Posted on 12/10/2005 9:41:54 AM PST by sionnsar
I have recently read some things on the blogo-world where Christians are actually condemned to Hell for venerating objects within the context of worship. Of course, it comes from many who claim the Reformed Tradition, almost in an iconographic way. To make such rash judgments about Christians who would give honour to the "holy place" of worship by a bow or a bending of the knee is simply silly. To make the claim that Christians in the Roman Catholic, Orthodox or Anglican Communions are damned to Hell because of this is not helpful in light of what others are doing to them in their own contexts. I find it odd that there were all sorts of "heavenly symbols" in the Temple and on the vestments of the OT priests that were commanded by God to be there and yet these establishments follow the giving of the Second Commandment. Do Christians follow the Temple or the 'Synagogue' model of worship and is this even the right question to be asking? It's interesting that the Second Commandment states "that ANYTHING in heaven or earth" should not be made and yet all sorts of "heavenly beings" are within the Temple. Then we have the Temple and the "icons" in the Holy of Holies. Is this really something to condemn fellow Christians for? Is it really a violation of the Second Commandment?
At the Second Council of Nicaea (Seventh Ecumenical Council) - 787 A.D the Council said,
We decree with full precision and care that, like the figure of the honored and life-giving cross, the revered and holy images, whether painted or made of mosaic or of other suitable material, are to be exposed in the holy churches of God, on sacred instruments and vestments, on walls and panels, in houses and by public ways; these are the images of our Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ, and of Our Lady without blemish, the holy God-bearer, and of the revered angels, and of any of the saintly holy men.I think the below article on this issue makes more sense than the common "Protestant" condemnation that sends those who disagree to Hell. I have never thought of anything other than the worship of God by any veneration given to the altar, cross, or priest in worship. We cross ourselves in our family, have icons in our home, (large advent wreath now) crosses, crucifixes, statues of saints, and all other sorts or Christian Tradition and we have never worshiped one of these things nor given them the honour that is due to God alone. When I deacon in worship and read the Gospel I cross it and kiss it after the proclamation "This is the Gospel of the Lord." I have never set my will to worship these holy things. Worship is an act of the will and an informed conviction that worship is only to God our Father through our Lord Jesus Christ. This article's point here makes a lot more sense than the broad condemnations that one often finds is being attributed to non-Protestant denominations.
So, for the veneration of images to violate the second commandment, it would have to: 1. Be an image of some type, 2. We would have to bow to it, 3. We would bow to it in order to serve it, 4. And to serve it as a god, to supersede God. Thus, it would turn into worship and break the second commandment. Veneration of the Saints through their images only applies to 2 of the 4 qualifications, thus it is not worship of the Saint or the Icon, nor does it break the second commandment. It seems the real concern of those who hesitate at this point is that they are afraid that if they bow to an Icon and kiss it, that they might find themselves someday falling into worship rather than just veneration and honor. Like one day they would wake up and realize that all this time they had been worshiping Mary instead of just giving her honor. The truth of the matter is that you simply cannot accidently worship an Icon. Worship is intentionally giving veneration to a god. As long as that god is the God, then you have nothing to worry about. No one can accidentally worship a Saint. Worship is a purposefull activity and you do it on purpose and with intent.The whole article is here. It is a sad day that when brothers, who disagree, over something like this would begin condemning souls to eternal perdition just to let those who disagree with them on other controversial issues know that they are not as bad as those of us who have pictures of Jesus or statues of our favourite saints, crosses or crucifixes in our homes or churches. Can we have a more intelligent and Christian dicussion of these things? Is this now the measure of "Reformed" orthodoxy?
No, but the path to Heaven isn't a minefield of semantical construction. I pray to God in the name of His Son Jesus Christ. I'm not excluding the Holy Spirit in so doing, and I suspect that the person you "corrected" was not doing so either.
John 14: 6 Jesus saith unto him [Thomas], I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
I dunno, Kosta, kinda looks like we come to God through his Son.
It perhaps seems silly to us now but during the time of the Reformation many of these things such as paintings and incense were used heavily in worship and, in fact, became objects of worship. The Reformers tried to make faith the object-not things around them.
Some, admittingly, went a little overboard but not without cause. I would point you to the articles that appear from time to time on people paying $10,000 for a cheese sandwich with Mary's face on it, a weeping staute of our Lord Jesus in Mexico or gathering in a NJ tunnel to pray to a moldy wall that looks like Mary and then tell me there is no danger in objects used in worship. All this is happening now. Idolatry is praying to things made of wood and stone. This all fits the bill (except the Bible states nothing about cheese sandwiches). You tell me if this is "rash judgment"?
We think we are so cleaver but people still worship idols today in churches. People "feel" they need "smell and bells". Please note this article about some Baptists who feel the same way. We want that "sense" of God around us, rather than living by faith and resting in God's promise. Has He not spoken and will He not fulfill it?
