@Alexandre Ventura orthodoxy ain’t all gold cathedrals dude. When the church was in the catacombs they weren’t doing self help seminars, they were doing Liturgy and Eucharist
How do we not know what happened at that council? The minutes were recorded. CCEL.org if you want to look them up! Or just compare each church to the Didache. Or just research history. Or simply follow the lineage of each Apostle to each bishop. It's not really all that hard . It takes an open mind and an inquisitive spirit to trace it back. The Orthodox Church is the only church that matches up with all this.
Its ironic because one of the driving forces that led me and my family of 11 into the Holy Orthodox Church was that one day i was sitting in the balcony of our reformed baptist church, and i was struck with a terrifying thought ... if the apostles or any Christian of the first 4 (or 15) centuries wandered in here, would they even recognize this as worship or a Church? The thought never left me and the answer was clear. Several weeks later my wife suggested that we just make a visit to the Orthodox Church down the road. We did so the following week and it was a wrap . Best decision our family ever made. Glory to Jesus Christ!☦️☦️☦️
He says that the Orthodox claim of the Eucharist is false and that no such evidence exists. He must deny Church fathers such as St. Ignatius, who was a direct disciple of St. John the Apostle, who specifically defends the real presence of the Eucharist. What he has done is claimed that those traditions are garbage and replaced them with traditions of his own liking, while claiming that his traditions are more Christian and authentic, what a bunch of rubbish.
Yeah, but proponents of sola scriptura don't (and can't) care too much about the Church Fathers. I'm actually disappointed that Dr. Wilson doesn't know a little more about Eastern Orthodoxy or, at least, how to give it an honest voice in his answers regarding the EOC.
Yes, that's the problem isn't it? He must reject Christianity history, including those who personally knew the Apostles, Church Fathers in order to make his interpretation of the scriptures work, which is a sad notion.
It is a sad notion. It is one characteristic most protestant denominations (and traditions) have in common with the cults: the rejection of the authority of the apostles and Holy Tradition. Deny the fathers, and you deny orthodoxy (i.e., right belief/worship/thinking).
Even if you want to reject Christian tradition, it's pretty clear from the Bible itself... Jesus said, "This is my body." and "This is my blood." He also said "I am the bread of life." It also relates to the old testament. Just like the Israelites would partake in the lamb sacrificed on Passover, we do the same with Jesus' sacrifice during communion. All you have to do is let go of your biases and read the Word of God for yourself! It will lead you to the truth!
@@DanPrinMan You never read systematic theology of the Reformation, by far the most important work of the Reformation....The Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin...because if you did, you would shut up immediately. Calvin quotes the church fathers more than any orthodox writers....you people have no idea what you are talking about, read before you open your mouth. You can find the Institutes free online at a couple of different websites, www.ccel.org is one of them.
In the divine Liturgy we all (as Orthodox Christians) stand in the presence of the Divine and it matters little if our ancestors were Greek, Macedonian, German, etc. As a senior Deacon in the OCA whom I know says when people of the orthodox community act poorly, as humans often do, (through a wry smile) "No seriously, this church is the bride of Christ."
Ehh, I follow a orthodox group on social media to find the perspective of an average orthodox member. Unfortunately, I find them to be just as unreasonable and unintelligent as sects they mock. I was hoping to find something different with orthodoxy. I find exactly what you mention though. Caricatures of Protestantism from people who know nothing about it other than “not true church”.
It shows the same about Eastern Orthodox incase of Reformed doctrines and teachings. Thinking they understand, never enlightened by God Himself about the Reformation and the teachings.
