Iconoclast

[John Caldwell]

In the 8th Century a "heresy" developed within Christianity called Iconoclastism. These people rejected to religious icons (religious images and monuments), which in itself was not a problem. The problem is that these "heretics" or Iconoclasts persecuted those who did not share this belief and sought to destroy images others cherished.

To illistrate, many people will not have a painting representing Christ or a cross on their homes. An Iconoclast believes he has a God given responsibility to remove these things from their neighbors homes.

Iconoclastism has come to extend to beliefs as well. Christian evangelism is sharing the gospel. Iconoclastism is attacking other beliefs and other belief systems.

To illustrate, when Paul was at the Acropolis he used the pagan view of an "unknown god" to evangelize. Were Paul an Iconoclast his focus would not have been to share the gospel but to first attack the beliefs held by his audience.

Within the Body of Christ we find this "heresy" as well. Christians are commanded not to judge the "servant of Another". Iconoclast demands this command be ignored in favor of tearing down and attacking any belief that they find in error.

This is, of course, is not to say we do not judge. We judge the things we accept. We judge those within our congregations. We guard our church against false doctrine as best we can. But we can only do kingdom work in kingdom ways. God does not bless disobedience regardless of intention.

I wonder how much Iconoclastism resides in us. I think I have a bit, if I am honest with myself. I think of John Owen's words - be killing sin or it will be killing you.

 

[Helen]

@John Caldwell

Interesting thread... I am sure you hit the nail on the head...I expect we all have a bit of that within us...more so if we say "I do not!" Sure sign that we do.

Id never heard of it.
I liked the way you shared about it in the natural...and then moved it into the spiritual of today ...

( I personally hate pictures of Jesus , they make me shudder )
But...
The the spiritual side of thing today...and how we feel it is our obligation to knock over the false idols that others hold...some even feel that somehow it is their God give right to do so , ( siting Jesus turning over the tables) and are nasty while doing it... that is a good message for everyone today...

BTW Love the dog avatar

 

[Deborah_]

To illustrate, when Paul was at the Acropolis he used the pagan view of an "unknown god" to evangelize. Were Paul an Iconoclast his focus would not have been to share the gospel but to first attack the beliefs held by his audience.

There does come a point, though, when you do have to tell the other person that you think they're wrong - otherwise very little evangelism would get done. Paul may have started his sermon on the subject of the altar to an "unknown god", but he immediately went on to say, "The God who made the world and everything in it... does not live in temples built by human hands." And a bit later, "We should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone... He commands all people everywhere to repent!" (In other words, idolatry is a belief to be repented of!)
I agree with you that Christians are not to march into other people's homes and destroy their idols. They need to be persuaded to destroy the idols themselves. But the iconoclasts were right on one point: idolatry is a very serious matter.

 

[John Caldwell]

BTW Love the dog avatar :)

Thank you. My wife and son were out of town. It was just me and the dog for a week. I cooked a meal worthy of dressing for dinner .

 

[John Caldwell]

There does come a point, though, when you do have to tell the other person that you think they're wrong - otherwise very little evangelism would get done. Paul may have started his sermon on the subject of the altar to an "unknown god", but he immediately went on to say, "The God who made the world and everything in it... does not live in temples built by human hands." And a bit later, "We should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone... He commands all people everywhere to repent!" (In other words, idolatry is a belief to be repented of!)
I agree with you that Christians are not to march into other people's homes and destroy their idols. They need to be persuaded to destroy the idols themselves. But the iconoclasts were right on one point: idolatry is a very serious matter.

Hi Deborah,

I agree with you on many points here. Paul did not tear down their gods, but Paul also did not water down the gospel.

In evangelism I think it is more biblical to say something along the lines of “I do not hold your belief. This is what I believe...” and proceed with the message of the gospel.

We cannot lead people to repentance. God does that as a person becomes convicted of his or her sins and become sorrowful with a "godly sorrow" that leads to repentance.

When discussing disagreements among other Christians, I believe it more appropriate to say something along the lines of “let me see if I understand you correctly. I understand you to be saying _____”. Once you establish that understanding is not the issue, then “I disagree on a few points, namely _____”. What I believe is _____ and this is why _____”. And so forth.

Iconoclasts do not believe another person has the right to even disagree with their views. They do not believe that God has the power to change a person (in evangelism, an Iconoclasts’ gospel is powerless). They destroy in hopes that the other person has no choice but what they have to offer.

