Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If you believe that your church is also infallible, then there are at least two gigantic problems there:
this belief is based on circular logic, and the fallible words of the church fathers

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There is absolutely NO support for icon veneration in Scripture nor the early church - but your church made it a requirement in one of their ecumenical councils upon pain of anathema. Meaning, your council made something that was completely shunned by Scripture and the early church a requirement for salvation.

If you can't see how making icon veneration a requirement for salvation represents a CLEAR departure from the original faith, hence an ERROR, then again, there is no helping you there. Trust me, the only "suprise face" here is about your inability to make these very basic connections.

---

You have misunderstood (possibly twisted) what the council actually said.

No council said that Icon veneration is "a requirement for salvation". No council anathematized anyone for not venerating icons.

What the council said is that the Church anathematizes those that reject icon veneration.

Also you misunderstand what it means to be anathematized. It means to be excommunicated (or condemned) by the Church. To be excommunicated is medicinal, rather than punitive. It means that a person cannot participate in the sacramental life of the Church. They cannot receive the Eucharist or Reconciliation until the excommunication is lifted. They can still attend mass.

The hope of the Church is that person will repent of that sin so that the excommunication can be lifted.

Since you've never been Catholic, you cannot be anathematized.

---

You're colleague already tried this ignorant and/or dishonest argument in another thread.

Second Council of Nicaea: "Anyone who does not kiss the holy and venerable icons, anathema!"

The historical meaning of "anathema" in the Roman Catholic church was a "separation from God", and that it "expels you from the kingdom of God". You've been told all this before, and shown the proof. Now you're trying to recycle your same lie again.

If you only want to acknowledge that the rejection of icons is what was anathematized, then still, that anathematizes the universal and overwhelming view of the early church. It's always amazing to me that you guys can't even recognize the implications of what you're arguing. You're focus is to provide a "rebuttal", and you've failed to recognize I've led you to exactly where you're actually making my point for me.

Coke Bear said:

---

Also, it is YOUR assumption that ONLY God's word is infallible. You are taking a major leap here. The Bible never makes the claim that ONLY God's word is infallible.

---

^^^^^^^

You've revealed yourself.

This is all we really need to know that your view isn't from God. You're outside of the beliefs of Christianity.

Quote:

---

How can you be sure that public revelation has ended?
How can you be sure that there will be no more apostles?

---

Baptists and Pentecostals have pretty serious disagreements over this. The latter group claims that neither has ended, and call many of their own "apostles" without any hint of apostolic succession. The former claim that both have ended. There are approximately 51 to 110 million Baptists worldwide, while Pentecostals number around 200 to 280 million.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

How can you be sure that public revelation has ended?
How can you be sure that there will be no more apostles?

---

Baptists and Pentecostals have pretty serious disagreements over this. The latter group claims that neither has ended, and call many of their own "apostles" without any hint of apostolic succession. The former claim that both have ended. There are approximately 51 to 110 million Baptists worldwide, while Pentecostals number around 200 to 280 million.

---

The issue isn't whether public revelation has ended. The issue is how do you know it is from God or not. God has already promised that the Devil will perform signs and wonders to deceive people. The issue is what infallible standard do we have that we can weigh any new revelation against. It would be completely idiotic and fooilsh to take any new public revelation and automatically assume it is an infallible word of God.

Neither is the issue whether or not there are apostles today. It was only the original apostles who were the first hand eye-witnesses to Jesus, and who were given Jesus' infallible authority to speak for him. We have no such promise from Jesus for anyone else.

It's the idea that new public revelation from a new apostle is automatically a standard in of itself like the original apostles' word, i.e. Scripture, that gets us people like David Koresh.

4th and Inches said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Same-sex marriage chapel demolished
By Julius Strauss in Moscow09 October 2003 12:00am

"The Russian Orthodox Church has demolished a chapel where a priest conducted a marriage ceremony between two men.

The Chapel of the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God was apparently knocked down after local churchmen decided it had been defiled.

The "marriage" of Denis Gogolyev and Mikhail Morozev in Nizhny Novgorod scandalised the Orthodox Church and created outrage among ordinary Russians. The priest, Fr Vladimir Enert, was unfrocked after the men said they paid him a 300 bribe to ignore a ban on same-sex marriages.

A spokesman for the Orthodox Church said the chapel had to go as it had been desecrated."



Meanwhile, in the LCMS, one of the most historically accurate and conservative bodies in Protestantism...