Some thoughts on idols vs. icons... First, some Hebrew words for idol are pasal and tselem. Pasal implies a hand fashioned image, which can be positive or negative, and which is completely controllable by human whims. Tselem means shadow... Something that has no substance on its own, or something that is not really deity; a phantom if you will. This did not mean that human designed or manufactured items/images never had a place in ancient worship. Even the Hebrews fashioned angelic beings to sit atop the Ark of the Covenant and the curtains in the tabernacle. The Ark was the mercy seat and meeting place between God and man, to which man (namely the High Priest) looked toward symbolically to gaze upon the invisible God. The angels weren't seen as God, nor were they worshiped, but they were graven images in a manufactured sense and contained only their appropriate meaning in context of God. Likewise, the word sometimes used for image/idol is also used of humanity--we are the tselem of God. In other words, we are created in the shadow of God. We can never fully be like God, but we mirror God in many ways as the pinnacle of His creation. So, this is how the ancient Church used icons.These were artistic symbols of an invisible and eternal reality... Not an empty shadow or controllable thing like an idol. Just as angels on the Ark spoke to the humility of a created class of beings at the throne, icons are seen as windows into a reality; not shadows of something insubstantial, but shadows of something profound and of real substance. Images have consistently been revered (honored for the reality the point to and not substance they actually contain) in Christendom, whether a fish, a cross, or loaves of bread, all the way to icons. Another way to think about it is as a photo album of long lost relatives. The photos themselves aren't worshiped, but serve as reminders of real meaning and affection. How many people kiss the photos of their spouse when absent for any time away? Affection showed to an icon is not worship, it is connectivity to a real person through the mental exercise of being reminded. After all, those who have passed into God's presence are no less real than when they were physically with us. Therefore, images help of transcend the mystery of time and space in communion and fellowship. They aren't truly dead if they're with Christ. Furthermore, Orthodox do not worship these images, nor do they pray "to" them as if they were deities. When they pray using the images as connective to a transcendent reality, they are merely seeking intercession. Obviously, our only necessary high priest is Christ, who is perfectly capable of hearing our prayers alone, yet we still confess our sins and seek intercessory prayers from brothers and sisters in Christ in this life, so if they're [those who have passed] eternally alive, they are alive and still capable for interceding, especially in their proximity to Christ. Plus, the Church is the Body of Christ, visible and invisible (includes the dead in Christ, who aren't truly dead, just not yet resurrected), so it is responsible for functioning by the Spirit in the work of Christ, which includes prayer for one another. Clearly, the bias against icons is built upon presuppositions and not historicity, except where it supports a view of contention. The suspicions of icons in the Church [iconoclasts] is probably influenced by Islamic pushes into historic Christian areas, whereby their hypersensitivity over imagery was influential historically. Let's not throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water, shall we.
1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) prohibits making an image and bowing to it. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Irenaeus, (c. 130-202) in his Against Heresies (1:25;6) says of the Gnostic Carpocratians "They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.." 4. Celsus, a pagan philosopher criticizes Christians for not using images. Origen (184-254) responded by admitting that Christians used no images. He states that Christians “being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues;” Jews and Christians are among “those who cannot allow in the worship of the Di-vine Being altars, or temples, or images.” He mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 5. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote to Constantia Augusta (Op. ii. 1545), the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius. Constantia had asked Eusebius to send her a certain likeness of Christ, of which she had heard. He rebukes her for the request, saying that such representations are inadequate in themselves and tend to idolatry. He states that a foolish woman had brought him two likenesses, which might be philosophers, but were alleged by her to represent St. Paul and the Savior. He had detained them lest they should prove a stumbling-block to her or to others. He reminds Constantia that St. Paul declares his intention of "knowing Christ no longer after the flesh." This letter was quoted by the Iconoclasts, and this led their opponents to rake up all the questionable expressions in his writings, that they might blacken his character for orthodoxy. 6. Epiphanius: (inter 310-320 - 403): Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9: "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.”
@@yeoberry And Leviticus 20:13 proscribes a certain degenerate activity (also proscribed by name in the NT, btw) with a very clear prescription (death), and yet you prots don't busy yourself in enforcing the OT law you worship so hard! With that said, there is no mention of Ex 20:4 any time when Christ himself lists the Commandments. Not once does He mention it. It would seem to me that the Incarnate Word would be pretty specific on this point if He meant what you believe in, but then again, the Incarnation changed...well...quite a lot. The Synod of Elvira wasn't a ecumenical council thus doesn't have much to say for the Church as the Body of Christ. Do a better reading the quote of Irenaeus you provided yourself and you'll see that his issue was placing worldly philosophers alongside Christ as if they were equal. The lette you mention is attributed to Eusebius, but the authorship is uncertain. In sum: if you're going to be all in for the OT law, then get out and do it all. Don't cherry pick and don't claim Christ fulfilled it when you actually believe He meant that we ought to apply it super-duper hard instead.
