/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>848735

>statues

modernist heretiks

>Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image

>>848737

wat?

>>848740

Cherubs on the Ark, cherubs on the tabernacle embroidery, brass snake on a stick, oxes, lions angels on Solomon's palace, angels on solomon's temple.

>>848735

The artist used the photoshop paint bucket with random colors.

>>848755

orthodox generally view 3d icons with scepticism.

https://youtu.be/kDxFso6XvK4

freakin beautiful orthobros

>>848756

>Cherubs on the Ark, cherubs on the tabernacle embroidery, brass snake on a stick, oxes, lions angels on Solomon's palace, angels on solomon's temple.

You forgot to mention Christ himself. He was the very one who gave Moses that Law, but it had an expiration at his own incarnation in the flesh. Some of my Protestant friends don't see this unfortunately. They believe that God himself took on an image in Jesus of Nazareth - yet don't follow it through with things like this. They are not consistent. And this was precisely the reason why the 7th Council finally ousted the iconoclasts. They inadvertently burned themselves by denying the very real, visual aspect of the Incarnation. To rest on that one commandment about no images of God was to deny Christ. They were no better than Gnostics, who settled on abstracts and ideals. Or just as bad, no better than Jews or Muslims, who think they can reach God without the only image of God: Jesus. Don't imitate them.

>>848777

This is because a lot of Protestants, mainly the Evangelical/Baptist type, are quasi-Nestorians.

>>848778

Yes, it's strange. In a sense, this issue goes back further than the 7th Council. Like Nestorius, they also protest at calling Mary the Mother of God. By doing that, they're denying the nature of Christ. They think they're just diminishing Mary's title, but they're in fact knocking down Christ by not calling him God when they say Mary isn't the Mother of God. It has nothing to do with Mary and everything to do with Christ. The same shortsighted thought process is at work when they also say that God should have no image - when the very fact of Christ's existence proves that wrong.

That said, Methodists and Anglicans had the foresight to not throw the Councils out at least.

>>848779

>by disagreeing with me on the use of images, you deny the nature of Christ

Wow dude have you told anyone in the Vatican about this airtight apologetics argument?

>>848783

Because you implicitly do. You don't understand the theological implications because you have no real theology.

>>848796

What are the theological implications of denying laypeople the blood of Christ in most catholic churches?

>>848756

>Cherubs on the Ark, cherubs on the tabernacle embroidery, brass snake on a stick, oxes, lions angels on Solomon's palace, angels on solomon's temple.

wtf i love idolatry now

>>848777

The images in your church are not Jesus. Christ brought to us the true image of the Father in His person, but that image is not made by men. A depiction of the person of Jesus Christ is just as much a flawed fallible and false human misrepresentation as an attempt to capture the divine essence itself.

>>848778

It is precisely the opposite.

We have a command in scripture strictly forbidding any depiction of our God. The incarnate Son is no exception to this, precisely because the man Jesus of Nazareth may never be thought of as separate from God the Son. A depiction of the human Jesus is no less a depiction of the divine Son than if it were pre-incarnate.

>>848779

Their reason for rejecting the term is not the same as Nestorius. They are not objecting to implications about the nature of Christ, they are objecting to its use in Roman Catholic piety to exalt Mary above God.

>>848802

Now, as we are talking of images and worship, let us analyse the exact meaning of each. An image is a likeness of the original with a certain difference, for it is not an exact reproduction of the original. Thus, the Son is the living, substantial, unchangeable Image of the invisible God, bearing in Himself the whole Father, being in all things equal to Him, differing only in being begotten by the Father, who is the Begetter; the Son is begotten. The Father does not proceed from the Son, but the Son from the Father. It is through the Son, though not after Him, that He is what He is, the Father who generates. In God, too, there are representations and images of His future acts,-that is to say, His counsel from all eternity, which is ever unchangeable. That which is divine is immutable; there is no change in Him, nor shadow of change. Blessed Denis, [note: the Pseudo-Dionysius] who has made divine things in God's presence his study, says that these representations and images arc marked out beforehand. In His counsels, God has noted and settled all that He would do, the unchanging future events before tbey came to pass. In the same way, a man who wished to build a house would first make and think out a plan. Again, visible things are images of invisible and intangible things, on which they throw a faint light. Holy Scripture clothes in figure God and the angels, and the same holy man (Blessed Denis) explains why. When sensible things sufficiently render what is beyond sense, and give a form to what is intangible, a medium would be reckoned imperfect according to our standard, if it did not fully represent material vision, or if it required effort of mind. If, therefore, Holy Scripture, providing for our need, ever putting before us what is intangible, clothes it in flesh, does it not make an image of what is thus invested with our nature, and brought to the level of our desires, yet invisible? A certain conception through the senses thus takes place in the brain, which was not there before, and is transmitted to the judicial faculty, and added to the mental store. Gregory, who is so eloquent about God, says that the mind, which is set upon getting beyond corporeal things, , is incapable of doing it. For the invisible things of God since the creation of the world are made visible through images. We see images in creation which remind us faintly of God, as when, for instance, we speak of the holy and adorable Trinity, imaged by the sun, or light, or burning rays, or by a running fountain, or a full river, or by the mind, speech, or the spirit within us, or by a rose tree, or a sprouting flower, or a sweet fragrance.

Again, an image is expressive of something in the future, mystically shadowing forth what is to happen. For instance, the ark represents the image of Our Lady, Mother of God, so does the staff and the earthen jar. The serpent brings before us Him who vanquished on the Cross the bite of the original serpent; the sea, -water, and the cloud the grace of baptism.

Again, things which have taken place are expressed by images for the remembrance either of a wonder, or an honour, or dishonour, or good or evil, to help those who look upon it in after times that we may avoid evils and imitate goodness. It is of two kinds, the written image in books, as when God had the law inscribed on tablets, and when He enjoined that the lives of holy men should be recorded and sensible memorials be preserved in remembrance; as, for instance, the earthen jar and the staff in the ark. So now we preserve in writing the images and the good deeds of the past. Either, therefore, take away images altogether and be out of harmony with God ,who made these regulations, or receive them with the language and in the manner which befits them. In speaking of the manner let us go into the question of worship.

Worship is the symbol of veneration and of honour. Let us understand that there are different degrees of worship. First of all the worship of latreia, which we show to God, who alone by nature is worthy of worship. When, for the sake of God who is worshipful by nature, we honour His saints and servants, as Josue and Daniel worshipped an angel, and David His holy places, when be savs, "Let us go to the place where His feet have stood." Again, in His tabernacles, as when all the people of Israel adored in the tent, and standing round the temple in Jerusalem, fixing their gaze upon it from all sides, and worshipping from that day to this, or in the rulers established by Him, as Jacob rendered homage to Esau, his elder brother, and to Pharaoh, the divinely established ruler. Joseph was worshipped bv his brothers. I am aware that worship was based on honour, as in the case of Abraham and the sons of Emmor. Either, then, do awav with worship, or receive it altogether according to its proper measure.

