← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · wild_bill
Thread ID: 11443 | Posts: 20 | Started: 2003-12-12
2003-12-12 00:50 | User Profile
[Dissertation shows that Protestant theologian, John Calvin, was clearly incorrect in his condemnation of Icons. Protestants, therefore, are ignoring a great heritage of Christianity by following Calvin's mistaken theories on this topic.]
Calvin vs. the Icon [url]http://www.liturgica.com/html/litPLitCalvin.jsp?hostname=liturgica[/url]
Examples of Icons [url]http://www.easternchristian.com/icons.html[/url]
Regards, Wild Bill
2003-12-12 18:15 | User Profile
Thanks for the interesting post, wild bill. I think it must be said that the Orthodox position on icons and the sacraments are not monolithic, with differences as to what is and is not essential occurring in the various Orthodox churches. Further, as to their being scriptural, in the article I see some references to OT jewish worship practices but nothing from the New Testament. From a layman's point of view it seems that icons, veneration of saints, etc. may well serve to diminish the importance of the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity given at Pentecost.
Nevertheless, while there are fundamentally different views on the nature of redemption, sin, worship and sacraments between Western Catholicism and Protestantism and Eastern Orthodox, the important things to keep in mind are the basic essentials that we do share and extending Christian charity on those non-essential matters that we don't.
2003-12-12 18:39 | User Profile
I can also say that Icons are not scriptural either. In the Bible, there is no record of any icon or idol used in the Jewish Temple or in any of the Christian churches in the NT. The nearest thing to an Icon that I can find in the Bible is the account of the bronze serpent in 2 Kings 18:4:
" He removed the high places and broke the sacred pillars, cut down the wooden image and broke into pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the children of Israel burned incense to it, and called it Nehushtan."
Here is the account of the bronze serpent in Numbers 21:5-9:
4 And they journeyed from mount Hor by the way of the Red sea, to compass the land of Edom: and the soul of the people was much discouraged because of the way.
5 And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread.
6 And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.
7 Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people.
8 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.
9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.
The bronze serpent obviously was only for the purpose of healing those people who were bitten of the attack of the fiery serpents sent by God at that time and place and not for future worship, for nowhere does God tell people to venerate that serpent or to place it in the temple. By the time of Hezechiah, the bronze serpent was being venerated, and was distracting people from properly worshiping God, Hezekiah broke it. God did not comdemn him for it but in the next verse, 2 Kings 18:5 it states "He trusted in the Lord God of Israel, so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor who were before him." Nowhere in scripture are we called to use idols or icons in worship.
Now you talk about traditon. I have no problem with tradition as long as it does not go against scripture. But before Christianity came to the Roman and Greek nations, they had a tradition of worshiping idols of their pagan gods in temples. when Christianity came on the scene, many of these pagan temples were "christianized" by replacing the pagan idols with statures or icons of the saints. This veneration of saints, Mary, and Christ by idols or icons is just a sycretism of Greek and Roman pagan worship practices with Christianity and not Christianity itself. Also in the NT, note that Paul communitcated with the various churches by epistles, or letters, and did not advocate icons, statures, or other representations of Christ to be used in worship. To have done so would have cause syncretism. II Tim 3:16 states that " All scripture is given by the inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." People learn about God from his Word.
2003-12-13 17:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Thanks for the interesting post, wild bill. I think it must be said that the Orthodox position on icons and the sacraments are not monolithic, with differences as to what is and is not essential occurring in the various Orthodox churches.[/QUOTE]
I am unaware of ANY Orthodox church that doesn't use Icons. In fact, any organization calling itself "Orthodox" that doesn't use Icons, is in self-contradiction to its name. Icons cannot be seperated from the Orthodox Church.
[QUOTE] Further, as to their being scriptural, in the article I see some references to OT jewish worship practices but nothing from the New Testament. From a layman's point of view it seems that icons, veneration of saints, etc. may well serve to diminish the importance of the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity given at Pentecost. [/QUOTE]
I think if you attended an Orthodox service or Liturgy, you would be assured that the Holy Spirit is never neglected, but invoked constantly. We believe that the Holy Spirit descends into the Church during every Liturgy.
Does the NT anywhere forbid the use of Icons?
Keep in mind that archeological evidence we have now, which Calvin didn't, clearly proves that Icons were in use in the very early Church. During that time there were men who were only one generation away from the Apostles themselves. For example, St John didn't pass way until 90 AD. So we had men in the second century who were taught by the very men who themselves were actually taught by the Holy Apostles and Disciples.