Icon veneration is demonic. I was an ordained EO reader in the Greek Church in the UK. God delivered me from all this deception. Don't be fooled by the Orthodox spin. It messed me up for 9; years but praise God He opened my eyes.
I was raised and currently part of the protestant church. These days I'm starting to question the sanity of Modern American Protestantism. Just look at how many false teachers it produced, how many different denominations was birthed, how many different cults spawned, how many different heresies created and it's plain to see that something is terribly wrong. The orthodox church is becoming very interesting after doing some research into their history, doctrine and practices. Planning on attending a Vesper to check it out in person.
Glad you’re starting to see the error in Protestantism. I became EO after a year of reading the apostolic fathers and much prayer to the Holy Spirit to guide me into truth. I got rid of all my biases and preconceived notions and just ask the Holy Spirit to lead me to wherever the truth. I hope you make your way to the One Church soon. God bless may God grant you clarity and guidance.
If a year ago, someone told me - a hard core Protestant - that I will ever become an Orthodox, I would laugh in their face. Today I'm an Orthodox Christian, and I can't be happier about it.
@@Aleksandr-Herman been attending an Orthodox Church, Anthiochian since then. if you have genuine faith in Jesus, I highly recommend checking out an Eastern Orthodox Church
I too am a convert from the Baptist Church. I early on questioned the symbolism of everything when in the Bible it sounded more important, ie baptism, communion, etc. I’m so blessed that I was clearly lead to the Orthodox Church by St. Seraphim of Russia. I’ve never known such love and joyful tears just being in the presence of Christ Jesus in His temple! I pray today for the Protestants that they too may know the fullness of the faith.
1. His first statement that it is laughable that we the Eastern ORthodox (eo for short) are not as if not more ancient than RCC(roman catholic) is in fact laughable and ahistorical. 2. Our stance on the split is that ROME left the church not that we split mutually in error, but one was in error and it was rome. This is a rather silly stance Doug has taken. 3. A single bishop disagreeing on a stance doesn't "change" or mean we have changed it means we held councils to hammer out the issues hence the 7 ecumenical councils. 4. Notice how Doug qualifies his statement. They don't know what the church was like in the second century...first yes we do we have numerous saints and bishops who spoke on these things. Second it is rather presumptuous of you to say you know better than the Saints of the church. Church history is what the Church believed and anyone who looks at for example the earliest councils will know that it was Orthodox. 5. If you can't trust the councils you should throw out all your scripture completely. It was in fact those councils that were led by the Holy spirit to put the Bible together...so you are suggesting that they had the Holy spirit for the Bible, but all the other things they said in those councils were false and not led by Holy spirit? Nonsense. 6. Through Western Eyes while a decent take on a Protestant perspective on EO it does not in fact understand the core differences between EO and Prots. Also the book concluded that their is A LOT reformed and prots could learn from EO. Maybe the reason you can learn a lot is cause we haven't changed and remain true to the original teachings. Notice Prots never go to the Early church fathers for information on what the Church was like or what we believed it is always some modern theologian or scholar...this is suspect imho. 7. Last point he said was false the Bible doesn't say not to pray through pictures. It says not pray to Idols or graven images...look up idol and graven images. Icons do not meet that standard at all. Also we are not praying to saints or anyone besides Christ. When we "pray" to a saint we are asking that person who (is alive in Christ since you know the Cross matters) still alive and can pray for us the same way our grandparents or sisters or brothers would.
"Notice Prots never go to the Early church fathers for information on what the Church was like or what we believed it is always some modern theologian or scholar...this is suspect imho." If you're going to go to the effort of dismissing Doug Wilson as ill-informed and having never engaged properly with EO, don't then retort in likewise ill-informed fashion betraying clear signs that you've never engaged properly with 'Prots' on this issue, just because you happen to have not looked into it. Just because DudeBro Joe the cool guy pastor at your local semi-evangelical circus couldn't tell his Polycarps from his own buttocks and thinks the church emerged in the second century singing second-rate U2 songs with acoustic guitars, doesn't actually mean the historical Reformers as well as plenty of Reformed and/or Protestant laypeople and pastors today don't exist who love and cherish and read the early church fathers without difficulty or fear of contradiction (and, crucially, ALL of the church fathers' words).
