BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

If God judges us by the same standard we use on others (Matthew 7),and you just casually damn all Catholics as idolaters and pagans, then you've just condemned almost everyone, including yourself.

Because let's be honest man, Idolatry isn't limited to icons, statues or incense. It's what owns your heart.

How many people walk out of church and spend the entire week obsessing over football? Structure their weekends, emotions, and identity around a team or player? Idolize actors, celebrities, influencers, or CEOs? Measure their worth by money, status, or image? Would be more devastated by losing their sports team than losing prayer?

If we apply your standards, then modern America is one giant pagan temple and the vast majority of Christian's worship at it.

You shouldn't be damning anyone man. The official orthodox position is that they're the true Church, those outside don't have the fullness of the faith…but they don't assume anyone outside of it is damned or can't be saved.

---

I DON'T damn all Roman Catholics. I don't damn anyone. You damn yourself by believing in a false gospel. You damn yourself by requiring the practice of blatant and egregious idolatry and heresy for salvation, as you do in your liturgy, thus twisting Jesus' true gospel; which according to Paul's clear and direct teaching, makes that church and those who promote it ANATHEMA.

Within Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, I'm sure there are true Christians who are saved, but who simply are in error, even really bad error. Fortunately for them, they are not saved by their works, but by their faith in Jesus. Sola fide to the rescue! They are saved, however, not because of the guidance of their respective churches, but rather in spite of them.

Your belief that the Orthodox Church doesn't damn everyone outside their church does NOT line up with Orthodox Church history. And HOW is it, that after everything I've discussed, can you possibly believe that their claim to be the true church is correct, given that their church REQUIRES ICON VENERATION for salvation, a belief and practice that is completely absent in Scripture, and completely shunned by the early church - a fact that is clear and demonstrable from early church history? How is this not registering?

---

Saying "I don't damn you, your beliefs damn you" is still a damnation claim. And saying "Anyone who holds X belief is under God's anathema" is also functionally pronouncing damnation.

So why are you damning Christians to hell?

Icon veneration is not required for salvation. Who told you that? That's completely false. The Orthodox Church does not teach that icon veneration saves anyone. It teaches that salvation is union with Christ, and icons are a natural expression of an incarnational faith…not a condition of justification. There are blind people, that doesn't even make sense.

Scripture isn't just referenced in Orthdoox, it's proclaimed, sung, and prayed throughout the entire service. In a single Divine Liturgy, the Church reads the Psalms woven through the prayers, the Beatitudes from Matthew 5, a full Epistle reading, a full Gospel reading, the Lord's Prayer, and the Creed, which is itself a condensed summary of Scripture. That's in addition to constant biblical language embedded in the hymns, litanies, and Eucharistic prayers. Orthodoxy doesn't minimize Scripture whatsoever. It reads more scripture than any Protestant church.

What you're presenting isn't a critique of Orthodoxy, it's a caricature. It's superficial, historically inaccurate, and dismissive, and it assumes your own theology is so perfect that the Church must be wrong by definition.

---

Icon veneration was made a requirement upon the pain of anathema (being damned to Hell) in the Second Council of Nicaea.

---

No, it was not. The active rejection of icons was anathematized, but there is no positive requirement to venerate icons.

---

Does is ever register with you, the implications of what you argue? Do you even realize that you've made my whole point? Aside from the positive requirement of icons - by you acknowledging that an ecumenical council placed an anathema on the rejection of icons, you're acknowledging that an ecumenical council anathematized what was the clear, overwhelming and universal view of the early church, that icons were to be actively rejected?

---

As we've discussed, though, that's not what the council did.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

If God judges us by the same standard we use on others (Matthew 7),and you just casually damn all Catholics as idolaters and pagans, then you've just condemned almost everyone, including yourself.

Because let's be honest man, Idolatry isn't limited to icons, statues or incense. It's what owns your heart.

How many people walk out of church and spend the entire week obsessing over football? Structure their weekends, emotions, and identity around a team or player? Idolize actors, celebrities, influencers, or CEOs? Measure their worth by money, status, or image? Would be more devastated by losing their sports team than losing prayer?