We all have, to some extent, our idols. And we will probably have them until the day we die. Often it is a leaning of our own understanding. We have to be gracious to people and share the gospel with them, allowing God to change lives – hopefully through our words and actions.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

"Deborah_,

There does come a point, though, when you do have to tell the other person that you think they're wrong - otherwise very little evangelism would get done. Paul may have started his sermon on the subject of the altar to an "unknown god", but he immediately went on to say, "The God who made the world and everything in it... does not live in temples built by human hands." And a bit later, "We should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone... He commands all people everywhere to repent!" (In other words, idolatry is a belief to be repented of!)

You are correct of course Good post.

I agree with you that Christians are not to march into other people's homes and destroy their idols. They need to be persuaded to destroy the idols themselves. But the iconoclasts were right on one point: idolatry is a very serious matter.

Iconoclasts even if they went overboard destroying physical property, correctly sought to tear down idols.
A modern-day Iconoclast would most likely tear down idols of the mind. false Gods', false philosophy trying to be substitued for scripture, and even lying persons being imposters among the saints. Jude spoke of them this way;

4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

The words used by Jude spoke of them as hidden wreaths like a wreath just below the surface of the water that could damage a ship,
They slip in and speak of love, but have evil motives in their heart.

Titus would warn of such persons;
9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:

11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.

12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.

13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;


Paul warned of such persons. Can you imagine a professed Christian for example going from board to board stalking a person as a talebearer, and trying to discredit them by their false accusations, and proven lies??
Such a person would be very wicked, or a sick, demented, lunatic...so envious of another person that they would do such a thing. They are to be pitied.

Titus tells us what to do.
9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

We do not judge anothers servant at all, but we are told by Paul to mark the wicked person

17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

These persons are not true servants of God, but have their own agenda, and serve themselves, they think they are smarter than all in church history...No they are not. They have a wicked agenda that is exposed .

 

[Grailhunter]

You just increased my like for you ten times....just because of your dog....awesome dog!
I am living proof of tolerance to other religions. I have a close association with many churches. I believe that most Protestant denominations save people from hell.

But then when faced with the most god awful beliefs, like the Calvinist and predestinationists! The Apostle Paul would have cut their legs off! To not only suggest God is a monster but edify themselves above others as the elite is just an insult to Christianity. Do not speak of tolerance of religion when you edify yourself above everyone else because you believe in the monster god. Voodoo deals with the darkside, but still does not turn god into a monster that damns people before they are born and with no sin on their own accord, or choice, without mercy or hope this monster god throws them into hell' s flames. It is like they want to contribute all that is satanic to their god. The Jehovah's Witnesses deny the deity of Christ and they to consider themselves the elite to a degree, as did the Branch Davidians and those that followed Jim Jones.

Mr. John Caldwell I do not know how much of Calvinism you believe...there is not an once of it that makes sense or is true.....get out of that religion.

Tolerant I am...stupid I am not!

 

[John Caldwell]

Tolerant I am...stupid I am not!

^^I like this.

I do not believe Calvinism at all. It just happens that on another board the staff and members determined that I fell in that category. My understanding agrees with what some of what was affirmed at Dort - not all and certainly not under the sane foundation. It was a lazy statement I should not have carried over to this forum.

And the dog, Reggie, is the best dog I've had . I am fortunate to live in a dog friendly area and take him to eat with us regularly.

 

[GodsGrace]

Thank you. My wife and son were out of town. It was just me and the dog for a week. I cooked a meal worthy of dressing for dinner .
View attachment 6927

Did YOU also dress for dinner?
It would be only fair.

 

[GodsGrace]

In the 8th Century a "heresy" developed within Christianity called Iconoclastism. These people rejected to religious icons (religious images and monuments), which in itself was not a problem. The problem is that these "heretics" or Iconoclasts persecuted those who did not share this belief and sought to destroy images others cherished.

To illistrate, many people will not have a painting representing Christ or a cross on their homes. An Iconoclast believes he has a God given responsibility to remove these things from their neighbors homes.

Iconoclastism has come to extend to beliefs as well. Christian evangelism is sharing the gospel. Iconoclastism is attacking other beliefs and other belief systems.

To illustrate, when Paul was at the Acropolis he used the pagan view of an "unknown god" to evangelize. Were Paul an Iconoclast his focus would not have been to share the gospel but to first attack the beliefs held by his audience.

Within the Body of Christ we find this "heresy" as well. Christians are commanded not to judge the "servant of Another". Iconoclast demands this command be ignored in favor of tearing down and attacking any belief that they find in error.

This is, of course, is not to say we do not judge. We judge the things we accept. We judge those within our congregations. We guard our church against false doctrine as best we can. But we can only do kingdom work in kingdom ways. God does not bless disobedience regardless of intention.

I wonder how much Iconoclastism resides in us. I think I have a bit, if I am honest with myself. I think of John Owen's words - be killing sin or it will be killing you.