It's really trendy right now to convert to Orthodoxy, mainly because of cheesy mega church culture and Israel worship heresy in the "Protestant" churches, BUT..... give it time and some of these people will see the flaws in your system too. All trends die. You guys can LARP all you want that you're the ancient church, but it's nowhere near as smoothly traced back as you guys let on.
Isn't it no wonder WHY the World is as effed up as it is? Even Christian Faith is divided... And let's not mention those who've turned their backs on God altogether. Stay faithful. Remain Vigilant.
1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) prohibits making an image and bowing to it. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Irenaeus, (c. 130-202) in his Against Heresies (1:25;6) says of the Gnostic Carpocratians "They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.." 4. Celsus, a pagan philosopher criticizes Christians for not using images. Origen (184-254) responded by admitting that Christians used no images. He states that Christians “being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues;” Jews and Christians are among “those who cannot allow in the worship of the Di-vine Being altars, or temples, or images.” He mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 5. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote to Constantia Augusta (Op. ii. 1545), the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius. Constantia had asked Eusebius to send her a certain likeness of Christ, of which she had heard. He rebukes her for the request, saying that such representations are inadequate in themselves and tend to idolatry. He states that a foolish woman had brought him two likenesses, which might be philosophers, but were alleged by her to represent St. Paul and the Savior. He had detained them lest they should prove a stumbling-block to her or to others. He reminds Constantia that St. Paul declares his intention of "knowing Christ no longer after the flesh." This letter was quoted by the Iconoclasts, and this led their opponents to rake up all the questionable expressions in his writings, that they might blacken his character for orthodoxy. 6. Epiphanius: (inter 310-320 - 403): Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9: "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.”
I love it how he said "that's simply historically ignorant," then he went on and proved himself to be historically ignorant AND culturally ignorant AND theologically ignorant. That's a lot of ignorance. . .
@@icxcnika7722 assuming? Casper called willing “historically and culturally ignorant” and didn’t point to any issue. Then stated, “that’s a lot of ignorance.” That’s not assuming, my friend. So, yes, I stand by my claim.
1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) prohibits making an image and bowing to it. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Irenaeus, (c. 130-202) in his Against Heresies (1:25;6) says of the Gnostic Carpocratians "They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.." 4. Celsus, a pagan philosopher criticizes Christians for not using images. Origen (184-254) responded by admitting that Christians used no images. He states that Christians “being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues;” Jews and Christians are among “those who cannot allow in the worship of the Di-vine Being altars, or temples, or images.” He mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 5. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote to Constantia Augusta (Op. ii. 1545), the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius. Constantia had asked Eusebius to send her a certain likeness of Christ, of which she had heard. He rebukes her for the request, saying that such representations are inadequate in themselves and tend to idolatry. He states that a foolish woman had brought him two likenesses, which might be philosophers, but were alleged by her to represent St. Paul and the Savior. He had detained them lest they should prove a stumbling-block to her or to others. He reminds Constantia that St. Paul declares his intention of "knowing Christ no longer after the flesh." This letter was quoted by the Iconoclasts, and this led their opponents to rake up all the questionable expressions in his writings, that they might blacken his character for orthodoxy. 6. Epiphanius: (inter 310-320 - 403): Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9: "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.”
The problem with Douglas's characterization of Icons is that he's "the Bible says", sola scriptura claim is his interpretation first and foremost but going further, all historical sources point to St. Luke having been the first to write an icon. This is the reason why the eldest images of St. Luke to date show him holding an icon of Jesus Christ with the Theotokos. Furthermore his comment showed that he doesn't know why Orthodox Christians even use icons. To quote Archbishop Lazar, they are another language for which the gospel was translated in a time when most couldn't read. That's why they are written [yes they refer to them as written] according to strict conventions.
@@icxcnika7722 "proper worship" Praying to, kissing, and bowing down to images and carvings is not "proper worship." Fascinating. The pagans of Baal can use the exact same argumentation as you, unironically.