Personally, I find it hard to accept that blatantly corrupt teachings that were in opposition to that of the Apostles were alreay institutionalized in the Church.
Calvin was clearly under the impression that Icons didn't appear until the fifth century which is inarguably a mistake.
[QUOTE] Nevertheless, while there are fundamentally different views on the nature of redemption, sin, worship and sacraments between Western Catholicism and Protestantism and Eastern Orthodox, the important things to keep in mind are the basic essentials that we do share and extending Christian charity on those non-essential matters that we don't.[/QUOTE]
I think one of the difficulties is that many people consider Orthodoxy as merely a variant of Roman Catholicism and thereby unknowingly assign Rome's doctrines to the Orthodox, but the fact is that the Church of Rome was excommunicated by the four other Churches way back in 1054. The point is that the Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are very different and have been seperated for twice as long as Protestantism has existed. In fact, many Orthodox consider Catholicism and Protestantism are having more in common with each other that Orthodoxy does with either. Of course, I realize probably most Protestants see it in the reverse.
Regards, Wild Bill
2003-12-13 18:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=skemper]I can also say that Icons are not scriptural either. In the Bible, there is no record of any icon or idol used in the Jewish Temple or in any of the Christian churches in the NT. The nearest thing to an Icon that I can find in the Bible is the account of the bronze serpent in 2 Kings 18:4: [/QUOTE]
Maybe you missed this statement in the article I posted which shows other references to images or Icons used in relation to worship:
"However either Calvin is overstating his case or he ignores biblical references to art forms in the Old Testament tabernacles: the sculpted cherubim over the ark of the tabernacle, the faces of the cherubim woven into the tabernacle curtains, and the twelve bulls that held up the Sea of cast metal (see Exodus 26, I Kings 6 & 7). There is also the carved images of cherubim and palm trees in the New Temple (Ezekiel 41:15 ff.)."
[QUOTE] Now you talk about traditon. I have no problem with tradition as long as it does not go against scripture. But before Christianity came to the Roman and Greek nations, they had a tradition of worshiping idols of their pagan gods in temples. when Christianity came on the scene, many of these pagan temples were "christianized" by replacing the pagan idols with statures or icons of the saints. [/QUOTE]
As far as I know, the Orthodox Church has never used statues, and today you will not find any in Orthodox churches. Only the Catholics use statues.
[QUOTE] This veneration of saints, Mary, and Christ by idols or icons is just a sycretism of Greek and Roman pagan worship practices with Christianity and not Christianity itself.[/QUOTE]
I don't agree with this and neither have the Ecumenical Councils down through the centuries.
By making such a statement, you are essentially condemning all the Church Fathers, the great theologians, and great Martyrs of Christianity that came over the fifteen centuries BEFORE Luther as know-nothings and even heretics.
[QUOTE] Also in the NT, note that Paul communitcated with the various churches by epistles, or letters, and did not advocate icons, statures, or other representations of Christ to be used in worship. To have done so would have cause syncretism. [/QUOTE]
Paul didn't say to put crosses in and on churches, but nearly every Protestant church has them. Or how about all the pictures of Christ used in most Protestant literature? Also Paul spoke of "traditions" which he doesn't describe in the NT. Obviously, there were traditions that are not specifically described in the NT. Just because they aren't mentioned doesn't mean they are forbidden.
Furthermore, do you realize every time you reference the NT, you are speaking of the Scriptures that were basically put together by the Orthodox Church? Recall that the Church existed for almost four centuries before the Bible as we know it was in its general form. During that time the Church collected the various books, edited them, decided which were inspired and which were not, which ones had worth and which were spurious or not of the necessary level to be included. They determined by the Holy Spirit which books would make up the Bible. So if you are ready to condemn Icons, why not condemn the Scriptures too? Both have the same source.
I don't mean to offend, but do find it fascinating how people are willing to casually condemn Traditions which go back to the earliest days of the Church. And I want to reiterate that my posting was not meant as an attack on Protestantism, but as an encouragement to all Christians to appreciate our rich heritage.