If we apply your standards, then modern America is one giant pagan temple and the vast majority of Christian's worship at it.

You shouldn't be damning anyone man. The official orthodox position is that they're the true Church, those outside don't have the fullness of the faith…but they don't assume anyone outside of it is damned or can't be saved.

---

I DON'T damn all Roman Catholics. I don't damn anyone. You damn yourself by believing in a false gospel. You damn yourself by requiring the practice of blatant and egregious idolatry and heresy for salvation, as you do in your liturgy, thus twisting Jesus' true gospel; which according to Paul's clear and direct teaching, makes that church and those who promote it ANATHEMA.

Within Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, I'm sure there are true Christians who are saved, but who simply are in error, even really bad error. Fortunately for them, they are not saved by their works, but by their faith in Jesus. Sola fide to the rescue! They are saved, however, not because of the guidance of their respective churches, but rather in spite of them.

Your belief that the Orthodox Church doesn't damn everyone outside their church does NOT line up with Orthodox Church history. And HOW is it, that after everything I've discussed, can you possibly believe that their claim to be the true church is correct, given that their church REQUIRES ICON VENERATION for salvation, a belief and practice that is completely absent in Scripture, and completely shunned by the early church - a fact that is clear and demonstrable from early church history? How is this not registering?

---

Saying "I don't damn you, your beliefs damn you" is still a damnation claim. And saying "Anyone who holds X belief is under God's anathema" is also functionally pronouncing damnation.

So why are you damning Christians to hell?

Icon veneration is not required for salvation. Who told you that? That's completely false. The Orthodox Church does not teach that icon veneration saves anyone. It teaches that salvation is union with Christ, and icons are a natural expression of an incarnational faith…not a condition of justification. There are blind people, that doesn't even make sense.

Scripture isn't just referenced in Orthdoox, it's proclaimed, sung, and prayed throughout the entire service. In a single Divine Liturgy, the Church reads the Psalms woven through the prayers, the Beatitudes from Matthew 5, a full Epistle reading, a full Gospel reading, the Lord's Prayer, and the Creed, which is itself a condensed summary of Scripture. That's in addition to constant biblical language embedded in the hymns, litanies, and Eucharistic prayers. Orthodoxy doesn't minimize Scripture whatsoever. It reads more scripture than any Protestant church.

What you're presenting isn't a critique of Orthodoxy, it's a caricature. It's superficial, historically inaccurate, and dismissive, and it assumes your own theology is so perfect that the Church must be wrong by definition.

---

Icon veneration was made a requirement upon the pain of anathema (being damned to Hell) in the Second Council of Nicaea.

---

No, it was not. The active rejection of icons was anathematized, but there is no positive requirement to venerate icons.

---

"To those who do not kiss the holy and venerable images, anathema!"

You have this curious habit of trying to make things disappear simply by asserting it into non-existence.

---

I know what the council said. It refers to those who expressly refuse, not those who just don't bother. I've never done so, and I'm not sure I know anyone who has.

---

"To those who do not kiss the holy and venerable images, anathema!"

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

If God judges us by the same standard we use on others (Matthew 7),and you just casually damn all Catholics as idolaters and pagans, then you've just condemned almost everyone, including yourself.

Because let's be honest man, Idolatry isn't limited to icons, statues or incense. It's what owns your heart.

How many people walk out of church and spend the entire week obsessing over football? Structure their weekends, emotions, and identity around a team or player? Idolize actors, celebrities, influencers, or CEOs? Measure their worth by money, status, or image? Would be more devastated by losing their sports team than losing prayer?

If we apply your standards, then modern America is one giant pagan temple and the vast majority of Christian's worship at it.

You shouldn't be damning anyone man. The official orthodox position is that they're the true Church, those outside don't have the fullness of the faith…but they don't assume anyone outside of it is damned or can't be saved.

