We've been facing this for years. It is tragic, but so very true. @PastorNinja has spoken on this endlessly. Check out his videos.

OK, I am seeing a few clips appearing on line from the Dyer/Wood exchanges, and I am a bit confused. In one Dyer is wearing some kind of Russian furry hat (an ushanka?) and a t-shirt with some kind of weird image on the front, can't really see it well. In the next, he's wearing a hat like Gilligan wore. Did this guy seriously show up like that to a formal debate? Or was he messing around during it? Next, I am pretty sure I heard him, at one point, say that you can worship an icon of Christ. Thorny problem from the EO's given their abuse of Basil and, if you really took him seriously, you would allow that, but post Nicea II orthodoxy (Theodore the Studite, Nikephoros) said "Nyet" to that idea, though, of course, they had to dance on the head of a pin to make up definitions to figure that one out. Still, Lossky et al are clear in denying the position Dyer enunciated. Of course, as always with this topic, there is wiggle room for "relative worship" and all that kind of stuff.

Note to self: the biblical concept of the right of the accused to speak in his own defense is irrelevant to many today. AND, amazingly, anything the gov't says is now spot on, no review, no doubts. Must come to our conclusions in less than what, 72 hours or something? OK, got it. Makes perfect sense now. Oh, and if any of these guys gets cross-ways with the government in the future, trust the government, no matter what they say, and accept all accusations at face value. Forgot that one. Well, there you go! Only took one post to learn how it all works now! Pretty amazing, this Internet thing.

I am on the road, and just got set up at my next location. I see the darker side of social media (which is most of it) is alive with yammering about Sam Sey. I haven't said anything about it because I, like all the stinking rest of you, haven't a clue what is going on. I don't care who "has a friend who has a friend" and what they say. When Sam gets to speak for himself, then we can comment meaningfully, if we choose to do so. Till then, it is all a bunch of noise, and lots of folks on both sides have jumped to conclusions because they spoke without sufficient facts. That being said, the vile, disgusting behavior of the Christless Nationalists truly turns the stomach. These folks have completely sold out to the same spirit that motivated the Brown Shirts nearly a century ago now. And I have challenged a few to attempt to think rationally and substantiate their wild claims--and found them incapable of so doing. I comment on the grossly unbiblical attitudes displayed in one instance, and they respond, "So you want your country over-run by Muslims" or some other such absurd statement. No, I don't, but you morons yammering on social media while hiding behind anonymous accounts, or following Alex Jones sycophants, are doing a whole lot less about it than I am, that's for sure. It truly is an amazing thing to observe, and, yes, I do believe it is part of judgment upon the culture. So how about we all just learn to sit on our hands and patiently wait for actual, verifiable information to become available? Maybe give brother Sey a chance to speak for himself? Is there any reason why that is a problem? Or to put it another way, if you got caught up in something with the government, would YOU want people to go crazy with speculation before you had the opportunity to explain and defend yourself? Think about it.

The Christless Nationalists are proving, with their own words, just how Christ-less they truly are today.

Good morning. Please do not put words in my mouth, Craig. I did not read it because I failed to open Kindle before the program, and, when I did during the program (you can actually see me clicking away to open it), it did not open to the text. I realized this morning why: I had read the text in the web version of the reader, and that doesn't sync current locations to the app version. Anyway, I could not do a search while trying to talk to get to it, so I went with the summary: no icon, no crucifix, you are trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip, and seem intent to die on this hill. So, if you want to do so, I will not stop you, to be sure. However, a few items to consider: 1). Why did Nicea II never cite Gal 3:1? If it is key to your demonstration of apostolicity, why the silence from the Council itself? 2). Please name the commentators on Galatians 3:1 that mention icons, crucifixes, or veneration, prior to Nicea II? I will happily provide Chrysostom's commentary, which seems to be what EO writers repeat endlessly, if that is needed. 3) Why doesn't the Orthodox Study Bible give your view? Next, you are correct. You would think Longenecker would be a rare enough name not to cause confusion, but evidently it is not. The commentary on Galatians, however, is quite directly relevant as it repeats the VAST majority understanding of what προεγράφη means (and is also 2015). Finally, why should I accept your utterly fringe interpretation, which I can find nowhere else, to be honest, rather than this from Saint Theophan the Recluse? "Jesus Christ was depicted before your eyes, crucified in you." "Depicted through the preaching. The preaching portrayed the cross to you; but you saw it through the eyes of faith as present" (Ecumenius). He expresses a twofold action —both how powerful the preaching was and how vividly they apprehended its power. Faith raised them to the contemplation by the mind of the Lord crucified and the work of salvation accomplished by Him. The word "in you" means either: among you, as if the Lord were crucified in your midst and each of you saw Him crucified before your eyes; or "in you"—in your hearts, in your feeling, in that thought that they entered into sympathy with the Lord's sufferings and suffered with Him in their hearts. The force of the speech lies in this: consequently, you understood the power of the Lord's death, you knew that this is the propitiation sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, and consequently for your sins as well. Then the legal sacrifices did not come to mind. How then did it come to pass that you now wish to rely on them?" Oh, one other thing. You are aware that when putting together a series of arguments, the likelihood of truthfulness decreases the more fringe, minority arguments are included, right? So, if I string together three arguments, each of which has a 10% chance of being correct, the resultant chain does not have a 30% chance, but a 0.1% chance, right? You seem utterly enamored with the wildest, tiny percentage arguments. Dionysius was first century! Galatians 3:1 is about icons! You string them all together and that only renders your argument utterly unlikely, you get that, right? Truly, Craig, you suffer from παρεικονία, the seeing of icons everywhere. You read Galatians 3:1 not in its context but in a pareikonic reading. I do look forward to all the Orthodox commentaries, however, that I am sure you must have, stretching back into history, that read the text as you do. So, what if Dionysius is, in fact, Pseudo-Dionysius, written around AD 500, and what if, as the vast majority of commentators state, present and past, Gal. 3:1 is talking about portraying Christ as crucified in Paul's PREACHING? These are the large majority conclusions and yet you stand against them. How does that impact the likelihood of your position being correct?

Josh is having WAY too much fun with this. And Dale is such a parody of himself anymore I just read whatever today's Partridgeism is as it invades my timeline, chuckle, shake my head, and move on. The entire movement has so parodied itself you would think they got instructions from Babylon Bee on how to do it.