Regards, Wild Bill
2003-12-14 01:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Maybe you missed this statement in the article I posted which shows other references to images or Icons used in relation to worship:[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]"However either Calvin is overstating his case or he ignores biblical references to art forms in the Old Testament tabernacles: the sculpted cherubim over the ark of the tabernacle, the faces of the cherubim woven into the tabernacle curtains, and the twelve bulls that held up the Sea of cast metal (see Exodus 26, I Kings 6 & 7). There is also the carved images of cherubim and palm trees in the New Temple (Ezekiel 41:15 ff.). [/QUOTE]
I did read the article. Those art forms in the tabernacle and were specificed by God to Moses in Ex. 25-26 and 25-37, and clearly he was not to deviate from God's specifications. If he or any of the artisans did, they would have probaly suffered the fate of Nadab and Abihu in Lev. 10. Also, God called specific artisans to do this work in Ex. 35:30-36:1:
"30 And Moses said unto the children of Israel, See, the LORD hath called by name Bezaleel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah: 31 And he hath filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship; 32 And to devise curious works, to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass, 33 And in the cutting of stones, to set them, and in carving of wood, to make any manner of cunning work. 34 And he hath put in his heart that he may teach, both he, and Aholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan. 35 Them hath he filled with wisdom of heart, to work all manner of work, of the engraver, and of the cunning workman, and of the embroiderer, in blue, and in purple, in scarlet, and in fine linen, and of the weaver, even of them that do any work, and of those that devise cunning work. 1 Then wrought Bezaleel and Aholiab, and every wise hearted man, in whom the LORD put wisdom and understanding to know how to work all manner of work for the service of the sanctuary, according to all that the LORD had commanded. 2 And Moses called Bezaleel and Aholiab, and every wise hearted man, in whose heart the LORD had put wisdom, even every one whose heart stirred him up to come unto the work to do it:
God specifically specified the art forms and the artisans for the purpose of building the tabernacle. David later was given plans for the temple by God in which David states in I Chronicles 29:19: " All this,", said David, " the Lord made me understand in writing, by His hand upon me, all the works of these plans." Also I added the case of the Bronze Serpent, which was an artwork specified by God to heal people of snakebites from a specific attack of snakes sent by Him to punish disobedient people. The Bronze serpent itself did not heal the people, of course, but it was the people's obedience to God's command to look at the snake that they were healed. When the snake was being used as an worship object by the people, Hezekiah destroyed it and was praised by God for it. I wish for you to answer me about this example.
[QUOTE]As far as I know, the Orthodox Church has never used statues, and today you will not find any in Orthodox churches. Only the Catholics use statues.[/QUOTE]
I agree and that is true. But I find no evidence of either to be used in worship in the OT or NT.
[QUOTE]I don't agree with this and neither have the Ecumenical Councils down through the centuries. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE]By making such a statement, you are essentially condemning all the Church Fathers, the great theologians, and great Martyrs of Christianity that came over the fifteen centuries BEFORE Luther as know-nothings and even heretics.[/QUOTE]
I have studied Church history, the Ecumenical councils, the church Fathers and theologians and great Martyrs of Christianity before and after Luther and Calvin. The Church Fathers were divided on the issue. Some, such as Basil, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustus, and Jerome, encouraged this practice, others, such as Tertullian, Vigilantius,Eusebius, and Epiphanus opposed it. And yes, as the article mentions, icons ( GK for "image"), were used in buildings before the 4th century but did not become widespread until the fourth century after the conversion of Constantine. Until his time, Christians met in houses, and after Constantine's conversion, they started building more worship buildings and the art went along with it. Hostility to Icons did not end yet. It wasn't until 787, in the 7th EC, the Second council of Niacia, that Icons were accepted by the churches of both the East and the West. After the 1054, the churches split.
2003-12-14 03:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=skemper] It wasn't until 787, in the 7th EC, the Second council of Niacia, that Icons were accepted by the churches of both the East and the West. After the 1054, the churches split.[/QUOTE]
Ok, looks like this issue was settled once and for all in 787. So why do Protestants accept some decisions of the Ecumenical Councils while rejecting others?
Its a similar thing with the sabbath vs. Lord's Day issue. This is a question that was settled by the Church many centuries ago, yet that fact still doesn't stop some people from bringing it up over and over as if its some new thing that was just discovered.
Just because something isn't specifically mentioned in the Bible, doesn't mean its automatically forbidden.