I had a feeling this was coming. Before you get too carried away with select Bible quotes, remember that our Lord Jesus Christ taught us how to pray to the Father -- addressing the Father directly (hint: it's called the Lord's Prayer)
And He taught us to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, not in the name of God.
[John 14:] 7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him...
I don't see the word through in all this (including John 14:6). To imply that we know "God" through Jesus Christ, rather than in Jesus Christ, tells me that an awful lot of Protestants are confused about Who Jesus is.
"I dunno, Kosta, kinda looks like we come to God through his Son."
Larry, depending on what you mean by this, you may be expounding the ancient heresy of Sebellianism, which, as I understand it, is gaining currency among certain Protestant groups. Your statement is one of the classic conclusions of Sebellianism and frankly can lead to a denial of the theosis effected through the Incarnation.
Divine Liturgy is an ancient artistic expression of glory to God, within our limited means. If they make us feel in heaven with smells and bells so what?! Your Protestant bible sessions are intended to do the same thing! Much less artistically for sure.
”I agree with you, Harley, that some seem prone to a type of "enthusiasm" which cannot be good and which demeans and cheapens the Faith. As for miracles with icons, well, I believe that's a different story. Icons are intended to be articles of veneration and to provide us with a glimpse into eternity.”
One’s man cheese sandwich is another man’s glimpse into eternity. Anything manmade that becomes a center for worship and devotion is idolatry. There is no scriptural justification for it and plenty of scripture against it. And idolatry isn't limited to statues. The scriptures state covetous is idolatry. The simple DESIRE to keep a statue as a center of devotion is idolatry. See if you have any idols the next time someone asks you to give up a favorite statue in your church.
Harley, the presence of those angels and saints is absolutely real, tangible, a blessing we actually experience at the Liturgy.
I’ve no doubt angels are real and tangible but there are two kinds of angels. Are you smart enough to tell the difference?
I’m not picking on the Catholics or Eastern Orthodox for I see more and more Protestant churches slipping into these kinds of practices. When people start burying statues of St. Joseph in order to sell their homes more quickly, you cannot tell me that isn’t idolatry.
"One’s man cheese sandwich is another man’s glimpse into eternity. Anything manmade that becomes a center for worship and devotion is idolatry."
Aw, gee, Harley; you've been around these threads for a long time now and you still haven't figured out the difference between worship and veneration, between a picture and the person depicted? Now we can re-hash the Iconoclasm controversy of the 8th century here if you want to, but that old heresy has been dead a real long time, or so I had thought. We can if you want to, though, complete with scripture references. Its my and Kosta's history, Harley. We know it pretty well. Oh, and no, one man's cheese sandwich is not another man's glimpse into eternity. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised at you. That's relativism, Harley. If you're getting into "pluriform truths", there's an organization called ECUSA which will welcome you with open arms.
"I’ve no doubt angels are real and tangible but there are two kinds of angels. Are you smart enough to tell the difference?"
Yup! My people have been doing it for over 1800 years.
Is it possible to turn the Bible into an idol? Is it possible that many Protestants have an idolatrous relation to he Bible?
We do no worship idols, HarleyD. If you need to be educated on what is idolatry as what is not, what is worship and what is veneration, don't hesitate to call.
A feeling of profound awe and respect and often love; veneration.
An act showing respect, especially a bow or curtsy.
The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.
And, no, I don't consider the Bible to be manmade. That you can revere.
Well, I am looking at the Bible I am holding in my hand, and the paper is manmade, the ink it is printed with is manmade, the binding and the cover are manmade. Is not revering it idolatrous since all these things are manmade?
Now your being silly. God's words are inspired. The early church fathers knew that. The Jewish historians knew that. There is nothing else in creation that has the same classification.
Besides, they tried to destory the Bible several times. It doesn't work.
That is the response I was expecting from you. Do you separate the Bible from the manmade paper it is printed on, or is there a necessary relationship between the paper, the ink, and the Bible?
Oh, you know how it is -- the Protesters will tell you that the words in the Bible are those of none of ther than God. That's why the Gospels all have different versions and different words! God must have spoken a slightly different version of the same truth using different words to +Mark, +Matthew, +Luke and +John I suppose!
But, you see, when God created man and when man fell from God's grace by his own disobedience and irresponsible choice, God did not give him a Bible! Oh, no. It was not until (I suppose) Moses started to write his famous five books that now make up the Christian Old Testament and a part of the Jewish Bible. Until about 500 BC, hat's all the people of Israel knew of God. Then between 500 and 100 BC they added Prophets and Psalms.
Some will tell you that the Jewish canon is still not closed -- i.e. that God's revelation continues and that therefore the Bible is an evolving book of God's revelation to man, but most will admit that the Jewish canon was closed after Jamnia (100 AD) as rabbinical Judaism took over.
As for Christianity, the full revelation -- of course -- came with Jesus Christ, who reinterpreted the Old Testament the correct way and reveled all the truth about God that we are to know and no more. But even He did not give the Apostles a Bible to tote and worship or venerate.