I’m not a member of the Orthodox Church, but I do know the difference between praying to a “picture” and the veneration of an icon. From everything I understand, veneration is asking the saints to essentially pray for you - the same way we might ask another to pray for us. There is a distinct difference between this and idol worship. I’m not sure how conflating the two is a just argument, but alas…
THE SAINT ARNT DEAD TO BE ABSENT FROM THE BODY IS TO BE PRESENT WITH THE LORD AND ITF THERE RIGHT BY THE LORD ID PREFER ASKING THEM TO PRAY FOR ME ON MY BEHALF JUST LIKE I WOULD ASK A FRIEND @@addjoaprekobaah5914
This disclaimer of not praying to icons but venerate them doesn't justify what they do as they claim to be asking the saints to intervene on their behalf to God. In my Ancestral veneratimg culture . Facing the same argument and interesting this is prominent among the Ethiopian Orthodox church.Like the historic Orthodox church they reject the sole authority of scripture which is why they exempt themselves from the 10 commandments,specifically the 1st commandments. And frankly the idea being able to trace one body of Christians to the Apostles is as ridiculous as some fundamental Baptists claim in their writings. We can trace the fundamental doctrines of the Bible/Gospel from patriarchs, prophets and apostles writings. The is inough of what the early church fathers writings to confirm the apostolic teachings that are recovered in the protestant revival/reformation which is the womb of the various denominations today.
What Doug Wilson is not saying is that this issue was one of the things addressed in the 7th Eccumenical council, and was almost universally understood to be a fabrication. "We know that Epiphanius is a saint and a great wonder-worker. Sabinus, his disciple and a member of his household, erected a church in his honor after his death, and had it decorated with pictures of all the Gospel stories. He would not have done this if he had not been following the doctrine of his own teacher. Leonitus also, the interpreter of the divine Epiphanius’ writings, who was himself bishop of the church in Neapolis in Cyprus, teaches very clearly in his discourse on Epiphanius how steadfast he was in regard to the holy icons, and reports nothing derogatory concerning him. So the composition against the icons is spurious and not at all the work of the divine Epiphanius." I know that nobody can be knowledgeable about the fact surrounding every system outside of their perspective, but this is oddly sloppy.
If Mr. Douglas doesn't mean to issue the false pretense that all Orthodox Christians are historically illiterate then his comment beginning at 2:30 is imprudent at best. But with regards to the iconography in Orthodox temples, I always wonder what iconoclast Protestants make of the graven images God Himself commands to be made for the temple of Solomon in the book of Kings and the religious artwork of pre-Constantinian Christians in the catacombs. I'm imagining a response to the first would be something to the effect that God does not command their veneration and to the second that those were misguided or heretical Christians. Nevertheless, the command not to make graven images takes on a different meaning when we consider the book of Kings. It is much more reasonable to consider that what is prohibited is not the making of graven images but the worshipping of them, or else God contradicts Himself. And with regard to the second point, what must be granted at least is that there is very early precedent for religious artwork in the early Church. What isn't appreciated by Protestants is the ACTUAL theology behind iconography which is rooted in the Incarnation. If God became a man, then, since man is the image of God, it is now possible to depict this historical figure in images. These images were never meant to supplant the worship of God but were used as reminders of God THROUGH which we more easily arrive at the contemplation and veneration or worship of HEAVENLY realities. It's very hard for me to see anything else going on with this complaint, if it is maintained after sufficient explanation, than a total unwillingness to listen and a very unfortunate hardening of the heart. How many times do Orthodox have to respond that they are neither worshipping the saints nor the images? After a certain point this argument must become dishonest and malicious. Anyone who has softened their heart to the radiant beauty of an Orthodox service understands immediately that the "beautify of His house" is a condescension to our carnal nature. It is the perpetual kenosis and Incarnation of God in His Church that goes "from glory to glory". The dynamic between the human mind and the religious artwork has nothing to do with the idolatrous dethronement of God's central place in our hearts, but instead, when the mind and what the icons are depicting meet, one's mind is FORMed into the image of the icon and goes through it to the heavenly reality; and once it has gone through to it, the PROPER attitude towards it is certainly not one of indifference but of deep reverence and appreciation. With regard to the Mother of God and saints we call this reverence and appreciation VENERATION and with regard to God we call it WORSHIP. Moreover, veneration and worship are