OcHandle

@Acts17David If you actually care about debating whether icon veneration is biblical then let's do it. Neither redeemed zoomer nor needgod want to debate me on it even though they talk about it all the time let's see if you are actually up for it.

@NoDeception1_ @Acts17David That's funny I didn't see any debate challenges on the true church from David? Where are those?

I listened to the exchange between @PageauJonathan and @gavinortlund I am happy they had a live conversation. THIS IS HOW WE MUST DO IT, FELLAS. My thoughts? I love both of these guys, and I'm just a fallible man with opinions. From my vantage point, Pageau is a former baptist/evangelical who shows no command of the Protestant tradition. He caricatures Protestantism far more than he can fairly represent it. And this is one of the features of Orthodox critics of Protestantism in the last 50 years. To be fair, I see the same thing in Catholics (perhaps even more so). Pageau is a product of the modern Protestant-to-Orthodox school (beginning mid-20th c.) which sees the Christian faith as truly represented only in the "Eastern" representation. Augustine? No, thank you. As a result, he subconsciously splits the Church in two retrospectively, and pretends the "real" 2,000-year Christian tradition is equal to the recent Eastern "phronema". The tree of Church history is cut into two, and only 1 half of the trunk is kept. In fact, however, this 1 half is a distortion of even the real Eastern half they claim. In reality, this "phronema" (best communicated in our day through figures such as Frederica Mathewes-Green and Dr. Jeannie Constantinou) is not ancient or historical. Does this "phronema" have an origin? Not before the 20th century. At least, I don't think. Feel free to correct me. And that's just it. Ortlund has seen this. And once you see it, you can't unsee it. Everyone knows I disagree with Ortlund on a number of important issues, though we've retained a good friendship. Nevertheless, here I must say Ortlund had the upper hand in the discussion. Pageua not only showed a poor understanding of Protestant theology, but he is also enamored with what comes across as an immature aversion to "apologetics." And this has led to his not understanding what his opponents are saying, not to mention the pre-20th century Orthodox tradition. It is not uncommon for Orthodox to eventually reach a point in their spiritual life where they just feel like they have to walk away from defending the faith and just "live it out", and then characterize the apologetics world as a "Western" habit, rooted in that "Western mind" and "Western" way of thinking. Very un-ontological, un-transformative, and un-medical, etc. etc. I've been through it. I know many people who have gone through it. Been in and out of it a few times. This is old. These caricatures are getting very outdated, and they are turning out to be nails on a chalkboard. The reality is this - spiritual maturity goes through a time where you might have an aversion to debates, logical chopping, philosophical reasoning, and intellectual discourse. But when you keep these things as "not for me!", "Western", "not where the honey of Christianity is.", then you fail to mature further. Because maturity can find a balance where these things exist in harmony with the fullness of the spiritual life. They aren't to be trashed and belittled as if they are for the immature Western toddlers of the Christian faith, and not for the spiritual Olympian sitting in the mountain. This is a call for balance and moderation. Let's learn what each other is saying (and meaning!) before attempting to draw conclusions that get shared publicly for innocent souls around the world to consume. At least try hard to do so. And when we are wrong, let's be open to correction. "Ybarra, you've just misrepresented Orthodoxy." That's the beauty of this. I'm open to hearing from you. youtube.com/watch?v=C96cln…