Continued below…

>>848802

Answer me this question. Is there only one God? You answer, "Yes, there is only one Law-giver." Why, then, does He command contrary things? The cherubim are not outside of creation; why, then, does He allow cherubim carved by the hand of man to overshadow the mercy-scat? Is it not evident that as it is impossible to make an image of God, who is uncircumscribed and impassible, or of one like to God, creation should not be worshipped as God. He allows the image of the cherubim who are circumscribed, and prostrate in adoration before the divine throne, to be made, and thus prostrate to overshadow the mercy-seat. It was fitting that the image of the heavenly choirs should overshadow the divine mysteries. Would you say that the ark and staff and mercy-scat were not made? Are they not produced by the hand of man? Are they not due to what you call contemptible matter? What was the tabernacle itself? Was it not an image? Was it not a type and a figure? Hence the holy Apostle's words concerning the observances of the law, "Who serve unto the example and shadow, of heavenly things." As it was answered to Moses, when he was to finish the tabernacle: "See" (He says), "that thou make all things according to the pattern which was shown thee on the Mount." But the law ,-,,as not an image. It shrouded the image. In the words of the same Apostle, the law, contains the shadow of the goods to come, not the image of those things. For if the law should forbid images, and vet be itself a forerunner of images, what should we say? If the tabernacle 'was a figure, and the type of a type, why does the law not prohibit image-making? But this is not in the least the case. There is a time for everything.

Of old, God the incorporeal and uncircumscribed was never depicted. Now, however, when God is seen clothed in flesh, and conversing with men, I make an image of the God whom I see. I do not worship matter, I worship the God of matter, who became matter for my sake, and deigned to inhabit matter, who worked out my salvation through matter. I will not cease from honouring that matter which works my salvation. I venerate it, though not as God. How could God be born out of lifeless things? And if God's body is God by union, it is immutable. The nature of God remains the same as before, the flesh created in time is quickened by, a logical and reasoning soul.

I honour all matter besides, and venerate it. Through it, filled, as it were, me. Was not the with a divine power and grace, my salvation has come to thrice happy and thrice blessed wood of the Cross matter? Was not the sacred and holy mountain of Calvary matter? What of the life-giving rock, the Holy Sepulchre, the source of our resurrection: was it not matter? Is not the most holy book of the Gospels matter? Is not the blessed table matter which gives us the Bread of Life' Are not the gold and silver matter, out of which crosses and altar-plate and chalices are made? And before all these things, is not the body and blood of our Lord matter? Either do away with the veneration and worship due to all these things, or submit to the tradition of the Church in the worship of images, honouring God and His friends, and following in this the grace of the Holv Spirit.

from St. John Damascene On Holy Images, trans. by Mary H. Allies (London, Thomas Baker, 1898), pp. 10-17.

>>848805

>>848807

Cartwheels to justify idolatry

>>848802

>The images in your church are not Jesus. Christ brought to us the true image of the Father in His person, but that image is not made by men. A depiction of the person of Jesus Christ is just as much a flawed fallible and false human misrepresentation as an attempt to capture the divine essence itself.

By your logic, all images are idolatry then, including portraits and even photographs. Christ became a man, a man can be depicted. We depict him in icons as a man. We only depict what has been shown to us, for example, in Daniel 7 both the Father and Son are described, and so we depict them in the manner in which they are described in that passage in some icons. Likewise, in Genesis 18 God appeared to Abraham as three angels, and so we depict them as angels in some icons. Likewise, Christ appeared as a man, so we depict him as a man in our icons, because he is a man. He is also described once again in the very first chapter of the Book of Revelation, and so we depict him in that way also. We do not dare depict the divine essence itself, for that has never been described, except in Daniel 7 and in Genesis 18 which gives us descriptions and this we depict, for the images themselves are generated in our minds by those descriptions, thus according to your logic, by even reading those passages we're committing idolatry because the images have been depicted in our minds.

Once again, you don't actually understand theology because you have no real theology. Your theology implies Nestorianism and its also Judaizing.

>>848812

Refuted:

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2013/05/22/is-there-really-a-patristic-critique-of-icons-part-4-of-5/

>>848812

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2013/05/16/is-there-really-a-patristic-critique-of-icons-part-1-of-5/

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2013/05/17/is-there-really-a-patristic-critique-of-icons-part-2-of-5/

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2013/05/20/is-there-really-a-patristic-critique-of-icons-part-3-of-5/

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2013/05/23/is-there-really-a-patristic-critique-of-icons-part-5-of-5/

>>848813

>>848814

Present the argument in your own words

>>848805

>>848806

>>848807

>papist "debate"

>>848810

>By your logic, all images are idolatry then, including portraits and even photographs

Not all images are depictions of God.

>Christ became a man, a man can be depicted

Christ was not a mere man. He was the God-man, God in the flesh. To depict that flesh is to depict God.

>We only depict what has been shown to us

God was shown to many people before the incarnation, there are many pre-incarnate theophanies in the Old Testament. Indeed, God Himself explicitly forbade depictions of these in particular, so it is not good enough to have seen Him, it does not void the command.

>in Daniel 7 both the Father and Son are described, and so we depict them in the manner in which they are described in that passage in some icons. Likewise, in Genesis 18 God appeared to Abraham as three angels, and so we depict them as angels in some icons.

Deuteronomy 4:15-19

<Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth: And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the Lord thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven.

You are in violation of the law of God.

>Once again, you don't actually understand theology because you have no real theology

In your boundless arrogance you speak this against every author of scripture, and every father of the early church. Repent.

>Your theology implies Nestorianism and its also Judaizing.

You are a fool

>>848815

Why can't you just read the refutation I offered? Cognitive dissonance, Prot?

>>848817

If you are so weak-minded, perhaps you shouldn't participate in this discussion

>>848817

In that case you're going to need to read rushdoony's institutes of biblical law and get back to me

>>848802

>We have a command in scripture strictly forbidding any depiction of our God.

You also have a command to engage in blood sacrifice of animals. But the Lamb of God changed all of that. You also have commands to create a ritual mark of separation and distinction (circumcision), but the Holy Spirit changed all of that. You have commands to separate clean animals from unclean, but the Gospel changed all of that too.

You don't seem to realize what a paradigm shift the Incarnation brought on the world. It changed the whole order. Ethics in Law matter, but none of these rituals and things appealing to old Jewish theology have been expanded on. This was the whole point the Apostles were trying to drive in their epistles, and you're still ignorant about all of the implications.