both willful, and so long as one does not choose to worship an image he or she does not. We don't worship these images because they have no value in and of themselves; their only value lies in their relation to God and the aid they provide in reminding and orienting the mind and heart to Him. And the simplest way this can be known is by the simple fact that icons are only made of Christ, His Mother and His saints. Why? Look for the common factor, GOD. These icons are venerated because they depict sacred realities which merit reverence and respect. We are literally indebted to these people for the transmission of the saving Faith, which is why the icons remind us of the holy work and literal presence of God in history. If we can have pictures of friends, family and events that remind us of the past, and if we can watch movies and television shows, ALL OF WHICH ARE COMPOSED OF IMAGES, then how much more would we benefit from images of our Lord, His blessed Mother and the events in history to which our salvation is indebted? If the wisdom of the Church is still rejected then I would recommend intellectual honesty and consistency which in this case would mean ridding oneself of all interaction with artificial images including pictures, movies and television programs. But the saddest of all consequences of this Protestant polemic is that it portrays God as a petty and arbitrary task master instead of what the Orthodox call Him, "lover of mankind". Towards the end of the video, Mr. Douglas describes how he would not want to be found praying to images when Christ returns. When Christ returns He will find faithful Orthodox Christians doing what their Fathers did and what Christ Himself instituted through His Holy Spirit, who He promised would lead us into all truth. He will find them worshipping Him alone as they always have. And when He sees them bow with loving reverence before His icon, the icon of His blessed Mother, through whom we have salvation, and those of His holy and God bearing saints, He will see what is there, His deep and profound reverence, gratitude and love these pious hearts have for Him, His Mother and His holy saints.
You need to understand that the temple in the OT was only a shadow of the reality in Christ. We are no longer in the Levite priesthood of the OT, but we are under another priesthood of Christ. The old things, like the tabernacle, the Levite priesthood with the incense, garments, sacrifices have passed away once Christ appeared and entered into the Holy of Holies in heaven itself with His own blood to propitiate for the sins of His people....You need to seriously read from the Bible from the epistle of the Hebrews chapters 7-10 and you should quickly understand why there no longer is a need for a physical altar, priestly garnmets, images, incense, etc...these things were only shadows of the reality in Christ. Christ is after the priesthood of Melchizedek, not Levi.
1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) prohibits making an image and bowing to it. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Irenaeus, (c. 130-202) in his Against Heresies (1:25;6) says of the Gnostic Carpocratians "They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.." 4. Celsus, a pagan philosopher criticizes Christians for not using images. Origen (184-254) responded by admitting that Christians used no images. He states that Christians “being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues;” Jews and Christians are among “those who cannot allow in the worship of the Di-vine Being altars, or temples, or images.” He mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 5. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote to Constantia Augusta (Op. ii. 1545), the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius. Constantia had asked Eusebius to send her a certain likeness of Christ, of which she had heard. He rebukes her for the request, saying that such representations are inadequate in themselves and tend to idolatry. He states that a foolish woman had brought him two likenesses, which might be philosophers, but were alleged by her to represent St. Paul and the Savior. He had detained them lest they should prove a stumbling-block to her or to others. He reminds Constantia that St. Paul declares his intention of "knowing Christ no longer after the flesh." This letter was quoted by the Iconoclasts, and this led their opponents to rake up all the questionable expressions in his writings, that they might blacken his character for orthodoxy. 6. Epiphanius: (inter 310-320 - 403): Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9: "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.”
@@yeoberry there are some very good resources by Eastern Orthodox apologists and scholars responding to all these accusations. not to mention many scholars (including Protestants) have conceded that iconography was, at the very least, practiced as early as the 3rd century. We don't deny that certain church Father's made mistakes (although some of your resources, like Irenaeus, seem taken out of context, and Epiphanius himself conceded that almost no one else agreed with his Iconoclasm), but we must concede that the early church was very diverse at the time, but the Apostles themselves supported iconography.