Regards, Wild Bill
2003-12-14 19:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I think one of the difficulties is that many people consider Orthodoxy as merely a variant of Roman Catholicism and thereby unknowingly assign Rome's doctrines to the Orthodox, but the fact is that the Church of Rome was excommunicated by the four other Churches way back in 1054. The point is that the Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are very different and have been seperated for twice as long as Protestantism has existed. In fact, many Orthodox consider Catholicism and Protestantism are having more in common with each other that Orthodoxy does with either. Of course, I realize probably most Protestants see it in the reverse.[/QUOTE]
I am aware of the differences between Roman Catholism and the Orthodox Churches. The Roman and the Orthodox Branches did not come into existance officially until 1054 after the split, though differences did start centuries earlier when the seat of the Roman Empire was moved from Rome to Constantanople and later formed the Byzantine Empire when Rome fell. also Rome claimed to be the Supreme church, using Clement's letter and Peter's residence in Rome to back it up. The other churches, particularly in the East, never recognized the claim.
Orthodox churches are not as united as you think. Does the Greek church recognize Russian's claim that Moscow as the seat of the church after the fall of Constantanople? I think not. Also, though The Greek, Russian, Serbian, Georgian ( Russia), and other smaller Orthodox demononations do share many practices and theology, there are areas that they differ.
2003-12-14 19:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]Ok, looks like this issue was settled once and for all in 787. So why do Protestants accept some decisions of the Ecumenical Councils while rejecting others?
Its a similar thing with the sabbath vs. Lord's Day issue. This is a question that was settled by the Church many centuries ago, yet that fact still doesn't stop some people from bringing it up over and over as if its some new thing that was just discovered.
Just because something isn't specifically mentioned in the Bible, doesn't mean its automatically forbidden.
Regards, Wild Bill[/QUOTE]
Protestants are not all one group. I consider many Protestant demoninations as apostate and thus, worse then the Orthodox because of their rejection of the deity of Christ, sola scrpitura, and other modern, humanistic practices that they advocate. As you mentioned before, many Protestant Churches use images and pictures of Christ in the Sunday School and some in the sancturary. My church, the Presbyterian Church in America, is against this practice and from my study of scriptures there is no place for it. Even though Jesus was a man that walked on earth, he also was God. Also , as a man he was sinless. We, the rest of humanity could never fathom what a sinless man was like, much less Christ's divine nature. No artist, no matter how good and devout he is, could never paint a true likeness even if Christ was posing before him.
Another problem with icons that I have, as well as statures in the RC. Many people regard many of these pieces of art to have supernatural powers and regard them as higher than scripture. I know that both the Orthodox and Catholic Chruches do not sacnction these items to be worshiped but many of the people do, especially if they are illiterate. That is why Luther translated the Bible into German so that all could read it. But I have to add that the Orthodox church translated the scriptures into vulgar tongues before the Catholics did, all of whom clung to the Vulgate.
Protestants do not accept all ecumentical councils and believe councils can err. Not all orthodox do, either. If they find a ruling contrary to scripture, they didn't accept it. But most of the rulings of first 6, at least, they do accept. I have studied the rulings of the councils in the past but cannot recall all at the top of my head. I need to look at the list of councils to give you a more complete picture.
This is an interesting discussion. I appreciate your zeal for your beliefs but recognize that some, like me, have studied the scriptures and church history and have come to our own conclusions. Theology-wise, I am a Calvinist, following in the doctrine of the Westminster confession. I do not agree with some points of Calvin, and quite a few of Luther's, but I do support their reasons for the break with the Catholic chruch.
2003-12-15 03:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=skemper]Protestants are not all one group. I consider many Protestant demoninations as apostate and thus, worse then the Orthodox because of their rejection of the deity of Christ, sola scrpitura, and other modern, humanistic practices that they advocate. As you mentioned before, many Protestant Churches use images and pictures of Christ in the Sunday School and some in the sancturary. My church, the Presbyterian Church in America, is against this practice and from my study of scriptures there is no place for it. [/QUOTE]
Skemper, that last sentence is a perfect example of the difference in outlook between Protestantism and Orthodoxy. You would not typically hear an Orthodox person make a private opinion on Scripture. Even a Bishop cannot do this. If my Metropolitian announced tomorrow that he has determined through his study of the Scriptures that Icons are not scriptural, he would probably either be taken to a mental hospital or defrocked within a day. Private interpretation of the Bible is not generally accepted in Orthodoxy. We have no "sola Scriptura" concept in Orthodoxy. For us, the Bible is based on the Church, not the Church on the Bible, since the Church preceded the Bible.