Couldn't agree more.
No one on this forum can be 100% right....
that's because so many different concepts could be proven with scripture.
I'm beginning to not agree with Sola Scriptura anymore.
Why?
Because when the N.T. was written certain beliefs were already established and the persons that wrote the N.T. KNEW about these beliefs and so did not include a lot of detail.

Unfortunately after 2,000 years we hardly know anymore what was on their mind...what their beliefs were and what the writers meant.

I like to look to the ECFs for a lot of information. We have more manuscripts available to us today and could make an argument that we have more information.
But they lived with the Apostles and learned from them...
I like to know what they believed.

 

[Grailhunter]

^^I like this.

I do not believe Calvinism at all. It just happens that on another board the staff and members determined that I fell in that category. My understanding agrees with what some of what was affirmed at Dort - not all and certainly not under the sane foundation. It was a lazy statement I should not have carried over to this forum.

And the dog, Reggie, is the best dog I've had . I am fortunate to live in a dog friendly area and take him to eat with us regularly.

Yes "Reggie" looks to be quite the companion. I have a female boxer. Understand this I am not going to let up on you, not because I think ill of you put because I would like to see you spend your efforts in a better belief. As far as heaven or hell being the destination for Calvinists, it is above my pay grade to even consider. But if they do make it to heaven I would not want to be one of them standing in front of God after accusing Him of the horrid things they believe of him. If you like strict religions there are many of them out there. If you like legalistic religions there are many of them out there. If you like liberal religions there are many of them out there. There are many choices that do not turn God into Satan.

 

[Enoch111]

The problem is that these "heretics" or Iconoclasts persecuted those who did not share this belief and sought to destroy images others cherished.

That is exactly what ISIS (Obama's creation, and he insisted on calling them ISIL) was doing recently, while the world stood by (more or less).

If you check out the history of the Reformation, the Reformers also persecuted (and killed) those with whom they disagreed. Of course the Catholic Church also persecuted and killed Protestants. But neither group had biblical authority for doing these evil deeds.

And today Christianity is under severe attack while Islam and Islamists are catered to in the West.

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes "Reggie" looks to be quite the companion. I have a female boxer. Understand this I am not going to let up on you, not because I think ill of you put because I would like to see you spend your efforts in a better belief. As far as heaven or hell being the destination for Calvinists, it is above my pay grade to even consider. But if they do make it to heaven I would not want to be one of them standing in front of God after accusing Him of the horrid things they believe of him. If you like strict religions there are many of them out there. If you like legalistic religions there are many of them out there. If you like liberal religions there are many of them out there. There are many choices that do not turn God into Satan.

Hi GH,

I don't think @John Caldwell is a five-point calvinist.
He has clearly said so.
Reconciling the Sovereignty of God and the free will of man is not easy to do.
We all have to come to our own understanding of this.
However, I don't think JC makes God to be a monster,,,which, yes, basically is what calvinism does.

And I don't mean just the 5 points....
There are statements in the Institutes that go beyond even that.

 

[John Caldwell]

Yes "Reggie" looks to be quite the companion. I have a female boxer. Understand this I am not going to let up on you, not because I think ill of you put because I would like to see you spend your efforts in a better belief. As far as heaven or hell being the destination for Calvinists, it is above my pay grade to even consider. But if they do make it to heaven I would not want to be one of them standing in front of God after accusing Him of the horrid things they believe of him. If you like strict religions there are many of them out there. If you like legalistic religions there are many of them out there. If you like liberal religions there are many of them out there. There are many choices that do not turn God into Satan.

I will never think ill of anyone letting up on me. This is how we learn. I only ask that we challenge one another as if the other person was one for whom Christ died. That is what so many seem to forget.

I don't know if I've said it here, but I am a Baptist (my church is a member of the Southern Baptist Convention, which to some is far worse than being a Calvinist ).

The reason I never considered myself a Calvinist until the Baptist Board is that Calvinism arrives at its conclusions in a specific way. The whole process assumes a view of the atonement that never existed within Christianity until the Reformation and reaches back to decontextualize early teachings so as to lay hold of a history it truly never knew.

Where I view "total depravity" as meaning no one can merit salvation in and of themselves, Calvinists view this as a result of a changed (a "fallen" nature). Scripture says not that Adam's nature changed but that his eyes were opened to know good and evil as God knows good and evil. I think that the "Fall" demonstrated the nature of man in the face of an infant and almighty God. Adam's sin bore out the ontological state of natural man.

I also do not hold to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. So where I see Christ as dying for the sheep I do not view Christ as providing atonement for some men but not all. Christ is the Propitiation for our sins, and not only ours but for the sins of the whole world without exclusion. This is why I believe that there will be a final judgment which is Christ-centered (I believe that all judgment has been given to the Son).