@@yeoberry I think you should be more bothered by the fact that baptismal regeneration was taught as early as the 1st century (the Shepherd of Hermas, Justin Martyr, etc), and was the resounding teaching of the church for 1500 years.
Amen. That's why us Orthodox respect Catholics. Rather than Protestants. Jesus is King. Orthodox Christianity is the Truth. Pray to Him and Pray to Mary. Have faith in Him. 2021 will be your year.
Like some of these: 1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) prohibits making an image and bowing to it. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Irenaeus, (c. 130-202) in his Against Heresies (1:25;6) says of the Gnostic Carpocratians "They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.." 4. Celsus, a pagan philosopher criticizes Christians for not using images. Origen (184-254) responded by admitting that Christians used no images. He states that Christians “being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues;” Jews and Christians are among “those who cannot allow in the worship of the Di-vine Being altars, or temples, or images.” He mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 5. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote to Constantia Augusta (Op. ii. 1545), the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius. Constantia had asked Eusebius to send her a certain likeness of Christ, of which she had heard. He rebukes her for the request, saying that such representations are inadequate in themselves and tend to idolatry. He states that a foolish woman had brought him two likenesses, which might be philosophers, but were alleged by her to represent St. Paul and the Savior. He had detained them lest they should prove a stumbling-block to her or to others. He reminds Constantia that St. Paul declares his intention of "knowing Christ no longer after the flesh." This letter was quoted by the Iconoclasts, and this led their opponents to rake up all the questionable expressions in his writings, that they might blacken his character for orthodoxy. 6. Epiphanius: (inter 310-320 - 403): Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9: "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.”
@@yeoberry 1. Then why were they commanded to make the Arc of the Covenant? The Arc had two cherubim on either side. 2. "Considering the Seventh Ecumenical Council and the writings of Saint John of Damascus upheld the proper use and veneration of the holy icons both in private homes and in the liturgical services and worship spaces, I think these random quotes are a moot point as they don't reflect what has been accepted universally by the Church." It was also not universally accepted. 3. This is talking of gnostics, not Christians. 4. Origen is not a saint or church father of the Orthodox Church, and, he was anathematized from the church for his teachings, and that was during his life, not afterwards. 5. Again, Eusebius is not saint or church father in the Eastern Orthodox Church, or Roman Catholic Church, only in the Oriental Orthodox Church, which we are not in communion with. 6. "St. Epiphanius had a history of being out of the loop and isolated due to his being a bishop on the island of Cyprus. In one case he mistook the Nicene theology (that is, Orthodoxy) of contemporaries like St. Basil the Great as being heresy until corrected. There is a letter, though missing later context, in which he left Cyprus to travel to the Holy Land as a pilgrim and entered a church on the mainland, saw the curtain you mentioned, freaked out and tore it down - the letter was in part instructions to pay for a replacement out of his own pocket. This letter was later inflated greatly by the Iconoclasts who added other forged and fraudulent writings to St. Epiphanius' name to bolster their cause (it is somewhat telling that they had to latch onto him so strongly based on a single episode rather than having a consistent patristic tradition to point to). Once his writings became a matter of debate during the Iconoclast Controversy in Constantinople, some of the Anti-Iconoclasts traveled to Cyprus to research him more closely and found that his tomb, which had been built by one of his disciples, was covered in iconography, and they concluded it to be very unlikely that his flock and disciples would have done so had he died as an iconoclast. Given his track record elsewhere (such as in Trinitarian theology) of jumping to conclusions and then humbly accepting correction and/or clarification, the most likely explanation was that like his initial negative reaction to normative Orthodox theology (unlike the mainland which was mainly concerned with Arianism, he was concerned with Sabellianism and thus seems to have jumped a bit too far before realizing the over-correction), the most likely explanation was that Cyprus like a few other pockets of the Church (especially in Armenia and parts of Asia Minor) had little to no iconographic tradition and he thus overreacted when encountering it for the first time but eventually accepted it (as demonstrated by his tomb). Ironically, if his letter proves anything, it is that iconography was considered normal elsewhere." But in the end, one person's opinion does not contribute to the decisions of the rest of church. If this were the case, gnostics would rule it, and our doctrine (of all mainstream denoms, Protestant, RC, and Orthodox), would all be ruined, and we wouldn't have the trinity, their would be multiple gods, etc. If one person's opinion changed the entire church's decision, it wouldn't be a church. God bless.