Granted, you wisely believe in the Trinity at least, and accept Nicaea.. but you don't follow it through as the early church did. You accept one part of the phromena (mind) of the Church, but none of the rest, out of pure spite and stupidity. You'd rather sit in a corner and act like Jews and Muslims. Especially when it comes to titles like the Theotokos and the use of Christ's image. You implicitly show that you don't really believe Jesus is God by not taking these steps. Only Jews and Muslims think like this. They cry at their stupid wailing walls and shout from minarets hopelessly appealing to an invisible God who don't care about them. Because they rejected his Incarnation. God is not invisible. He came on earth, and the only ones who insist he can't be seen follow Jew and Muslim theology.

>>848816

>Not all images are depictions of God.

Yes, but by your logic, since not portrait depicts the "true essence" of a being, then we shouldn't depict anything at all. The commandment is not anything in heaven, or on earth, or underneath the earth. Interpreting that literally, as you do, then all portraits should be discarded of everything and anything. But that's the problem, your interpretation is just plain wrong, and we know this because God depicts himself numerous times throughout the OT and of course fully comes in the flesh in the NT where the Law of Moses is fulfilled and the New Covenant of Christ is enacted. You're still living like it's the old law, iconoclasm is unironically a form of Judaizing.

>Christ was not a mere man. He was the God-man, God in the flesh. To depict that flesh is to depict God.

Right, and Christ as God appeared in the flesh as a man. He was a man, he was the God-Man. The God-Man has a form, he can be depicted as such. Have you never read that those who see Christ also see the Father (John 14:9), because Christ is the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15), and we see him not only described in Daniel 7:9-13, but also described as being in the image of the Ancient of Days (who is the Father) in Revelation 1:13-14.

>God was shown to many people before the incarnation, there are many pre-incarnate theophanies in the Old Testament. Indeed, God Himself explicitly forbade depictions of these in particular, so it is not good enough to have seen Him, it does not void the command.

But by your own logic, God breaks his own commandment by depicting himself and by commanding the Israelites to make the Cherubim on the Ark and other such images. Once again, however, we only depict in icons what God has shown us. The very act of reading those depictions in scripture generate icons in our mind, so according to your logic, even reading those passages in scripture is idolatry.

<Q-quick, let me cherry pick this verse out of the context of the rest of the Bible and continue an echo chamber because I don't have a theology and don't understand the Bible as a whole because MUH SOLA SCRIPTURA which ironically ignores the rest of the Bible for a single verse of which, once again, I cherry pick and have no idea how to interpret

That's your brain on Protestantism.

>In your boundless arrogance you speak this against every author of scripture, and every father of the early church. Repent.

no u, prot.

>You are a fool

no u

>>848819

>reading a heretic

That's like asking me to go read something written by Arius.

>>848822

Interesting tactic. Has this ever gotten you anywhere in conversation?

I wouldn't say Protestants have no theology. They're just prone to more errors because most leave their foundations at Nicaea - when the Church worked out much more than for almost a thousand years. After that, they're prone to reinventing the wheel at best, and inventing broken wheels at worst. Baptists are even worse off than others - many don't even accept Nicaea or recite the Apostle's Creed in an official manner (some do).

But I do think they're able to glean all that they need to know if left to themselves and the scriptures. There are unique evangelicals who come to similar conclusions on their own. It's just that they don't need to do this. The Church already worked it out.

>>848824

>prone to more errors

Not so on the central issues of our day, like modernism, feminism, abortion all of which baptists are at the most favorable position, statistically

>many don't even accept Nicaea or recite the Apostle's Creed in an official manner (some do

Most do

>But I do think they're able to glean all that they need to know if left to themselves and the scriptures

Yes, sufficiency of scripture

>It's just that they don't need to do this. The Church already worked it out.

Amen

>>848825

>Not so on the central issues of our day, like modernism, feminism, abortion all of which baptists are at the most favorable position, statistically

Sometimes it happens even today. Look at Wayne Grudem. He's not a Baptist (but certainly appeals to many in the Complementarian sphere). He's a Reformed theologian. And I don't think he's a bad guy or meant this, but he made a huge error in his systematic theology by pushing forward the "Eternal Subordination of the Son" theology. His whole concept of the Trinity isn't even historically Trinitarian, where he makes Son less than God as God the Father. And he was motivated by an outside and irrelevant issue - the authority of males. He wanted to use the Trinity as an analogy of the human household and compare the subordination of women to the Son. But the scriptures don't teach this at all. The Son is subordinate willingly. Not by nature. Huge difference.

I understand the threat of Feminism, but this was a stupid way of attacking it. He's inadvertently creeped towards Arianism by using this. This is what happens when you're divorced from the ancient Church and don't share the same hatred of the old heresies. Having that mindset has a way of keeping one in check.

>>848826

That's a very nuanced single issue that doesn't prove your point. My case is that when comparing members of these traditions (in a single demographic, like americans) it is evangelicals who are prone to the least error because they are the most conservative. This conservatism comes from convictions of sola fide and inerrancy.

It is also not the case that protestants are divorced from the historic church, especially in the reformed world.

>>848830

I appreciate that. I'm glad many hold the line on conservative issues. And I am an Evangelical myself… of sorts? I'm in the Wesley camp, but we do share some heritage.

That said, that isn't a nuanced issue. That's Wayne Grudem himself. With the loss of RC Sproul, he's one of the most prominent Reformed thinkers. His books are taught in every conservative seminary. He's also Editor of the ESV and ESV Study Bible, and injected this nonsense into the ESV study bible itself, which many lay people rely on. This isn't a small thing.

All of the Councils were Sola Scriptura too. And it was the Councils themselves who handed us the canon of scripture! They didn't appeal to their own selves, but crushed all of those heretical movements through careful theology derived from scripture. Please don't disregard their wisdom. They've done a lot of the heavy lifting in "Sola Scriptura". And what I just said was Sola Scriptura too. I just made the refutation that Christ submitted himself willingly. This is the Sola Scriptura view. Christ is never said to be eternally subordinate. He was subordinate as a man, only on our behalf. Not eternally. He is God in every way. There is still only one God. Not this conflicted nature in the Godhead.

Subtle though it may be, this is an especially interesting case to me because Grudem's motivation was good: Like you, he wanted to champion conservative principles. But out of zealousness for conservative principles, he was led down a line of thought that leads to a form of Arianism (where Christ is less than the Father). So when you hold up even conservative principles, be careful that even these things also lie on a firm foundation. Many heretics did what they did out of a sense of "conservative" principles too. Tertullian and Monatists were exceptionally hardcore "conservatives" - and so were Gnostics themselves - but in their need to be conservative, they became hardcore ascetics and denied the "flesh" to ridiculous measures. Tertullian became so anti-degenerate that he became anti-sex, and started saying even being married was a minor form of adultery! Gnostics were similar, who started denigrating all aspects of material/flesh based life. Instead of just leaving it at sins, they started denigrating material reality as a whole, and became pure navel gazing mystic retards.

I'm not saying Grudem is as crazy as this, but in his zeal to blow out the feminists, he goes too far in pushing heretical views of the Trinity to try to make his point.