---

I DON'T damn all Roman Catholics. I don't damn anyone. You damn yourself by believing in a false gospel. You damn yourself by requiring the practice of blatant and egregious idolatry and heresy for salvation, as you do in your liturgy, thus twisting Jesus' true gospel; which according to Paul's clear and direct teaching, makes that church and those who promote it ANATHEMA.

Within Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, I'm sure there are true Christians who are saved, but who simply are in error, even really bad error. Fortunately for them, they are not saved by their works, but by their faith in Jesus. Sola fide to the rescue! They are saved, however, not because of the guidance of their respective churches, but rather in spite of them.

Your belief that the Orthodox Church doesn't damn everyone outside their church does NOT line up with Orthodox Church history. And HOW is it, that after everything I've discussed, can you possibly believe that their claim to be the true church is correct, given that their church REQUIRES ICON VENERATION for salvation, a belief and practice that is completely absent in Scripture, and completely shunned by the early church - a fact that is clear and demonstrable from early church history? How is this not registering?

---

Saying "I don't damn you, your beliefs damn you" is still a damnation claim. And saying "Anyone who holds X belief is under God's anathema" is also functionally pronouncing damnation.

So why are you damning Christians to hell?

Icon veneration is not required for salvation. Who told you that? That's completely false. The Orthodox Church does not teach that icon veneration saves anyone. It teaches that salvation is union with Christ, and icons are a natural expression of an incarnational faith…not a condition of justification. There are blind people, that doesn't even make sense.

Scripture isn't just referenced in Orthdoox, it's proclaimed, sung, and prayed throughout the entire service. In a single Divine Liturgy, the Church reads the Psalms woven through the prayers, the Beatitudes from Matthew 5, a full Epistle reading, a full Gospel reading, the Lord's Prayer, and the Creed, which is itself a condensed summary of Scripture. That's in addition to constant biblical language embedded in the hymns, litanies, and Eucharistic prayers. Orthodoxy doesn't minimize Scripture whatsoever. It reads more scripture than any Protestant church.

What you're presenting isn't a critique of Orthodoxy, it's a caricature. It's superficial, historically inaccurate, and dismissive, and it assumes your own theology is so perfect that the Church must be wrong by definition.

---

Icon veneration was made a requirement upon the pain of anathema (being damned to Hell) in the Second Council of Nicaea.

---

No, it was not. The active rejection of icons was anathematized, but there is no positive requirement to venerate icons.

---

Does is ever register with you, the implications of what you argue? Do you even realize that you've made my whole point? Aside from the positive requirement of icons - by you acknowledging that an ecumenical council placed an anathema on the rejection of icons, you're acknowledging that an ecumenical council anathematized what was the clear, overwhelming and universal view of the early church, that icons were to be actively rejected?

---

As we've discussed, though, that's not what the council did.

---

You discussed that it's exactly what the council did when it anathematized the rejection of icon veneration.

You're getting twisted up in your own little games.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

If God judges us by the same standard we use on others (Matthew 7),and you just casually damn all Catholics as idolaters and pagans, then you've just condemned almost everyone, including yourself.

Because let's be honest man, Idolatry isn't limited to icons, statues or incense. It's what owns your heart.

How many people walk out of church and spend the entire week obsessing over football? Structure their weekends, emotions, and identity around a team or player? Idolize actors, celebrities, influencers, or CEOs? Measure their worth by money, status, or image? Would be more devastated by losing their sports team than losing prayer?

If we apply your standards, then modern America is one giant pagan temple and the vast majority of Christian's worship at it.

You shouldn't be damning anyone man. The official orthodox position is that they're the true Church, those outside don't have the fullness of the faith…but they don't assume anyone outside of it is damned or can't be saved.

---

I DON'T damn all Roman Catholics. I don't damn anyone. You damn yourself by believing in a false gospel. You damn yourself by requiring the practice of blatant and egregious idolatry and heresy for salvation, as you do in your liturgy, thus twisting Jesus' true gospel; which according to Paul's clear and direct teaching, makes that church and those who promote it ANATHEMA.