The Scriptures are always interpreted within Tradition. This makes it difficult for any one person or group of people to subvert or lead the Church in some new direction. This is also one reason why its sometimes difficult for Orthodox to debate Scriptural issues with non-Orthodox.
[QUOTE] Even though Jesus was a man that walked on earth, he also was God. Also , as a man he was sinless. We, the rest of humanity could never fathom what a sinless man was like, much less Christ's divine nature. No artist, no matter how good and devout he is, could never paint a true likeness even if Christ was posing before him.[/QUOTE]
If you notice, Orthodox Icons are not very life-like. But it isn't because the Icon writers are so poor at their craft that they can't make them look realistic like a classical painting. The Icons are deliberately made in their peculiar manner specifically to avoid being misconstrued as a real picture.
While we're talking about this, there's another important aspect of Icons. Back before printing and when people were illiterate, Icons were used as teaching aids. This is why Icons are so stylized and everything in the Icon has some symbolic meaning. A person could actually give a Bible or theological lesson using just an Icon.
[QUOTE]Another problem with icons that I have, as well as statures in the RC. Many people regard many of these pieces of art to have supernatural powers and regard them as higher than scripture. I know that both the Orthodox and Catholic Chruches do not sacnction these items to be worshiped but many of the people do, especially if they are illiterate. That is why Luther translated the Bible into German so that all could read it. But I have to add that the Orthodox church translated the scriptures into vulgar tongues before the Catholics did, all of whom clung to the Vulgate.[/QUOTE]
As far as I know, Orthodoxy has always favored the Septuagint OT and the Greek NT. The Vulgate and Masoretic came later, as I recall. I think the Vulgate was based on the Masoretic text, wasn't it?
Just to mention it, among Orthodox Christains today you will find everything from Orthodox monastic Bible translations to RSV and KJV. Most Orthodox don't seem too hung-up on any particular Bible translation.
[QUOTE] Protestants do not accept all ecumentical councils and believe councils can err. Not all orthodox do, either. If they find a ruling contrary to scripture, they didn't accept it. But most of the rulings of first 6, at least, they do accept. I have studied the rulings of the councils in the past but cannot recall all at the top of my head. I need to look at the list of councils to give you a more complete picture. [/QUOTE]
I am under the impression that Orthodoxy abides by the councils, but I'm not sure if that means all of them.
[QUOTE] This is an interesting discussion. I appreciate your zeal for your beliefs but recognize that some, like me, have studied the scriptures and church history and have come to our own conclusions. Theology-wise, I am a Calvinist, following in the doctrine of the Westminster confession. I do not agree with some points of Calvin, and quite a few of Luther's, but I do support their reasons for the break with the Catholic chruch.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the kind words, but I think I probably have much more zeal than anything. LOL. What's good is at least there's a certain commonality of mind despite our different perspectives. OTOH, I find trying to discuss Christ with dispensationalists to be almost impossible.
On Luther, I've read some Orthodox writers' comments on the Protestant split and most were sympathetic to the reaction against the corruption of the Rome. But the writers typically are regretful that when Luther broke with Rome, he didn't return to the Orthodox Church. That's attributed to the fact that the Eastern Church had almost no presence in western Europe at that time.
As you probably know, many of the problems Protestants have with Rome, are the same that the Orthodox have with them.
Regards, Wild Bill
2003-12-15 03:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=skemper]Orthodox churches are not as united as you think. Does the Greek church recognize Russian's claim that Moscow as the seat of the church after the fall of Constantanople? I think not. [/QUOTE]
I'm not sure, but they are in communion with each other. I do know its pretty common for people to switch from a Greek parish to Russian or whichever one they prefer or are close to. Say if I moved to a town where these was only a Greek parish, I would go there without hesitation. There would be no problem with that.
[QUOTE] Also, though The Greek, Russian, Serbian, Georgian ( Russia), and other smaller Orthodox demononations do share many practices and theology, there are areas that they differ.[/QUOTE]
The differences are pretty minor and mainly reflect cultural traditions of their respective nationalities. The teachings and Liturgies are the same except that they might change a couple of the hymms.
Some people even go back and forth between these churches. For example, I'm in a small Orthodox Church in America (OCA) Russian parish that only has Sunday Liturgy and no services during the week. Some people in my church will go to the nearby Serbian church for services during the week, although the Serbs are not part of our organization. Also the members of the Serb parish, including the Priest, will come to our dinners and events and we, in turn, go to theirs.