>>848820

>Granted, you wisely believe in the Trinity at least, and accept Nicaea..

The sacred Scriptures teaches that, I don't need Nicaea.

>>848821

Look if you want to sit here and do pinwheels to justify the act of idolatry you should know that without any Biblical support you are wasting time on vanity. Others rightly object to the acts of idolatry. None of the things you bring up is overturning the clear commandments in the Old and New Testament against idolatry. Do you think idolatry is acceptable now? And if not then why are you attempting to do damage control for it.

>>848834

>And it was the Councils themselves who handed us the canon of scripture!

Nope. So who or what is the infallible authority here, and who is the final authority: the word of God or your choice of councils with the ability to add or retranslate their words to your leisure?

Scripture already teaches the infallible doctrine of the Trinity. See for instance Colossians 2:2, John 15:26 and John 10:30. If you deny this, then you have much bigger issues. If someone makes a statement that agrees with that, good, but I didn't get it from them, we both got it from the Scripture. If you think the Scripture does not contain a full sufficiency of doctrine, that is a bigger issue.

>Please don't disregard their wisdom. They've done a lot of the heavy lifting in "Sola Scriptura".

Who exactly? See people make themselves free to define who they want as the "correct" theologians, not realizing that the words of non-inspired writings are not perfectly preserved nor does the Holy Spirit bring to our remembrance manmade statements like He does with the word of God (see John 14:26, 16:13-14). The true Person we need to be relying on is God, for without Him it would not be possible to be guided into all truth, as Jesus said in John 16:13. God is the true teacher and he has given his inspired word from which the Holy Spirit will guide us into the truth. Other things that are outside of that are subject to misinterpretation, mistranslation and corruption over time. You don't know for sure whether some 12th century monk didn't add or change some words in the statements you read outside of scripture. What you should be trusting in is that God preserved his word incorruptible, as the apostle Peter says it is.

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

"For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:

"But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you." - 1 Peter 1:23-25

>I just made the refutation that Christ submitted himself willingly. This is the Sola Scriptura view. Christ is never said to be eternally subordinate.

Absolutely correct and true. The guy you are dealing with has false doctrine. But if you think Scripture does not teach that doctrine then there are bigger issues.

>>848855

Look if you want to sit here and do pinwheels to justify the act of idolatry you should know that without any Biblical support you are wasting time on vanity. Others rightly object to the acts of idolatry. None of the things you bring up is overturning the clear commandments in the Old and New Testament against idolatry. Do you think idolatry is acceptable now? And if not then why are you attempting to do damage control for it.

I just gave you Biblical support. Oh but looks like you already a priori made uo your mind. Seems like it's not the Bible you actually care about but the traditions of men.

>>848873

What part of what you said overturns the clear commandments in the Old and New Testament against idolatry? Where do you show those have been overturned?

>>848890

Nothing overturns the Biblical command against idolatry, because making and venerating images isn't idolatry. That notion is unbiblical, as I just showed you, since God not only commands the Israelites to make images of heavenly things (Exodus 25:18, Numbers 21:8), and the first Temple even had images (1 Kings 6:22), and also the angels many times reveal themselves as icons of men or creatures (Joshua 5:13, Ezekiel 1:5-18), but God also reveals images of himself as a foreshadow to the New Covenant in numerous occasions such as when the whole Trinity appeared to Abraham as angels (Genesis 18:2), and further God reveals himself to Daniel in a vision and Daniel gives a rather detailed description of the Ancient of Days (the father) in Daniel 7:9, the very act of reading these passages already produces icons in our mind of God, so by your logic even reading these passages in idolatry, but we know that's false because it would be against the very nature of God to promote idolatry, else he'd be a liar (Hebrews 21:8), which means you're accusing God of being a liar. Yet we know that God is revealed in Christ (John 14:9) because Christ is an image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15), which is further shown by the fact that the resurrected Christ is given the same physical description as the Ancient of Days (the Father) in Revelation 1:13-14. We see that in the OT, the image of God is foreshadowed, and in Christ is is fully revealed, by denying this you are also essentially denying that Jesus is the God-Man, you're advocating for a form of docetism, that Christ wasn't truly a man who is the revealed image of God to us, but a mere figment, a shadow, and if that were true then Christ wouldn't have fulfilled the Old Testament, and all the foreshadows to him would be in vain, since we know that the Law is a veil (2 Corinthians 3:15), and scripture symbolizes this by saying that Moses did not see the face of God but only his back (Exodus 33:18-23), but in Christ we can see the face of God, in his incarnation God takes on a truly visible form and those who see him see God (Hebrews 1:3). What the second commandment forbids is not the use of images themselves, but the worship of them, and more specifically, the worship of God in a physical form until he comes as Christ Jesus, who is God in physical form, which means that by your logic, the very act of God incarnating as man, becoming a living icon, is idolatry, and thus either Jesus is not truly God or he is not truly man, and if he is not truly God then we have no salvation, and if he is not truly man then we also do not have salvation. Further, the Holy Spirit is also foreshadowed as a dove in the OT (Genesis 8:6-12, Isaiah 11:12), and he fully reveals himself in the icon of a dove at the epiphany, that is, when Christ first reveals himself to the entire world in his baptism (Mark 1:10). So we depict what God has given us to depict because we believe that in Christ all things are fulfilled. In fact, I suppose an even more obvious argument would be the fact that actually all of mankind, in a sense, is an icon of God since we are made in his image (Genesis 1:27), and in fact the Church is an image of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13-26, Romans 12:5), we see that the body has eyes and the body has hands and the body has many parts, all descriptions of the Church which is the body of Christ, a direct image of him, who is the image of God. God is constantly revealing icons of himself to us for us to see and depict. He does it in the OT as a foreshadow of the NT where he fully reveals himself to us, allowing us direct salvation. But you have no understanding in this, because you do not have the Spirit of God with you (2 Corinthians 3:6), you are Judaizing (Romans 7:6), and you deny the authority of the Holy Spirit which has been given to Christ's Church for the heresy of Sola Scriptura, so you don't take the Bible as a whole, rather you cherry pick your verses without considering the rest of what God has revealed to us within scripture, you don't actually have a way to interpret it, and your interpretation, as I have demonstrated above, is refuted by scripture itself and how God has revealed himself to us throughout salvation history to Christ's incarnation as the God Man. So as I have proved through scripture, and as the Holy Spirit proves within the Church, icons should play an important role for Christian spirituality, because God reveals himself to us in icons.

>>848905

>else he'd be a liar (Hebrews 21:8), which means you're accusing God of being a liar

Meant to write *(Hebrews 6:18), my bad

>>848905

>That notion is unbiblical, as I just showed you, since God not only commands the Israelites to make images of heavenly things (Exodus 25:18, Numbers 21:8), and the first Temple even had images (1 Kings 6:22), and also the angels many times reveal themselves as icons of men or creatures (Joshua 5:13, Ezekiel 1:5-18),

There is no instance there of bowing down and worshipping images.