Within Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, I'm sure there are true Christians who are saved, but who simply are in error, even really bad error. Fortunately for them, they are not saved by their works, but by their faith in Jesus. Sola fide to the rescue! They are saved, however, not because of the guidance of their respective churches, but rather in spite of them.

Your belief that the Orthodox Church doesn't damn everyone outside their church does NOT line up with Orthodox Church history. And HOW is it, that after everything I've discussed, can you possibly believe that their claim to be the true church is correct, given that their church REQUIRES ICON VENERATION for salvation, a belief and practice that is completely absent in Scripture, and completely shunned by the early church - a fact that is clear and demonstrable from early church history? How is this not registering?

---

Saying "I don't damn you, your beliefs damn you" is still a damnation claim. And saying "Anyone who holds X belief is under God's anathema" is also functionally pronouncing damnation.

So why are you damning Christians to hell?

Icon veneration is not required for salvation. Who told you that? That's completely false. The Orthodox Church does not teach that icon veneration saves anyone. It teaches that salvation is union with Christ, and icons are a natural expression of an incarnational faith…not a condition of justification. There are blind people, that doesn't even make sense.

Scripture isn't just referenced in Orthdoox, it's proclaimed, sung, and prayed throughout the entire service. In a single Divine Liturgy, the Church reads the Psalms woven through the prayers, the Beatitudes from Matthew 5, a full Epistle reading, a full Gospel reading, the Lord's Prayer, and the Creed, which is itself a condensed summary of Scripture. That's in addition to constant biblical language embedded in the hymns, litanies, and Eucharistic prayers. Orthodoxy doesn't minimize Scripture whatsoever. It reads more scripture than any Protestant church.

What you're presenting isn't a critique of Orthodoxy, it's a caricature. It's superficial, historically inaccurate, and dismissive, and it assumes your own theology is so perfect that the Church must be wrong by definition.

---

Icon veneration was made a requirement upon the pain of anathema (being damned to Hell) in the Second Council of Nicaea.

---

No, it was not. The active rejection of icons was anathematized, but there is no positive requirement to venerate icons.

---

"To those who do not kiss the holy and venerable images, anathema!"

You have this curious habit of trying to make things disappear simply by asserting it into non-existence.

---

I know what the council said. It refers to those who expressly refuse, not those who just don't bother. I've never done so, and I'm not sure I know anyone who has.

---

"To those who do not kiss the holy and venerable images, anathema!"

---

I've read it. Doesn't mean what you're assuming it does.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

If God judges us by the same standard we use on others (Matthew 7),and you just casually damn all Catholics as idolaters and pagans, then you've just condemned almost everyone, including yourself.

Because let's be honest man, Idolatry isn't limited to icons, statues or incense. It's what owns your heart.

How many people walk out of church and spend the entire week obsessing over football? Structure their weekends, emotions, and identity around a team or player? Idolize actors, celebrities, influencers, or CEOs? Measure their worth by money, status, or image? Would be more devastated by losing their sports team than losing prayer?

If we apply your standards, then modern America is one giant pagan temple and the vast majority of Christian's worship at it.

You shouldn't be damning anyone man. The official orthodox position is that they're the true Church, those outside don't have the fullness of the faith…but they don't assume anyone outside of it is damned or can't be saved.

---

I DON'T damn all Roman Catholics. I don't damn anyone. You damn yourself by believing in a false gospel. You damn yourself by requiring the practice of blatant and egregious idolatry and heresy for salvation, as you do in your liturgy, thus twisting Jesus' true gospel; which according to Paul's clear and direct teaching, makes that church and those who promote it ANATHEMA.

Within Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, I'm sure there are true Christians who are saved, but who simply are in error, even really bad error. Fortunately for them, they are not saved by their works, but by their faith in Jesus. Sola fide to the rescue! They are saved, however, not because of the guidance of their respective churches, but rather in spite of them.