I know one person who visted a town with a strong Greek Orthodox population. As soon as he told the Greeks he was Russian Orthodox, they immediately treated like one of their own.
Regards, Wild Bill
2003-12-15 05:24 | User Profile
There is some question as to how much Calvinists follow Calvin. Insofar as they do, it is often un-thinkingly. So yes, there is a need to recover the Catholic and Othrodox view of religious art. But this is not incompatible with 'Calvinism,' unless we understand 'Calvinism' as simply, what Calvin thought.
2003-12-15 16:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=theaustrian]There is some question as to how much Calvinists follow Calvin. Insofar as they do, it is often un-thinkingly. So yes, there is a need to recover the Catholic and Othrodox view of religious art. But this is not incompatible with 'Calvinism,' unless we understand 'Calvinism' as simply, what Calvin thought.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps not in the case of our friend Skemper, but I think some of it is due to misunderstanding. For example, its commonly claimed by many non-Orthodox people that the we Orthodox "worship" Icons. This isn't true, but apparently some people think any kind of veneration is "worshipping."
Another example could be when the Priest kisses the Church Bible before he brings it out for a reading. By doing that he's certainly not worshipping the Bible, but showing his sincere love and respect for God. Obviously, that Bible is a book and will be worn out someday, disposed of, and replaced with a new one.
Besides everything else, I find that Icons also have a very practical use as reminders. Everytime I walk into a room in my home and see an Icon, I'm immediately reminded of Christ. So even if I'm pre-occupied with something at the moment, I'll often pause to say a brief prayer or at least cross myself.
Regard, Wild Bill
2003-12-19 12:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=theaustrian]There is some question as to how much Calvinists follow Calvin. Insofar as they do, it is often un-thinkingly. So yes, there is a need to recover the Catholic and Othrodox view of religious art. But this is not incompatible with 'Calvinism,' unless we understand 'Calvinism' as simply, what Calvin thought.[/QUOTE]
Most people who use the word Calvinist to describe their beliefs have studied it to some extent. To use such an exact term one has to know who Calvin was, the theology he espoused, and some church history. Now there are many who are members of churches who are or were founded on reformed doctrine that may not know. Just because they are members of the church, doesn't mean that they are into theology. You can say the same for other churches including the Orthodox. How many in your church can you say faithfully attend church services regularly? How many know their church history? How many fully understand the meaning of the rituals of your differeent services? How many have have studied the theology as much as you have? I could made the same statement about the Orthodox and other demoninations.
I am not against all religious art. For example there were many great Dutch reformed artists in the Renainssance and later. They created art not for churches but for homes. It featured Bible stories and scenes from religious history with the characters portrayed in modern clothes of the time. I do not know if this was from ignorance or, rather most probaly, to relate the characters to contemporary society. But there were no pictures of God or Christ , and no halos over the saints and very little nudity.
2003-12-19 13:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=skemper] Just because they are members of the church, doesn't mean that they are into theology. You can say the same for other churches including the Orthodox. How many in your church can you say faithfully attend church services regularly? How many know their church history? How many fully understand the meaning of the rituals of your differeent services? How many have have studied the theology as much as you have? I could made the same statement about the Orthodox and other demoninations. [/QUOTE]
In the areas you mention, the Orthodox churches aren't much different from any other. I don't want anything I've said to be taken as indicating that Orthodox Christians are holier than other Christians or without our faults. We have plenty of rather lacadaisical Orthodox. The only difference as far as church attendence goes, and I don't really have an explanation for it, is that fathers seem to be the dominant religious force in Orthodox families. In all the Protestant churches I ever attended, it seemed more common that mothers were more devoted to the church than the fathers. Hence it was common to see a mother and children in church without the father. In Orthodox churches I notice just the reverse.
[QUOTE] I am not against all religious art. For example there were many great Dutch reformed artists in the Renainssance and later. They created art not for churches but for homes. It featured Bible stories and scenes from religious history with the characters portrayed in modern clothes of the time. I do not know if this was from ignorance or, rather most probaly, to relate the characters to contemporary society. But there were no pictures of God or Christ , and no halos over the saints and very little nudity.[/QUOTE]
I never saw any nudity in Orthodox Icons. I think your comment pertains to Renaisance art.