>(Genesis 18:2), and further God reveals himself to Daniel in a vision and Daniel gives a rather detailed description of the Ancient of Days (the father) in Daniel 7:9,

The appearances of pre-incarnate Christ and the prophets seeing visions of God is not a graven image nor anything made by human hands.

>the very act of reading these passages already produces icons in our mind of God, so by your logic even reading these passages in idolatry,

By strawman logic only. Idolatry is worshipping manmade images.

Psalm 135:15-18

The idols of the heathen are silver and gold, the work of men's hands.

They have mouths, but they speak not; eyes have they, but they see not;

They have ears, but they hear not; neither is there any breath in their mouths.

They that make them are like unto them: so is every one that trusteth in them.

>We see that in the OT, the image of God is foreshadowed, and in Christ is is fully revealed,

How is this related to not committing idolatry though. The fact that Jesus Christ is the image of the invisible God is not relevant to the issue of idolatry, because Jesus Christ is not the same thing as a graven image made by human hands. I worship only God, God is the Lord Jesus Christ, ok?

>which means that by your logic, the very act of God incarnating as man, becoming a living icon, is idolatry,

No because God being incarnate as man is not a manmade object. You yourself say he is living: that is different from a dead and inanimate immoving object. In fact I shouldn't even have to say this to you, it is already contained in the sacred word we call the Holy Bible.

>we see that the body has eyes and the body has hands and the body has many parts, all descriptions of the Church which is the body of Christ, who is the image of God. God is constantly revealing icons of himself to us for us

These are the work of God's hand, not manmade objects that were crafted by men's hands. Also, we are not even to worship creation but only the Creator. Again, this is all in Scripture. See Romans 1:20-23, 1 Corinthians 10:14, 1 John 5:21.

>you don't take the Bible as a whole, rather you cherry pick your verses without considering the rest of what God has revealed to us within scripture, you don't actually have a way to interpret it,

The Holy Spirit shall guide us into all truth. See John 16:13. It is necessary that God himself teach us the truth regarding all matters in Scripture. Jesus himself said that the Holy Spirit who would be coming after him into this world would bring all things to our remembrance, whatsoever He has said unto us. As the apostle John said in 1 John 2:27, "the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."

And as Paul wrote in his epistle to the Corinthians: "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual."

Therefore, the saved believer can say "God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." (2 Corinthians 4:6) and also "I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord" (Philippians 3:8).

Ephesians 1:12-14 –

That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

>but in Christ we can see the face of God, in his incarnation God takes on a truly visible form and those who see him see God (Hebrews 1:3).

Yes, amen. The issue here is that some people will commit idolatry while saying their manmade graven images are Christ (when it is really just inanimate object that is not Christ but merely a false christ oftentimes composed unsanctimoniously of bread and crackers), and therein lies the heart of that deception.

>icons should play an important role for Christian spirituality, because God reveals himself to us in icons.

You are creating a confusion between Jesus Christ in the flesh and manmade, inanimate objects and idols. There are false prophets who have deceived many by drawing them in with the lusts of idolatry, but the truth shall outlast and prevail in the end. The true view against all idolatry will be prevalent in the end and every Scripture passage I just cited here will be vindicated, and me and my church which keeps a pure communion and which keeps the word of the Lord together with it. And I pray for your salvation as well.

>>848920

>There is no instance there of bowing down and worshipping images.

That's where you're wrong, bucko. First of all, I don't think you actually know what the word worship means since, Biblically, there are different forms of "worship", the form we offer to God alone is adoration (λατρεία) and the form we offer to pretty much anything else is veneration (δουλεία). See, if you had actually used the Greek LXX you would know this, but since you're a Judaizer you choose to follow the ways of the synagogue of Satan. Let me enlighten you, prot.

"And the two angels came to Sodom at evening. And Lot sat by the gate of Sodom, and Lot having seen them, rose up to meet them, and he worshipped (προσεκύνησεν) with his face to the ground, and said," (Genesis 19:1)

"Then king Nabuchodonosor fell upon his face, and worshipped (προσεκύνησεν) Daniel, and gave orders to offer to him gifts and incense." (Daniel 2:46)

"I will bow down (προσκυνήσω) toward your holy temple and will praise your name for your unfailing love and your faithfulness, for you have so exalted your solemn decree that it surpasses your fame." (Psalm 137:2, LXX numbering)

"When the group of prophets from Jericho saw from a distance what happened, they exclaimed, “Elijah’s spirit rests upon Elisha!” And they went to meet him and bowed (προσεκύνησαν) to the ground before him." (2 Kings 2:15)

If you know Greek, you will also know that the verb, προσκυνέω, is also the word used when the disciples worship Jesus in Matthew 14:33, Matthew 28:9, Luke 24:52 (among other places). The verb itself is the generic word for worship/bowing down/honor (although in the NT it is used a little more specifically as "reverence" but still carries the same overall meaning), these verses necessitate that there are indeed different forms of worship that can be offered in different ways to different things, as we see Lot giving worship to angels, Nebuchadnezzar giving worship to Daniel without his objection, and also David giving worship to the Temple itself, an inanimate object. Now you may object to this with Revelation 22:9, where the angel instructs John not to give him proskyneo but only God, however if you read earlier in Revelation 3:9, Christ himself says to John that he will make even the synagogue of Satan bow (προσκυνήσουσιν) before the Church. Based on the context, it seems that here the angel isn't denying the right of giving a form of proskynesis to a creature, but rather is acting humbly and giving up that right to God in that moment. This is the only reading that would make sense, else scripture would be in contradiction of itself in the very same book by the very same apostle. So we can see that there are indeed quite different forms of "worship", and when the Greek scriptures speak of this they speak of adoration, something given to deities alone in the context of the scriptures, which is sacrifice, and also veneration which can be given both to a deity and to a non-deity in the context of the scriptures. As Christians, since we believe in only one God, we give adoration to Yahweh God and Yahweh God alone.

>The appearances of pre-incarnate Christ and the prophets seeing visions of God is not a graven image nor anything made by human hands.

And yet, they have been written down by human hands and produce icons in our minds, for they were revealed specifically to be icons for us and icons that we can fashion as I have already demonstrated above.

>By strawman logic only. Idolatry is worshipping manmade images.

I don't think you actually know what the word "strawman" means.

>Psalm 135:15-18

This is correct, but scripture is speaking in the context of foreign gods, which are demons as the scripture says:

"For all the gods of the Gentiles are idols: but the Lord made the heavens." (Psalm 96:5)

But we worship the only true God, and him alone do we adore, and we further this adoration by giving the due honor to his servants and his holy things, namely, the angels and the saints and the icons. (Also to note, the LXX translates idols here as "demons", further showing how their images are blasphemous and associates with the demonic, and we do not give any honor to demons, but to God alone, and his servants, and his holy things).