Your belief that the Orthodox Church doesn't damn everyone outside their church does NOT line up with Orthodox Church history. And HOW is it, that after everything I've discussed, can you possibly believe that their claim to be the true church is correct, given that their church REQUIRES ICON VENERATION for salvation, a belief and practice that is completely absent in Scripture, and completely shunned by the early church - a fact that is clear and demonstrable from early church history? How is this not registering?

---

Saying "I don't damn you, your beliefs damn you" is still a damnation claim. And saying "Anyone who holds X belief is under God's anathema" is also functionally pronouncing damnation.

So why are you damning Christians to hell?

Icon veneration is not required for salvation. Who told you that? That's completely false. The Orthodox Church does not teach that icon veneration saves anyone. It teaches that salvation is union with Christ, and icons are a natural expression of an incarnational faith…not a condition of justification. There are blind people, that doesn't even make sense.

Scripture isn't just referenced in Orthdoox, it's proclaimed, sung, and prayed throughout the entire service. In a single Divine Liturgy, the Church reads the Psalms woven through the prayers, the Beatitudes from Matthew 5, a full Epistle reading, a full Gospel reading, the Lord's Prayer, and the Creed, which is itself a condensed summary of Scripture. That's in addition to constant biblical language embedded in the hymns, litanies, and Eucharistic prayers. Orthodoxy doesn't minimize Scripture whatsoever. It reads more scripture than any Protestant church.

What you're presenting isn't a critique of Orthodoxy, it's a caricature. It's superficial, historically inaccurate, and dismissive, and it assumes your own theology is so perfect that the Church must be wrong by definition.

---

Icon veneration was made a requirement upon the pain of anathema (being damned to Hell) in the Second Council of Nicaea.

---

No, it was not. The active rejection of icons was anathematized, but there is no positive requirement to venerate icons.

---

"To those who do not kiss the holy and venerable images, anathema!"

You have this curious habit of trying to make things disappear simply by asserting it into non-existence.

---

I know what the council said. It refers to those who expressly refuse, not those who just don't bother. I've never done so, and I'm not sure I know anyone who has.

---

"To those who do not kiss the holy and venerable images, anathema!"

---

I've read it. Doesn't mean what you're assuming it does.

---

"These aren't the droids you're looking for."

If you read it, and you don't see that as being a "positive requirement" to venerate icons which you had just denied was there, then I am fully understanding the terrible reputation you have here.

Stop embarassing yourself, and join us in the world of reality. You're not a Jedi.

To the rational and honest folks here who are RC or Orthodox, if they exist:

How can your church claim it is: 1) the true, apostolic church that existed from the beginning, and 2) infallible in its ecumenical councils, when an ecumenical council anathematized the rejection of icon veneration, a belief and practice that was clearly, overwhelmingly, and universally rejected by the early church? Not to mention completely absent in Scripture?

Can I get someone who will address this with intellectual honesty and a heart of seeking truth, instead of employing immature defense mechanisms and playing games?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

If God judges us by the same standard we use on others (Matthew 7),and you just casually damn all Catholics as idolaters and pagans, then you've just condemned almost everyone, including yourself.

Because let's be honest man, Idolatry isn't limited to icons, statues or incense. It's what owns your heart.

How many people walk out of church and spend the entire week obsessing over football? Structure their weekends, emotions, and identity around a team or player? Idolize actors, celebrities, influencers, or CEOs? Measure their worth by money, status, or image? Would be more devastated by losing their sports team than losing prayer?

If we apply your standards, then modern America is one giant pagan temple and the vast majority of Christian's worship at it.

You shouldn't be damning anyone man. The official orthodox position is that they're the true Church, those outside don't have the fullness of the faith…but they don't assume anyone outside of it is damned or can't be saved.

---

I'm curious which of the Catholic sacraments you believe and whether you think any of them may be a problem or even heretical. Believe baptism is necessary for salvation? How about communion? Believe prayer to Mary is a necessary practice? Believe works can get you into heaven?! If an individual doesn't have change to confess before dying then he's destined for hell? How about purgatory, believe that? Believe water can be "holy" and necessary for spiritual cleansing?