Still there's nothing in the NT against Icons. I think the significant point is that the Church has had them since its earliest days. And today they are of practical value as reminders of God and the persons through which he has worked His will on earth. Each Saint can provide us with a Christian role model, whether that was in their good deeds, theological work, martyrdom, or submission to God's will. For example, Mary, the Mother of God, is our highest Saint for obeying God, being morally pure, and for carrying Jesus Christ within her body, thus bringing the redemption into the world. She is referred to in the Scriptures as the "handmaid of the Lord" and "is "blessed among women." For these things and more, she is venerated as the highest Saint of the Orthodox Church.
In light of this, I will pose this question to my Protestant friends: Why do you all but totally ignore the Mother of God? You hold the Apostles, who were obviously sinners like the rest of us, in higher esteem than the morally pure Mother of God. That doesn't make sense to me.
Regards, Wild Bill
2003-12-19 19:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE]In light of this, I will pose this question to my Protestant friends: Why do you all but totally ignore the Mother of God? You hold the Apostles, who were obviously sinners like the rest of us, in higher esteem than the morally pure Mother of God. That doesn't make sense to me.[/QUOTE]
I assume that by "morally pure", you mean sinless. Mary was not sinless. She was born with the curse of Adam as the rest the rest of us. She testified to that in the Magnificant, which she states in Luke 1 upon meeting Elizabeth:
46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in [B]God my Saviour[/B].
48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
49 For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.
50 And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation.
Only sinners ( all of mankind except Jesus) need a a Saviour. She needed Christ's blood and victory over death as the rest of us and so proclaimed her her need for a Saviour above. She was a woman of great faith, for she accepted what the angel said without doubting, unlike Zacharias. The scriptures show that both Mary and Joseph were God-fearing people. The reason that the apostles may get more attention is because there is more about them in the scriptures, for it was they whom God gave the responsibility to set up the church.
2003-12-19 20:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=skemper]I assume that by "morally pure", you mean sinless. Mary was not sinless. She was born with the curse of Adam as the rest the rest of us. She testified to that in the Magnificant, which she states in Luke 1 upon meeting Elizabeth: [/QUOTE]
I didn't mean she was without sin, but that the Mother of God committed no voluntary sin. This is a basic teaching of Orthodoxy. The Orthodox hold that Mary was chosen to be the Mother of God, not because she was sinless as the Catholics believe, but because she was the most holy, pure, and good woman. Therefore, she is above the Apostles and everybody except Christ Himself. This is why we venerate her as the highest Saint.
But here again, you Protestants totally ignore her. Outside of the Nativity, you treat the Mother of God almost as a non-person despite her being the one who ordered the servants to obey Christ when he performed His very first miracle. Also she was there at the cross when Christ expired.
The Tradition is that the Mother of God was taken care of for the rest of her life by the Apostles as Christ had ordered.
Tell me this. If the Mother of God appeared and walked into your church, what would you do? Don't tell me you would treat her just like anyone else. You would immediately give honor her like nobody had ever seen. Ok, so just because she has passed on to the spiritual realm, we should still honor her since she is just as alive to us as Christ is. If we would honor her in physical life, we should honor her always.
I hope I am explaning this so it makes sense.
Regards, Wild Bill
2003-12-19 20:35 | User Profile
I agree that Reformed/Presbyterian Christians are often not very knowledgeable about Calvinism. My point was that even the very knowledgeable typically view Calvinism as referring to the 'TULIP' doctrine and the traditions associated with it, and not simply to what Calvin wrote. In a lot of ways, Calvinism is defined more by the Conference of Dordt than be Calvin. Likewise, the Westminster Confessions are in some ways more imporant for Calvinism in the English-speaking world than anything Calvin actually wrote.
It is the same situation with Lutheranism. It is based in Luthers ideas, but doesn't essentially involve his views of the Jews, or women, etc.
Most Calvinist will say that they believe in the Bible, and merely take Calvin and other Calvinist Christians as guides. I think this guidance is viewed more as coming from the great masses of people who makes up, and have made up, Calvinist churches, with some being more at the center of these churches, and others being more on the periphery.
Now certainly many of these church-members have thought there is something wrong with pictures of Jesus or Mary. But the question is, whether this view is biblical. A lot depends on how one interprets the relation of the OT to the NT. If one gets very serious about the New Covenant overriding the Old, as many Calvinists do (particularly in Baptist chruches), then it becomes very odd to claim that it alright not to keep kosher, but not alright to paint pictures of Jesus or Mary.
