Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors.' Once for all we have washing in Baptism, every day we have washing in prayer. Only, do not commit those things for which ye must needs be separated from Christ's body: which be far from you! For those whom ye have seen doing penance, have committed heinous things, either adulteries or some enormous crimes: for these they do penance. Because if theirs had been light sins, to blot out these daily prayer would suffice. In three ways then are sins remitted in the Church; by Baptism, by prayer, by the greater humility of penance" (On the Creed: A Sermon to the Catechumens, 15-16)

 

[Thekla]

ahh not so much,
"When ye have been baptized, hold fast a good life in the commandments of God, that ye may guard your Baptism even unto the end. I do not tell you that ye will live here without sin; but they are venial, without which this life is not. For the sake of all sins was Baptism provided; for the sake of light sins, without which we cannot be, was prayer provided. What hath the Prayer? 'Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors.' Once for all we have washing in Baptism, every day we have washing in prayer. Only, do not commit those things for which ye must needs be separated from Christ's body: which be far from you! For those whom ye have seen doing penance, have committed heinous things, either adulteries or some enormous crimes: for these they do penance. Because if theirs had been light sins, to blot out these daily prayer would suffice. In three ways then are sins remitted in the Church; by Baptism, by prayer, by the greater humility of penance" (On the Creed: A Sermon to the Catechumens, 15-16)

 

[Tzaousios]

the cult of Mary?

Please don't tell me you are going to take the word "cult" and try to press it into the service of your rhetoric. No, I did not mean "cult" in terms of the Branch Davidians, Jim Jone's Kool Aid Drinkers, etc.

NOT regarding sinlessness,
Augustine wrote about Christ being the *only* post-Adamic human conceived without original sin, you can find that in (On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin, 2:47-48)

Well, I am not entirely up to date on my modern Catholic dogma, but didn't the specific doctrine of the Immaculate Conception arrive much, much later than Augustine? Thus, it would be entirely anachronistic and self-serving to hold Augustine to that dogma. It would also make your cherry-picking of a line from one of Augustine's later treatises...just that...cherry-picking.

he did not consider her the mother of all Christians either you'll find that in his tracates on John 119 1-3

Can you provide the direct quotation, in context? From what I can remember, no, he would say the the Church is the mother of all Christians. Mary is a traditional illustration of this.

Also Augustine did not view Mary as the ark or the queen of Psalms as catholics suggest.

Citation, in context.

Also his view on the real presence was nothing even close to transubstantiation, i've got a whole thread on that...

Of course, because "transubstantiation" is a product of Thomas Aquinas and medieval Catholic Scholasticism. To suggest he believed specifically in Transubstantiation would be, once again, anachronistic. If anything, Augustine believed in the mystical, real presence of Christ in the elements, like the other Church Fathers.

Please don't say you mean to tell me that Augustine was a raging proto-Baptist memorialist...

Augustine was a sola scripturist through and through.

Which is another self-serving anachronism. Sola Scriptura was not even a recognized methodology during Augustine's time. Now, he believed in a kind of inerrancy and divine inspiration of Scripture. He definitely was not an Evangelical Protestant, knee jerk literalist, as is quite apparent from his frequent recourse to allegorical interpretation.

 

[Tzaousios]

ahh not so much,
"When ye have been baptized, hold fast a good life in the commandments of God, that ye may guard your Baptism even unto the end. I do not tell you that ye will live here without sin; but they are venial, without which this life is not. For the sake of all sins was Baptism provided; for the sake of light sins, without which we cannot be, was prayer provided. What hath the Prayer? 'Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors.' Once for all we have washing in Baptism, every day we have washing in prayer. Only, do not commit those things for which ye must needs be separated from Christ's body: which be far from you! For those whom ye have seen doing penance, have committed heinous things, either adulteries or some enormous crimes: for these they do penance. Because if theirs had been light sins, to blot out these daily prayer would suffice. In three ways then are sins remitted in the Church; by Baptism, by prayer, by the greater humility of penance" (On the Creed: A Sermon to the Catechumens, 15-16)

Do you even read stuff before you post it? I am at a loss as to what this is supposed to "disprove."

 

[narnia59]

What i mean by absolute truth is that which corresponds to reality as perceived by God and is displayed in His word.
If you don't think a person can come to absolute truth in scripture then you are more closed minded than the athiests.

With Scripture alone can a person come to absolute truth? This is an assertion not born out in history, for there are so many versions of "absolute" truth out there claimed by those who profess Scripture alone, one could spend a lifetime simply studying them.

Can people come to absolute truth from God's Word? Yes. But let's not forget that according to Scripture, Scripture alone is by no means the totality of God's Word.

Paul says [FONT=&quot]“If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual,let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor 14:37)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]We are capable of reading and interpreting scripture.[/FONT]

And who is "we"?

In my view one of the most troubling aspects of sola-scriptura is it creates a class system from day one. Those who can read. Those who can afford a Bible. Those who have a Bible translated into their own language (which 1/3 of the world's language groups of about 340 million people do not have even today).

"We" who are capable of reading and interpreting scripture over the course of the last 2000 years overall are an elitist group of wealthy, educated people. Most of the "we" who have been Christians have been poor, uneducated, unable to read, and have spent the better part of their life doing manual labor simply to be able to have shelter and food. Even if education had been accessible they would not have been able to afford the time to learn -- it would have been at the expense of the basic necessities of life.

Fortunately, the "we" Christ invites to His banquet is not just an exclusive group. And he did not foresake or abandon them in their pursuit of absolute truth by leaving them Scripture alone as the way to come to know him.