It took orthodox Christian Fathers almost 400 years to agree just which scrolls were to be considered inspired and which not. So, as the centuries went by after Jesus Christ came and left us a Church, even those closest to Him and those who were ordained by the Apostles could not fully agree as to which scrolls were truly the words of God and which were heresies. And, there was an abundance of such scrolls all over the place! You had weird sects and Gnostics masquearding as Christians, with their own "gospels." The task of selecting the inspired versus profane writings wasn't easy. The heretics included the same language as and even parts of the genuine Gospels in their counterfit works.
The task of the early Fathers of the Church was formidable. They needed a canonized Scripture, but not even fervent prayers and invocations of the Holy Spirit could ease their dilemma. Thus, Revelation of John was for the longest time not considered inspired, yet the Gospel of Peter was floating around, with some considering it "Scripture" while others did not, and so on. Thus, there was no Christian Bible until it was officially canonized at the end of the 4th century AD, about 370 years after the Pentecost. That's like saying that Christ gave us the Church in 1635 AD and we just now (2005 AD) canonized the Bible!
These were men, and they made the decision what is Scripture and what is not. They all defended their decisions by saying the making of the Bible was inspired by the Spirit -- as we claim the icons are, along with the liturgy and the sacraments, as well as the Ecumenical Councils.
For almost 2,000 years, the world was illiterate. In fact, some of the Apostles were too. Books were hand-written and copies of the Bible were scarce, expensive and written in a language that most could not understand. Rome lost its touch with liturgical Greek in the 5th century, and the Greeks never learned Latin. The only people who could read were the clergy and the scribes. What good was a Bible to an average German or Slavic Christian who couldn't read or write, nor understand Greek or Latin?!
Not even after the Luther's heresy, and the invention of the printing press, was the Bible any more intelligible to an average (still) illiterate German. And even as more and more people became literate, the books were still expensive. It was not until well into the 20th century, 2000 years after Christ, that bibles became affordable and sufficient number of people can read it (but not necessarily understand it).
Just to add another fly in this ointment, let's not forget that there is not one kind of a Bible. The Protestants, in addition to becoming apostates and heretics, also changed the Bible the Church used for 1,000 years (and if the Bible is truly something to be revered and/or worshiped, then it was a blasphemy as well!), to include the rabbinical version of the Old Testament rather than the Septuagint, which remains untainted by anti-Christian Jamnian rabbis.
Finally, go to such places as online Bible and see how many man-made versions of the Bible are there. Not only that, but how different and changed some of the meanings are in some, what is left out, what is included, etc.
The plain truth is, the Protestants who know only the Bible, are in complete denial that the Bible is one of the most man-made, man-altered, man-(re)designed article of faith. The father of their heresy, Martin Luther, even put it upon himself to take out James because he personally didn't like the contents of that book of the New Testament.
Protestantism, as far as I am concerned, is nothing but a minimalist approach to salvation. Yes, this is my personal view. Being a Protestant is real easy in my opinion. One of Luther's famous quotables was his "pecca fortiter..." it means "sin boldly!" He was saying rationalizing that we will sin anyway, and cannot stop. So, why preoccupy ourselves with sin?! Sin boldly, he said, God will forgive you if you believe. Real easy, as I said.
The Protestant Church was created by ordinary men, with big egos, not by the Apostles. They took it upon themselves to denigrate, reject, insult, deny, blaspheme and negate all that the Church from the times of Jesus Christ knew to be the truth, and embraced a book that has more man-made innovations and additions to it than any other symbol of Christian faith. They hold Bible study on Sundays and call it a "church." How could they posisble know the difference between what it means to venerate a saint and what to worship God? Obviously, some worship Gof the Father through Jesus Christ, as the author fothe article said. Somebody please turn on the light!
"If you are showing a "profound awe and respect for something" manmade what precisely are you doing based upon the definitions above? The dictionary seem to link these two things up. If I'm so wrong please explain it to me.
And, no, I don't consider the Bible to be manmade. That you can revere."
Now you're just being contentious, Harley. You don't worship the bible any more than the rest of us do. Even you Calvinists only worship God. You revere the word of God...just like we Orthodox and Catholics. We revere and venerate icons, not because they are pretty pieces of wood, but because they blessed and because of what or whom they represent. In no event do we "worship" icons. You know that and so did the heretical iconoclasts of the Reformation.
Now perhaps I am giving you more credit than is appropriate and some preacher has convinced you that the one good thing about Mohammedanism is that it shares Protestantism's iconoclasm. If so, as I said, I'd be happy to discuss what The Church believed for 1500 years before Calvin came along and which The Church believes to this day. Or, as an alternative, you can read the Fathers and the canons of councils, especially the 7th Ecumenical Council, and find out for yourself. If, on the other hand, you are simply being contentious as I suspect, then it really would be a waste of bandwidth.
He's confused - he ain't US though.
That's good. I am glad. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.