Anti-'iconoclasm' is just Judaism in sheep's garb.
[QUOTE=skemper]Most people who use the word Calvinist to describe their beliefs have studied it to some extent. To use such an exact term one has to know who Calvin was, the theology he espoused, and some church history. Now there are many who are members of churches who are or were founded on reformed doctrine that may not know. Just because they are members of the church, doesn't mean that they are into theology. You can say the same for other churches including the Orthodox. How many in your church can you say faithfully attend church services regularly? How many know their church history? How many fully understand the meaning of the rituals of your differeent services? How many have have studied the theology as much as you have? I could made the same statement about the Orthodox and other demoninations.
I am not against all religious art. For example there were many great Dutch reformed artists in the Renainssance and later. They created art not for churches but for homes. It featured Bible stories and scenes from religious history with the characters portrayed in modern clothes of the time. I do not know if this was from ignorance or, rather most probaly, to relate the characters to contemporary society. But there were no pictures of God or Christ , and no halos over the saints and very little nudity.[/QUOTE]
2003-12-19 21:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I didn't mean she was without sin, but that the Mother of God committed no voluntary sin. This is a basic teaching of Orthodoxy. The Orthodox hold that Mary was chosen to be the Mother of God, not because she was sinless as the Catholics believe, but because she was the most holy, pure, and good woman. Therefore, she is above the Apostles and everybody except Christ Himself. This is why we venerate her as the highest Saint.
[/QUOTE] Thanks for clarifying "morally pure". Everyone voluntarily sins at some point if they are descended from Adam, including Mary, whose genealogy is listed in Luke 2. It is not for us to rank who is highest in the kingdom, for only God can read a person's heart to descern his true motives. We cannot know the rankings of the saints and by saints I mean all believers, including you, me, and Mary. Here is what Jesus had to say about rankings in Matt. 12:
46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Now it does not say whether the disciples or Mary were higher but states that whoever does the will of the Heavenly Father is the same as Jesus' family. The Disciples did the will of God and so did Mary in bearing Jesus. All of us who make Jesus as Lord of our Life have the same privilage.
If Mary came physically in the church today, yes, I would be very honored to meet her. Accusing us of ignoring Mary is false. The Scriptures do not ignore her. You need to not paint all Protestants with the same brush. Yes some do as you say and others, like me regard her postion highly and have read and studied the scriptures about her. How many Orhtodox, despite venerating an Icon of Mary as the Mother of God, know what else is said about her in the scriptures?
As for the wedding at Cana, the first miracle of water changing into wine, Jesus rebuked her, saying, "Woman, what has your concern have to do wit me? My time has not yet come!" Jesus was answering Mary's request, not because that she is his mother, but as part of his work as Messiah. This indicates that Mary's special role as Jesus' mother gives her no authority to intervene in Christ's messianic career, which to me is a strong argument against praying to her.
2003-12-20 02:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=skemper]Thanks for clarifying "morally pure". Everyone voluntarily sins at some point if they are descended from Adam, including Mary, whose genealogy is listed in Luke 2. It is not for us to rank who is highest in the kingdom, for only God can read a person's heart to descern his true motives. We cannot know the rankings of the saints and by saints I mean all believers, including you, me, and Mary. Here is what Jesus had to say about rankings in Matt. 12:
As for the wedding at Cana, the first miracle of water changing into wine, Jesus rebuked her, saying, "Woman, what has your concern have to do wit me? My time has not yet come!" Jesus was answering Mary's request, not because that she is his mother, but as part of his work as Messiah. This indicates that Mary's special role as Jesus' mother gives her no authority to intervene in Christ's messianic career, which to me is a strong argument against praying to her.[/QUOTE]
We obviously have some doctrinal differences that I don't think can be resolved. The Orthodox Church says one thing, but you disagree with that. So lets leave that alone.
My reference on the wine, was not that Mary had any authority over Christ, but only that she was present when He performed His first miracle. And she did order the servants to do as Christ said.
This is just my opinion, but there may be others who noticed some significance in Mary being with Christ at serveral very important situations in His ministry. Besides obviously being the one who bore Him and involved in the first miracle, her presence at the Cross is conspicuous and that one of Christ's last words were for John, I think, to look after her. I think that's noteworthy, since if she was of no special significance, why not just leave her care to Christ's step-brothers or her natural family?
Regards, Wild Bill