>>848920

>How is this related to not committing idolatry though. The fact that Jesus Christ is the image of the invisible God is not relevant to the issue of idolatry, because Jesus Christ is not the same thing as a graven image made by human hands. I worship only God, God is the Lord Jesus Christ, ok?

But I have already explained to you that in Christ, the Law is fulfilled. Christ came as the God-Man, in a physical form, to be depicted. God reveals icons to us, icons are to be depicted as such. That is the purpose of God revealing these things to us, but since you are a Prot who lacks any real spirituality, you do not understand this.

>No because God being incarnate as man is not a manmade object. You yourself say he is living: that is different from a dead and inanimate immoving object. In fact I shouldn't even have to say this to you, it is already contained in the sacred word we call the Holy Bible.

I have already refuted your reasoning here in the above verses.

>These are the work of God's hand, not manmade objects that were crafted by men's hands. Also, we are not even to worship creation but only the Creator. Again, this is all in Scripture. See Romans 1:20-23, 1 Corinthians 10:14, 1 John 5:21.

Once again, I have already refuted you reasoning here above.

>>848921

Everything you said about the Holy Spirit is correct. Then why do you deny Christ's holy Church, which has been continually guided by the Holy Spirit. Can you show me anywhere in scripture where it says the Holy Spirit will be taken away from the Church? Your doctrine of Sola Scriptura is an attempt to override the coming of the Holy Spirit, either by supplanting it with a second coming of the Holy Spirit which the Church has never taught, for the Holy Spirit only has a single coming and he has never left, or you attempt to override the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the Church by trying to come up with your own interpretations of the scriptures.

>Yes, amen. The issue here is that some people will commit idolatry while saying their manmade graven images are Christ (when it is really just inanimate object that is not Christ but merely a false christ oftentimes composed unsanctimoniously of bread and crackers), and therein lies the heart of that deception.

Once again, I have already refuted your reasoning and don't see the need to address this directly as I have refuted it above.

>You are creating a confusion between Jesus Christ in the flesh and manmade, inanimate objects and idols. There are false prophets who have deceived many by drawing them in with the lusts of idolatry, but the truth shall outlast and prevail in the end. The true view against all idolatry will be prevalent in the end and every Scripture passage I just cited here will be vindicated, and me and my church which keeps a pure communion and which keeps the word of the Lord together with it. And I pray for your salvation as well.

That is completely false, the fact that Christ takes on a physical form to fulfill the law, in his very act of incarnation he fulfills the Law, and as the ultimate Icon can be depicted, for he came for that very reason to fulfill the Law and allow icons of God since he is the ultimate Icon of God, and icons, especially the ultimate, are to be depicted. There is no confusion. For if you had any idea what the holy Fathers say, you would know that St. John of Damascus says that we do not give latria to the materials of the icon, but rather to what it represents, as a kind of relative Latria.

So, as I conclude once again, you have no theology. Protestantism is nothing but a watered down, shallow, and hollow interpretation of Christianity which has absolutely no sense of spirituality but rather seeks to plunge us back into the darkness of the Law and sin. This is the mind virus of Protestantism, a virus which has caused the damnation of millions of souls and continues to do so to this very day. I will pray for you, friend, that you might see the light of God and come to know his truth.

>>848936

>This is the only reading that would make sense, else scripture would be in contradiction of itself in the very same book by the very same apostle.

None of your examples still has any instance of bowing down and worshipping images. All of your examples have no idols in them, only individuals. Also the actions of Nebuchadnezzar, Lot or the group of prophets are not necessarily to be imitated. The group are the same men who wrongly insisted that Elisha send a search party.

Bowing down toward the tabernacle or temple where God dwells is not a problem for obvious reasons.

>these verses necessitate that there are indeed different forms of worship that can be offered in different ways to different things,

Which verses, you mean ones in the corrupted Greek translation of the Old Testament that has Methuselah outlive the flood by 14 years and changes the number in Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5 from 70 to 75 but forgets to change Deuteronomy 10:22? Yeah, I know about that corruption. They changed 70 to 75 to match Acts 7:14 but forgot the third reference in Deuteronomy.

So which verses? All you have are the New Testament verses and they prove my case.

>we further this adoration by giving the due honor to his servants and his holy things, namely, the angels and the saints and the icons.

Just do not idol worship then. I see idolatry being practiced and then y'all come around here trying to defend it and it isn't right. Those people are idol worshippers. If you want to defend that for personal satisfaction then you likewise become part of the group of rank idol worshippers. You simply become part of the group that scorns God's commandments, and I am commanded in the New Testament to separate and call anathema on that. 2 Corinthians 6:14-18. Pure and simple, my church remains pure and uncorrupted from the defiled masses and always has. We also keep the original word of God without corruptions added as well, handed down to us through uncorrupt hands through the ages.

I see a large amount of coping and gymnastics but none of these are convincing in light of the lack of actual scripture to back what is plainly being done out in the open which is prostrating in front of and praying to inanimate objects (not just people, but plain objects). Empty rituals and vain repetitions, commanded against by our Lord and not found in the pure Scriptures. Bypassed by relying on manmade sophisms to overturn Scripture. As our Lord said, Mark 7, "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye."

Your false traditions have nothing to do with and contradict the word of God. There is no case of bowing before idols except in the case of heathens and that is not a positive example to be followed, it is to be naturally condemned! Elijah mocked the priests of Baal who worshipped idols. It would seem the appropriate response given the prophet and man of God's example, here in Scripture where he mocked the Baal-worshippers. So I deride the bread and crackers and idolatry and the attempts in vain to justify it, to do cartwheels and gymnastics and try to explain yourselves. And the people you try to defend are relying on the dark forces of idol worship to promote a false cult, that is the way it ever has been.

>And yet, they have been written down by human hands and produce icons in our minds, for they were revealed specifically to be icons for us and icons that we can fashion as I have already demonstrated above.

I see No Scripture. You say you have demonstrated it, but you have demonstrated nothing, as proof by the fact you have No Scripture here.

>God reveals icons to us, icons are to be depicted as such. That is the purpose of God revealing these things to us,

Still no scripture here to back up these statements. The earlier references do not involve worshipping idols or inanimate objects like bread and crackers or statues.

<No because God being incarnate as man is not a manmade object. You yourself say he is living: that is different from a dead and inanimate immoving object. In fact I shouldn't even have to say this to you, it is already contained in the sacred word we call the Holy Bible.

>I have already refuted your reasoning here in the above verses.

You have not refuted this reasoning, none of the verses you cited involves worshipping manmade objects. God being incarnate as man is not a manmade object or handmade idolt. People who worship the latter have nothing to do with those who glorify and worship the Lord. They take their personal traditions, just like the pharisees in Mark 7, making the word of God of none effect by saying yes to idolatry in their manmade traditions.