As far as I know, these practices and beliefs are not accepted by orthodoxy. But correct me if I'm wrong. When we add to the gospel a number of works that are extra scriptural, or in some cases anti- scriptural, I would submit we are walking on very dangerous grounds. Does any one belief condemn a man to hell? No but these are the types of things that can certainly confuse man and lead him astray.

---

So Orthodoxy is all about the heart. Its where your heart is genuinely pointed. Its not juridical or legalist. We don't read through scripture to determine what the bare minimums are or how to separate and define concepts like salvation, justification, sanctification etc. There's ontologies instead. Its impossible to look at works and or as something as simple as making a declaration of faith (repent and believe) for salvation because we're not asking the same questions.

The juridical/legalist (protestant) question would be: "How can a guilty person be declared righteous before a judge?

An ontological (orthodox) question would be: "How does a corrupted human become healed, united to God, and made alive?

Its asking what is something, not merely how its regarded. Salvation isn't God changing his verdict about you. Salvation is God changing you.

That's why there's a huge breakdown of communication between modern higher criticism of scripure vs the early church and the apostles. Juridical and nominal concepts didn't exist back then. They didn't have lawyers combing through the fine print to create a dictionary for concepts like salvation (sola fide). 1500 years later...we had Calvin who was a trained lawyer and his paradigm is deployed unto everything.

These are the sacraments:
Baptism, Chrismation (Confirmation), Eucharist (Communion), Confession (Repentance), Anointing of the Sick (Holy Unction), Marriage, and Ordination (Holy Orders).

On confession: Salvation isn't tied to one single act but to a relationship with Christ, yet unrepented grave sins are a serious concern, and the unforgivable sin is the refusal to repent, not a specific act itself. Again back to ontology, not a legal question.

A couple of differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholics:

Obviously the papacy.

Purgatory is considered a heresy and strictly Roman Catholic addition later in 1274. It lacks historical precedent and undermines Christ's complete atonement. Some Orthodox adhere to Toll Houses which is often compared to purgatory, but is wildly different: its also not official doctrine/dogma.

Immaculate conception is a heresy according to Orthodox. Its a heresy built upon another heresy which is the idea that human beings are born guilty of sin, we're not born guilty. The Roman Catholics didn't like the idea of Mary who was Holy to be guilty of sin when she was born, so they came up with immaculate conception, a rather recent doctrine. Its terrible because if Mary wasn't a human being like you and I, then Jesus Christ became human from a person that isn't fully human...whose different than we are. So he did not assume all of our humanity as Hebrews makes clear, therefore he didn't save all of us.

Example for why sacraments are real/physical instead of just symbolic:
God became flesh, validating the material world as His work, not something evil. When you asked about Holy Water, this belief stems from Christ's own baptism in the Jordan River, which sanctified all waters, making them a source of divine life.

Regarding Baptismal regeneration:
In Titus 3:5-6 " he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, "whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior". This parallels with Acts 2:38 "Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." This is clearly both symbolic and physical because both of these have to be harmonized.

On the Eucharist, it even differs from some Roman Catholic views in that uncreated glory is transmitted to the human nature, that same transmission takes place in the Eucharist. Its not the essence of God. This might not make sense to you, its pretty complex theology about Essence-energies distinction.

---

Hate to break it to you, but your first few paragraphs are not all that different from what we reformed Christians believe. I think you're sometimes guilty of thinking of evangelicals as some homogenized group. While there are some that do indeed go with the bare minimum, many of us do not.

As for the sacraments, I am glad to hear you don't believe they are necessary for salvation. That makes it all the more odd you are defending the Catholics on these issues.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

To the rational and honest folks here who are RC or Orthodox, if they exist:

How can your church claim it is: 1) the true, apostolic church that existed from the beginning, and 2) infallible in its ecumenical councils, when an ecumenical council anathematized the rejection of icon veneration, a belief and practice that was clearly, overwhelmingly, and universally rejected by the early church? Not to mention completely absent in Scripture?

Can I get someone who will address this with intellectual honesty and a heart of seeking truth, instead of employing immature defense mechanisms and playing games?