So there are many places where my view does not fit within the Calvinistic model. I have no problem not carrying that label.

 

[Grailhunter]

Hi GH,

I don't think @John Caldwell is a five-point calvinist.
He has clearly said so.
Reconciling the Sovereignty of God and the free will of man is not easy to do.
We all have to come to our own understanding of this.
However, I don't think JC makes God to be a monster,,,which, yes, basically is what calvinism does.

And I don't mean just the 5 points....
There are statements in the Institutes that go beyond even that.

I understand and agree with you....as usual. @John Caldwell should understand when I get that harsh, I am wanting him to hear the truth, but I am speaking to evil. I hope John understands that, I do like him and wish the best for him. Still can we believe any part of that theology without getting the filth of evil on us?

 

[John Caldwell]

You just increased my like for you ten times....just because of your dog....awesome dog!

Oh....also (and off topic) Reggie is a rescue dog we picked up three years ago at the animal shelter. He was scheduled to "exit stage left" the week after.

 

[GodsGrace]

I understand and agree with you....as usual. @John Caldwell should understand when I get that harsh, I am wanting him to hear the truth, but I am speaking to evil. I hope John understands that, I do like him and wish the best for him. Still can we believe any part of that theology without getting the filth of evil on us?

I don't believe any of the 5 points.
Perseverance of the saints has biblical support although I don't agree with that either.

I agree with it in the sense that it IS God that gives us the strength to persevere.
But we're still left with our free will.

Let's not derail this thread....

 

[Grailhunter]

I will never think ill of anyone letting up on me. This is how we learn. I only ask that we challenge one another as if the other person was one for whom Christ died. That is what so many seem to forget.

I don't know if I've said it here, but I am a Baptist (my church is a member of the Southern Baptist Convention, which to some is far worse than being a Calvinist ).

The reason I never considered myself a Calvinist until the Baptist Board is that Calvinism arrives at its conclusions in a specific way. The whole process assumes a view of the atonement that never existed within Christianity until the Reformation and reaches back to decontextualize early teachings so as to lay hold of a history it truly never knew.

Where I view "total depravity" as meaning no one can merit salvation in and of themselves, Calvinists view this as a result of a changed (a "fallen" nature). Scripture says not that Adam's nature changed but that his eyes were opened to know good and evil as God knows good and evil. I think that the "Fall" demonstrated the nature of man in the face of an infant and almighty God. Adam's sin bore out the ontological state of natural man.

I also do not hold to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. So where I see Christ as dying for the sheep I do not view Christ as providing atonement for some men but not all. Christ is the Propitiation for our sins, and not only ours but for the sins of the whole world without exclusion. This is why I believe that there will be a final judgment which is Christ-centered (I believe that all judgment has been given to the Son).

So there are many places where my view does not fit within the Calvinistic model. I have no problem not carrying that label.

Where I view "total depravity" as meaning no one can merit salvation in and of themselves.

This is one of many theological errors in their beliefs. We do not deserve anything. It is not about deserving, the scriptures make that clear. Everything Christ did was a free gift of love.....redemption. They believe that because no one can merit salvation, God has to force or deny salvation. A total lie!

 

[John Caldwell]

Where I view "total depravity" as meaning no one can merit salvation in and of themselves.

This is one of many theological errors in their beliefs. We do not deserve anything. It is not about deserving, the scriptures make that clear. Everything Christ did was a free gift of love.....redemption. They believe that because no one can merit salvation, God has to force or deny salvation. A total lie!

I often see Calvinists driving this home to non-Calvinists who never deny that redemption belongs to God. It gets very philosophical (sometimes one side twists the other so that they can argue against it).

I agree that God does not have to force or deny salvation. If God had to force salvation then the gospel does not really matter (God just saves people, they don't need to know why or repent or anything). If God forces people to deny Christ then they are not responsible for their denial and God is truly unjust. I agree that both of these are erroneous views.

 

[Enoch111]

Id never heard of it.

Iconoclasm (icon breaking) was a result of the proliferation of ikons -- images -- within the Eastern Orthodox Church. There was a revolt against this practice in the 8th and 9th centuries when the Byzantine empire was flourishing, and the basis of this was the commandment to not make any graven images or the likeness of anything. Emperor Leo III placed a ban on ikons (possibly under Islamic influence), but the popes Gregory II and Gregory III opposed iconoclasm, and there was even warfare over this issue.

Today, the use of images and statues of the saints and Mary are part and parcel of the Catholic and Orthodox churches. But this is in violation of Scripture. Some images even show Mary as Queen of Heaven sitting on a throne.