>Then why do you deny Christ's holy Church, which has been continually guided by the Holy Spirit.

I'm part of it.

>a second coming of the Holy Spirit

That would be restorationism which various cults teach which is false. The earliest known restorationist was Marcion, whose cult claimed that a new revelation occurred 115 years and 6 months after Christ. All restorationists are cults, including those who think that God inspired councils to add new things to Scripture. Only the original church, the same one of the apostles which still observes the inspired word, is correct. But of course you would only know this and be able to find this out if you were saved and God was guiding you by his Spirit already. That is the only thing I can hope and pray for with every person that I meet. Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Romans 10:17). That is how we have the received text. People who follow manmade traditions have fallen away from this pure, primitive church. They have used cultlike tactics to draw in crowds, and rewritten history - like communists, to give credit to themselves for things they were never around to do.

>>848939

>None of your examples still has any instance of bowing down and worshipping images.

Yes they do, they are literally all images. Angels, men, and the Temple itself. I presume you only mean inanimate objects when you speak about images, but that is once again where you're wrong since that is not Biblical. Mankind itself is an icon of God, please read Genesis 1:27

>All of your examples have no idols in them, only individuals.

You're correct, there are no idols in them because idols are not icons. You keep equating the two when that is simply false. We have no idols, we have icons.

> Also the actions of Nebuchadnezzar, Lot or the group of prophets are not necessarily to be imitated. The group are the same men who wrongly insisted that Elisha send a search party.

And yet there is nothing implying they shouldn't be, you're only reading into the scripture your viewpoint. Daniel, nor the angels, nor Elisha, object to the prosyneo, in fact they fully welcome it, that was the point. You're basically just attacking their character, well you might as well attack Peter and David, for they were sinners too. Should we not imitate them?

>Which verses, you mean ones in the corrupted Greek translation of the Old Testament that has Methuselah outlive the flood by 14 years and changes the number in Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5 from 70 to 75 but forgets to change Deuteronomy 10:22? Yeah, I know about that corruption. They changed 70 to 75 to match Acts 7:14 but forgot the third reference in Deuteronomy.

You dare denigrate the holy scriptures? That is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, the unforgivable sin (Matthew 12:31). For these were the very same scriptures that the Stephen used in his defense (Acts 7:14). Here's just a small list of where the NT quotes from the LXX (Matt. 1:23 / Isaiah 7:14, Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; John 1:23 / Isaiah 40:3, Matt. 9:13; 12:7 / Hosea 6:6, Matt. 12:21 / Isaiah 42:4, Matt. 21:16 / Psalm 8:2, Luke 3:5-6 / Isaiah 40:4-5, Luke 4:18 / Isaiah 58:6, John 6:31 / Psalm 78:24, John 12:40 / Isaiah 6:10, Acts 2:19 / Joel 2:30, Acts 4:26 / Psalm 2:1, Acts 7:27-28 / Exodus 2:14, Rom. 2:24 / Isaiah 52:5, Rom. 3:13 / Psalm 5:9, Rom. 11:34; 1 Cor. 2:16 / Isaiah 40:13, Gal. 3:10 / Deut. 27:2, Gal. 3:13 / Deut. 21:23, 2 Tim. 2:19 / Num. 16:5, Heb. 3:15 / Psalm 95:8, Heb. 10:5 / Psalm 40:6, Heb. 11:5 / Gen. 5:24, James 4:6 / Prov. 3:34, 1 Pet. 5:5 / Prov. 3:34, etc. etc. etc. there's just too many to list)

>Pure and simple, my church remains pure and uncorrupted from the defiled masses and always has. We also keep the original word of God without corruptions added as well, handed down to us through uncorrupt hands through the ages.

Wow, that's the hardest cope I've ever witnessed. It's funny, you basically just cherry pick whatever data you think already suits your position, you'll randomly pick an ancient group that arose in a very different context completely independent of the later groups, which themselves are independent and arose in various contexts, call them Anabaptists/Baptists despite the fact that their actual beliefs were starkly different from Baptist/Anabaptist beliefs and many of them were even Gnostic, and try to call it a succession, whereas Orthodox and even Roman Catholics actually can trace back their successions legitimately through actual records and genuine Tradition, something which you don't have. And any time any refutes you, you basically employ circular reasoning because your assumptions are already built into your crappy arguments which are just laughably absurd and anyone who even has a relatively amateur understanding of Christian history can refute, literally the most basic research out there completely destroys anything you try to argue.

>>848939

>>848940

>>848942

>>848941

Both your arguments are equally valid, you're talking past each other though because you have different starting points, you're operating off of different assumptions. Baptists read the Bible in a rationalistic/enlightenment mindset, whereas Orthodox read it from a Neo-Platonist mindset. Granted, the Orthodox interpretation is far older, but your metaphysics are just both different. I do believe in Christ and strive to follow him but at this point I just really don't know what form of Christianity I'm going to join, watching these debates between different groups is quite interesting to assess the different interpretations of the religion. Watching both of you condemn one another is a little disheartening though, both of you are just miscommunicating though. You guys should be more understanding, more charitable. You don't got to agree though but I'm just saying, be nicer. Jesus would want that. You're both his followers. :)

>>848944

>Baptists read the Bible in a rationalistic/enlightenment mindset

What do you mean by this

>>848956

Well the coming up of the Baptist movement coincided closely with the enlightenment and Baptist theology tends to be situated within that framework. I mean, I guess I shouldn't say it directly belongs to any school of thought or anything like that, just that it was influenced by these changing ideas in philosophy that immediately preceded the Enlightenment and then became core principles of the Enlightenment. I'm not even saying the Baptists were directly influenced by any philosopher, just that the changing milieu influenced everything from philosophy to religion to politics. I'm not making a case for or against this either, because right now I honestly don't know which branch of Christianity has it right. I just go to a nondenom church right now, I guess theologically I'm closest to the Methodists but I'm still not really sure yet.

>>848941

>I presume you only mean inanimate objects when you speak about images

Yes. The statues, art pictures, trinkets, bathtub idols are all inanimate objects, as are the crackers.

>You dare denigrate the holy scriptures

I don't use copies that have corruptions in them knowingly.

>Here's just a small list of where the NT quotes from the LXX

As proven by the changes in Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5, the version of the Septuagint we have today was altered to match the New Testament. The evidence of tampering is clear because Deuteronomy 10:22 still remains unchanged. They also messed around with the chronology in Genesis 5 and 11 to such an extent that Methuselah outlives the flood (his relative age ends up being 14 entire years different so that he lives that much longer), creating a contradiction with where Peter says that eight souls lived through the flood in the New Testament.

>You don't actually care what the scriptures have to say, you only care about your traditions which you read into the text, whilst you ignore the rest of the text.

It is objectively true that you never quoted a Scripture passage where people prostrate to inanimate objects.

