Comments on: Together for the Icons?

By: Matthew Milliner

Matthew Milliner — Mon, 03 May 2010 20:08:26 +0000

Though tongue was in cheek, respectful engagement of a serious address was my intention, not mockery.

By: Paul Buckley

Paul Buckley — Sat, 01 May 2010 20:21:11 +0000

Once again, thank you Jean Calvin for your help.

I apologize for my creepy web-junky-like behavior. I did think it a bit strange for a seemingly bright contributor to miss such an obvious grammatical/logical point.

I certainly prefer subtle humor and satire to vitriol and bigotry.

Nevertheless, I do perceive a bit of unearned mockery towards the T4G crowd.

By: Jean Calvin

Jean Calvin — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 19:10:12 +0000

Arthur, Curtis, Paul, Jeff, and Jacob:

Your inability to distinguish a winsome suggestion from a treatise, or to respond in kind with any lightness of touch, makes you sound like creepy web junkies. Which I’m sure you’re not! So repent and zoom out before its too late!

Matthew:

Touche! In a tangential way, your post reminds me of a comment made by the young Romanian Orthodox theologian at Duquesne University. When a student asked him, “But, like, hey, what do the Orthodox know about the Bible?” He rolled his eyes and replied, “Dude, we wrote the Bible.”

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 17:06:14 +0000

Dan, it IS a joke (which is the something that you are missing). I’m sure that Milliner holds out hope that the T4G folks will come around to his view on icons eventually, but that’s not the direct intent of this post. I’m not sure how one could miss the side-splitting humor of the notion of new Calvinists aligning themselves as “T4I(cons).”

By: Orthodoxdj

Orthodoxdj — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 17:06:03 +0000

The Fathers were sometimes wrong, unlike Calvin.

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:40:27 +0000

Am I missing something here, or did the blog author post this as some kind of joke to remind us how important context is? This is just sad, especially how the content of the blog post–one little part from one of the conference speakers–does not even match up with the title of this blog post–a word play on the theme of the entire conference.

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 15:24:27 +0000

Curtis, one would think that “almost always” includes the result of an entire ecumenical council which was founded upon the teachings of the previous councils.

Anyhow, I think you’ve missed the humor of this post – Milliner obviously doesn’t think that Duncan actually agrees with icons, but the title of the post alone conjures up an amusing thought.

By: Jacob

Jacob — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 15:12:11 +0000

If this were more than simply a blog that resembled the thunderdome and more like a reliable place for information, someone would be fired over this sham of a recap.

By: Curtis Sheidler

Curtis Sheidler — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 15:03:58 +0000

Jeff–good point. Guess we shouldn’t put as much trust in the Fathers as we should in Scripture.

By: Jeff Doles

Jeff Doles — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 15:00:19 +0000

Sounds tautological, then: The Fathers got it right where they got it right, and got it wrong where they got it wrong.

Yes, that should clear things up : )

By: Paul Buckley

Paul Buckley — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 14:51:20 +0000

Curtis – epic comment -harsh but true.

By: Curtis Sheidler

Curtis Sheidler — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 12:43:32 +0000

actually, Duncan said (according to your own quotation, no less), “they ALMOST always got it right, and gloriously so…”

way to stress the “always” and ignore the “almost.” epic listening fail. congratulations.

By: James Grant

James Grant — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 12:35:16 +0000

Just wanted you to know Matthew that I laughed out loud on this one. :)

By: Arthur Sido

Arthur Sido — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 00:38:53 +0000

So because Ligon Duncan in 2010 says the church fathers were right about every issue that makes is so?