---

Anyone?

If you guys have no coherent answer, then how can you reject sola scriptura??

• You believe in the infallibility of Scripture
• Your claim is that the church, especially in its ecumenical councils, is also infallible. But that is demonstrably and incontrovertibly false, as evidenced above.

Therefore, you have no other infallible authority for the church besides Scripture. Hence, sola scriptura.

If you guys have nothing, then I'm going to reference this moment every time you argue against sola scriptura. Speak now or forever hold your peace.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

To the rational and honest folks here who are RC or Orthodox, if they exist:

How can your church claim it is: 1) the true, apostolic church that existed from the beginning, and 2) infallible in its ecumenical councils, when an ecumenical council anathematized the rejection of icon veneration, a belief and practice that was clearly, overwhelmingly, and universally rejected by the early church? Not to mention completely absent in Scripture?

Can I get someone who will address this with intellectual honesty and a heart of seeking truth, instead of employing immature defense mechanisms and playing games?

---

The answer is that we can't and don't.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

To the rational and honest folks here who are RC or Orthodox, if they exist:

How can your church claim it is: 1) the true, apostolic church that existed from the beginning, and 2) infallible in its ecumenical councils, when an ecumenical council anathematized the rejection of icon veneration, a belief and practice that was clearly, overwhelmingly, and universally rejected by the early church? Not to mention completely absent in Scripture?

Can I get someone who will address this with intellectual honesty and a heart of seeking truth, instead of employing immature defense mechanisms and playing games?

---

The answer is that we can't and don't.

---

So, to be clear, you're saying that the Roman Catholic Church does NOT claim to be the apostolic church that existed from the beginning, and does NOT claim infallibility in its councils?

Mothra said:

---

I'm curious which of the Catholic sacraments you believe and whether you think any of them may be a problem or even heretical. Believe baptism is necessary for salvation? How about communion? Believe water can be "holy" and necessary for spiritual cleansing?

---

There is a concept in Orthodoxy known as "economia". This brings into play the ability of a Sovereign God to act as he wishes to act, while understanding that what is normative for the Christian life is not found in those things that fall under the umbrella of "economia".

Is baptism necessary for salvation? Perhaps a better question is this: is the refusal of baptism an obstruction to salvation? Is the inability to be baptized an obstruction to salvation? Are the expectations God has for someone who comes to faith in Christ in a free country with a church on every corner the same as those in North Korea? Luke 12:48 tells us that this is not the case.

A low view of baptism (merely an external act representating an internal change that can be repeated at will) eventually gets you to the place where Steven Furtick is planting people in a crowd to come forward at Elevation Church (SBC) to fake spontaneous baptisms the way faith healers plant people in a crowd to talk about their "healings". Those who hold to a low view of Baptism will have difficulty understanding Holy Water. Also, see my post about "cremation" in the How To Get To Heaven thread.

An overly legalistic one has you checking baptismal certificates as if they were boarding passes.

What about the form of Baptism? The normative form of baptism is triple immersion in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But what of the paralytic on his deathbed? Again economia, from the didache: "And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit."

Quote:

---

Believe prayer to Mary is a necessary practice? Believe works can get you into heaven?! If an individual doesn't have change to confess before dying then he's destined for hell? How about purgatory, believe that?

---

Orthodoxy does not teach any of these things.

Quote:

---

So Orthodoxy is all about the heart. Its where your heart is genuinely pointed. Its not juridical or legalist. We don't read through scripture to determine what the bare minimums are or how to separate and define concepts like salvation, justification, sanctification etc. There's ontologies instead. Its impossible to look at works and or as something as simple as making a declaration of faith (repent and believe) for salvation because we're not asking the same questions.

The juridical/legalist (protestant) question would be: "How can a guilty person be declared righteous before a judge?

An ontological (orthodox) question would be: "How does a corrupted human become healed, united to God, and made alive?

Its asking what is something, not merely how its regarded. Salvation isn't God changing his verdict about you. Salvation is God changing you.

---

Absolutely correct.