You never produced a passage of scripture that shows we are supposed to worship images. The only examples you will find of this are heathens. That is the part where you still never produced a single relevant scripture passage because it doesn't exist.

Shadrach, Mechach and Abednego were willing to die in a fiery furnace rather than commit that act.

Nebuchadnezzar wanted people to do it, but he was of course wrong. If our Lord is so merciful, he may grant you to recover yourself from this snare of idol worship before it is eternally too late.

>>848944

That's relativism and parroted talking points. Relativists think that there is no truth and every viewpoint is equal. That's where you're coming from. At least have the decency to address real points in the discussion though, if you would like to comment here, friend. Because we have all heard plenty enough from the "liberating tolerance" and "critical theory" branch of thought. Just a bit of friendly advice coming from someone who has heard these talking points plenty of times. It sounds tolerant, smart and educated but the accuracy of it and intellectual content is zero

>>848964

That's not relativism, you fukking moron. It's an OBJECTIVE TRUTH that different humans have different brains and think with different ideas. If you can't understand that you might be a literal nig or some delusional freak who thinks humanity is a single hivemind.

>>848965

>It's an OBJECTIVE TRUTH that different humans have different brains and think with different ideas.

I guess according to you that would only be objective truth to people who have brains that think with those kind of ideas. After all, relativists maintain that everyone's ideas are on equal footing and there is no way to determine correctness or accuracy in any way, we all just think differently. That is what they continually say.

>>848964

I'm not arguing for relativism, I said nothing about the truth value of either of your viewpoints. I was simply pointing out that you both have different foundations for how you conduct theology and that you seem to be talking past each other. You keep just reiterating the same points, no one is being convinced because you're coming from different perspectives on the issue. I'd just say, before you debate, maybe you should try to understand each others foundations a little bit better. Because you're both condemning each other and calling the other a heretic without properly understanding why each of you hold the positions that you do. That's literally all I'm saying. I'm not declaring anyone right or wrong, but I'm not saying there is no right and there is no wrong. I'm just spectating here and pointing out what I've been seeing so far, and so far, both of your arguments are grounded in established worldviews. I don't know who is correct. I see elements in both your arguments which look correct though.

>>848968

You said "equally valid" but the two positions are mutually exclusive, so that's relativist.

You probably meant to just stop at pointing out that the two parties dont share presuppositions and aren't making themselves understood to one another.

>>848966

Did you seriously just double down on your delusion that people don't have different ideas by claiming if people have different ideas those ideas must all be correct? You're the one talking like a relativist.

>>848968

>You keep just reiterating the same points

I disagree here, that is not the only thing that has been happening or I would not have continued.

There has been shifts in this conversation so far, but people who are conflict averse sometimes have a difficult time perceiving these things. I think it is because they often come from an environment where discussions are closely controlled by censors who cut short such discussions so they never learn how to process them. Critical thinking is also a requirement.

>>848970

So far people have made themselves abundantly clear. Maybe I am the only one that has been understanding everything said so far. But being resistant to the central point of the discussion is a tactic that in itself speaks to the clarity of the discussion. It may be irrational but it is still at least grammatically and intellectually cognizant.

>>848969

>Where did your nondenom pastor go to school? Is that church in an association of churches?

Haha, honestly I'm not even sure. I've only been going for a little while and tbh I'm sorta antisocial so I haven't gotten to know everyone that well including the Pastor. I had been researching into denominations for a while before I started going and I still just can't tell who has is completely right. The only thing I fundamentally disagree with is the supremacy of the papacy based on the writings of the church fathers so I'm def not gonna be a Catholic and a lot of my theology is in line with Protestantism but a lot of it also corresponds to Orthodoxy so that's why I said theologically I'm closest to the Methodists.

>Secular, philosophical enlightenment has some negative connotations though which baptists are very resistant to. Baptists are the most stereotypically conservative and inerrantist, sometimes strawmanned as "literalist"

Yeah that's very true. Although I'd say that in a weird way, the way a lot of Fudamentalist Baptists interpret the creation is actually very rationalistic, or like an inversion of it in a way. Not that literal creationism is a new thing because it did exist in a lot of the Church Fathers (not all, a lot also believed in an allegorical creation) but that the way they try to reconcile modern science with Genesis reflects that, they interpret like it's supposed to be a scientific theory of the world, which is also why I tend towards a more allegorical view of the creation story myself but I don't outright reject it since that would be heresy so like I acknowledge Adam and Eve def existed.

>>848970

What I meant when I said equally valid is that both viewpoints are grounded in well established philosophical positions. I didn't mean to sound relativist. But I understand how it came off like that.

>>848971

If you try to say that two things are both valid at the same time and use the claim that "different ideas exist" as the reason why two different things are concurrently true despite being contradictions, that is relativism yes.

>>848976

>What I meant when I said equally valid is that both viewpoints are grounded in well established philosophical positions.

Oh that makes more sense. Just remember that Christ said in his word that what is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. And also that the foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of men. So that is something to consider. Glad to see your contributions. Consider also:

Luke 16:

And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

1 Corinthians 1:25-27

Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

Colossians 2:8

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

>>848973

As a baptist I would highly recommend carm.org and centerforbaptistrenewal.com for your consideration, if you haven't checked those out

>>848977

Ok, enjoy being polemical. I am going to pray for you. :)

>>848978

>>848978

I have and I don't find their arguments convincing, CARM in particular since Matt Slick tends to make numerous errors in his articles, mainly because he's being polemical and not objective.

>>848980

Like what?

>>848981

Well for one he argues against Catholicism being Christian which might be appealing if you're doing Baptist polemics but not when you're looking for an objective source.

>>848977

Two contradicting ideas cannot be true. That doesn't mean two different people can't disagree on which idea is true and which idea is false, dumbfukk. Two people can both believe objective reality exists and disagree on what objective reality entails to be true. For example I believe in objective reality and disagree with you, because you're too fukking stupid to acknowledge people have different ideas.

>>848979

Uh huh, ok sure.

>>848983

Taking a position and arguing it doesnt compromise objectivity. He's either right or wrong, and if you find him wrong for a good reason or at least dont find that argument compelling that's fine.

>>848944

I'm arguing for the Orthodox Christian faith, this Baptist is a heretic and not a Christian. I am simply defending the Christian faith from his blasphemies against God.

>>848988

>>848988

Taking a position by definition is not objective. But you can have a position and still be objective. You can also have a position and not be objective. Matt Slick sacrifices being objective for polemical purposes. But actually, I digress, because I actually think this is a false argument anyway, since Catholicism not being Christian is objectively false, there is no position to take on that, just as the idea that the earth is flat is objectively false, there is no position to take on that. Matt Slick is sacrificing being objectively true for being polemical. So it might be more accurate to characterize Slick as being objectively false rather that not being objective, that's of course if we're going to further constrain the definitions here in accord with what you posted.

>>848996

I am going to pray for you, Ortho bro. :)