205 Days To Reconcile an LCMS Pastor Modeling a Transgender Stole in the Chancel?

And in the RCC...

In major doctrinal shift, Vatican officially OKs Catholic blessings for gay couples

Seriously, what is the deal with the churches of the west trying to look the other way when it comes to this poison?

---

approving a father giving a personal blessing to a gay couple isnt the same as getting married in the catholic church. None of the stardard liturgy and ceremony of a Catholic wedding is allowed.

---

Any church giving credence to that perversion in any fashion is profoundly un-Christian. It's an insult to Christ and Christianity by lying about what is acceptable. Christ was often around sinners and readily forgave them but He also said, "Sin no more." Repentance is the first step of salvation. A church leader that ignores this fundamental requirement perverts the gospel and works against God. Jesus had special condemnation for such evil lies (see the book of Revelation and elsewhere).

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But was that Orthodox church defiled when it married two men..... or when it was named and dedicated NOT to Jesus but rather to the idolatrous practices of iconography and marian veneration/devotion, practices which did not come from the apostles or the early church, but rather originated from pagan and gnostic beliefs and practices?

---

Careful...if icons and veneration are pagan or gnostic corruptions, then the biblical canon Protestants rely on today must also be a pagan/gnostic product.

By the time the canon is clearly recognized (4th century), icons already exist in the 2nd-3rd century, martyrs are venerated universally, prayers for the dead are attested and liturgical worship is fully embodied. If the Church was already "corrupted", the canon is implicated. Your axiom must agree that pagans/gnostics canonized the bible.

Do you really think Jesus setup the Church to be full of pagans and gnostics until Luther and Calvin came along? 1500 years...do you honestly believe that?

---

Unfortunately, the first century church had false teachers from the beginning. See the Letters to the Church at Ephesus and Pergamum in Revelation, for example.

Jesus did not establish His church for pagans but He warned His disciples about false teachers & prophets that were Pyle try to infiltrate. He knew His enemy well.

There are lots of historical documents from ancient pagan cultures. None of them add one dot to scripture or are useful for understanding God's word beyond historical context and corroboration as Tacitus and Josephus do.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Also, it is YOUR assumption that ONLY God's word is infallible. You are taking a major leap here. The Bible never makes the claim that ONLY God's word is infallible.

---

^^^^^^^

You've revealed yourself.

This is all we really need to know that your view isn't from God. You're outside of the beliefs of Christianity.

---

You are inserting the word "ONLY" into this.

Yes, 2 Timothy states that "All scripture is inspired by God ...", but it never says that ONLY God's word can be infallible.

In one way I suppose you may be correct, because the infallibility of the Magisterium and the Pope, when speaking on faith and morals, ex cathedra, comes from the protection of the Holy Spirit.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You're colleague already tried this ignorant and/or dishonest argument in another thread.

Second Council of Nicaea: "Anyone who does not kiss the holy and venerable icons, anathema!"

---

Please get a refund from the bookstore that sold you your "Big Book for Anti-Catholics."

You have obviously never read Second Nicaea.

The quote that you are listed was from a letter TO the Council from a Bishop (Basil of Ancyra), who was led astray by the Iconoclasts, and now asking to be received back into communion.

It was his confession/apology/request for forgiveness letter to the Council.

He was making these declarations, not the Council itself.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The historical meaning of "anathema" in the Roman Catholic church was a "separation from God", and that it "expels you from the kingdom of God". You've been told all this before, and shown the proof. Now you're trying to recycle your same lie again.

---

The historical meaning was the same as "excommunication", effectively being cut from Christian society.

During the Middle Ages, a distinction between the two developed. An anathema was used to describe a major ceremony of an excommunication.

Due to its infrequent use, it was finally removed from the Code of Canon Law in 1983.

Here is an article from the great Jimmy Akin that gives amazing detail and insight into the practice.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If you only want to acknowledge that the rejection of icons is what was anathematized, then still, that anathematizes the universal and overwhelming view of the early church. It's always amazing to me that you guys can't even recognize the implications of what you're arguing. You're focus is to provide a "rebuttal", and you've failed to recognize I've led you to exactly where you're actually making my point for me.

---

Your point in a complete misrepresentation and 100% denial of what happens with respect to icons or statues.

No Catholic worships them. It's not forbidden to bow to provide honor to the person to whom they represent. It's no different than a person kneeling before a cross.