Posted on 05/20/2008 7:45:05 AM PDT by NYer
IconoclasmI preface this by stating I don't individually have a problem with images of Jesus. However, my church believes they are a violation of the Commandment "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them;"This heresy arose when a group of people known as iconoclasts (literally, "icon smashers") appeared, who claimed that it was sinful to make pictures and statues of Christ and the saints, despite the fact that in the Bible, God had commanded the making of religious statues (Ex. 25:18–20; 1 Chr. 28:18–19), including symbolic representations of Christ (cf. Num. 21:8–9 with John 3:14).
That said, my objection to this claim of "heresy" is that the scriptures included do not support the contention. The first two references regard the construction of the Ark of the Covenant. They were not "religious statues", nor were the features a form of Christ OR of the saints.
And in fact, the Jewish people were meant to worship, in a sense, the Ark. It was a revered, God-dictated icon of their faith.
So I'm not against icons, so long as they are dictated in the Bible. Since there appears to be no icons currently called for by biblical texts, I oppose the use of statues, and I believe that view is the biblicly correct view, not the "heretical" view.
I find your pastor’s assertion regarding Islam fascinating. Is there any more information regarding that?
Well, OK, maybe we HAD a loophole.
But now that somebody posted this and we read it, we’re screwed.
Because we aren’t ignorant anymore now, are we. No, we now know the infallable teachings of the Church, and so our heresy is perfected.
Doesn’t that entire “infallable” church break down rather quickly when you realise how fallable the Roman Catholic Church has been over the years, how many times it has had to admit error and accede to a “better understanding”?
I imagine the Russian Orthodox Church thinks it has the truth.
This, combined with this...
As a part of the LCMS, I accept the Bible as the sole authority and measure of truth.
... leads one to, IMO, a fatal error. After all, if one admits that there is no perfection in one's self, or in one's church, then how can one know that one's interpretation of Scripture is perfect?
If one says, "Well I don't claim my interpretation of Scripture is perfect", then I would ask, "Then how can you know what the Bible says about topic 'X' is actually what you believe it says about topic 'X'?"
One can't know for certain, and that's the point. One could say, "Well I believe the Holy Spirit confirms it for me", but that's easy to say, and indeed, as everyone (even Catholics) must admit, we all are indeed "imperfect", and part of this imperfection is our unfortunate tendency to convince ourselves of our own "correctness", even when faced with facts to the contrary. This pride is manifested in many forms, but in Christianity, it's often disguised with the claim, "the Holy Spirit taught me that". Or, "God told me that I'm right".
Besides, even beyond the analysis above, if the Holy Spirit can guide and teach individual men truth (which I do believe He can, I just don't believe that can be used as a justification for rejecting Church authority), then why can't He guide an entire Church in the same way? After all, the Church (on Earth) is comprised of men, so, if we believe the Holy Spirit can and does teach men on an individual level, then why is it so hard to believe He would teach an entire body of men, or at least keep that body of men from making any mistake that would doom them for eternity (which is really less than actually "teaching" them something, it's just keeping them from error) That's really the ultimate question I had to ask myself, as painful as it was, when I was a separated Catholic (heretic) myself. I used to believe the Holy Spirit only taught men individually, but in reality, (and if one is rational about the question, one can see) that belief limits God.
It limits Him, so we are free to reject the painful possibility above.
It isn’t that simple. See StAthanasiustheGreat’s #11, for example.
By the way, Baptists, which I am one, are not Protestants.
Catholics were “Baptizing” us in rivers and lakes long before Martin Luther.
This post is a non-sequitur. The Church teachings on all of these things you list are clear - because members of the Faith don’t always follow the Church has no bearing on the infallibility of Its teachings. Pride is a sin, and thinking you “know better” than the Church established by Christ (whether you’re Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, or whatever) has occured consistantly throughout time. People fail in following Christ all the time, doesn’t make Him wrong.
I find it interesting reading the list of “isms” that have been “debunked” by Catholics in the past. No reason to believe these people are any different from ones here on FR that I find untrustworthy (doctrinally). Yet the mantra seems to be if “debunked” in the past there’s no sense discussing it any further. Ya right.
It’s amazing how many of these heresies, even the most ancient, show up on Free Republic every day.
Catholic liturgies are neither mindless nor emotionless.
>>Proddies can’t call you a Roman Catholic.<<
Please post where I said this. It is attributing movtives to me and therefore against the rules.
Please disregard my last post to you; apparently the link is dead now. I apologize for any inconvenience that may have caused.
This post is a non-sequitur. The Church teachings on all of these things you list are clear - because members of the Faith don’t always follow the Church has no bearing on the infallibility of Its teachings. Pride is a sin, and thinking you “know better” than the Church established by Christ (whether you’re Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, or whatever) has occured consistantly throughout time. People fail in following Christ all the time, doesn’t make Him wrong.
The Catholic church is not equal to God.
The problem is thinking you “know better” than God.
I will trust what He said. Not a priest.
Thanks.
I have the book.
Agreed. One that seems quite popular these days is Nestorianism.
On an earlier thread, Catholic FReeper annalex confirmed as much when he stated
"You are hell bound, generally speaking, yes, by the fact of your being separated brethren."I have no idea if other Catholic FReepers believe such, but IMO such a statement is consistent with what I understand about Catholic teaching on salvation i.e. "going to Heaven" and we Protestants who (still) refuse to bow to Rome.
Thanks Alex.
Some were saying that all RC’s consider all Protestants to be bosom buddies.
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.