@J 3 They lie about everyone else to make it seem like they are the true Christians but the irony is they are the heretics. The amount of anti-Catholic propaganda I was fed throughout my non-denominational evangelical years is astounding
An icon is an image, usually painted on wood, that is to be venerated as a sacred object. Although people who use icons in their worship would deny that they are practicing idolatry, it is difficult to see how “venerating” an object as “sacred” is different from idolatry. Any kissing of, bowing down before, or praying toward an icon is certainly idolatrous. Members of the Orthodox Church insist that they are not worshiping the paint and wood, but they admit that they give veneration, adoration, and reverence to the saints and Mary depicted in the icons. They pray to men and women; they ascribe to the icons a spiritual power that it does not possess. This is unbiblical. There is nothing wrong with producing or enjoying religious art, per se. But using icons to aid one’s worship or viewing them as a “window to heaven” is definitely idolatry. The Bible strictly forbids idolatry (Leviticus 26:1; Deuteronomy 5:9). God alone deserves to be bowed down to and worshiped. Icons are not intercessors before the throne of grace, and neither are the saints they represent. People in heaven do not have the power to hear our prayers or grant our requests. Only Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit can intercede for us before the Father (Romans 8:26-27, 34). We should stay as far away as we can from anything that could possibly lead to idolatry. You don't need icons to worship God. He has never ever said that you need one. God is a Spirit and true worshippers worship Him in spirit and in truth for such God seeks.
Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: Colossians 3:5 KJV The Western Christians, who are bogged down into covetousness blame eastern Orthodox Church in idolatry because they venerate icons?!, I bag you pardon.... 🤣
@@Aleksandr-Herman If they are covetous then they are as sinful as the Eastern Orthodox people who are worshipping idols according to the passage you quoted. However I don't think they blame, I think they point out what idolatrous practices the E O church has which is fundamentally wrong and it is unbiblical. In your argument your pointing out that the westerners are covetous which may be true or not but that doesn't make the idolatrous practices of EOC right. You shouldn't defend idolatry in one group of believers by pointing out the idolatry of the other group. You know what I mean ?!
@@cogito_ergo_sum-y2h when I was a Protestant, I was also entitled to my opinion about icons, and I had the same prejudice as you have. When I started to explore Orthodox Christianity, and read the Orthodox Church explanation of icons, I understood that I was wrong, and that it is very biblical, and not an idolatery in anyway. I hope one day you will find the Only True Church too.
Well put! So many people are claiming that Eastern orthodoxy is the true church but I can’t accept that when they participate in practices that go against scripture. Why can’t we just keep the gospel simple? Christ died for our sins. He said it is finished, and He meant it.
I wish you could get your hands on this doug idiot. But my guess is that, like most prots, he won't debate. Just wants to quote mine and spew his crap with no challenge.
Going to an Orthodox Church you really do get the feeling that you are part of something very ancient and divine. By contrast, I don't get that same kind of feeling during Catholic ceremonies. Maybe, I'll have to visit one of the great cathedrals in Europe to better understand Catholic practices. For now I'm sticking with the Orthodox Church.
You need to be born again to be part of God's divine church. You won't find it a church building only in your repented heart. It is not a feeling you should search for but a new creation in Christ through faith and not ceremonies.
You are blessed to be with true faith with Christ true church, keep fighting for it never leave it because you are with god while others it pains me to say are lost and being dragged to hell by these false denominations
@@Lasharella What makes the EOC the true church ??? How can you be with God ? Are you with God ? How ? Could you give an explanation that supports your claim ?!
@@cogito_ergo_sum-y2h I would love to explain o you why but I’m not best person for as I’m not a good preacher I know one thing that this is only church and faith where you truly experience real grace of god I have felt lived and still am blessed to be part of it, it is hard to describe I’m not well educated on the subject of orthodox Christianity teachings I’m just blessed to be actually experienced unexplainable grace which is so powerful that it feels like breath of fresh air, oxygen to you soul, forgive me if I can’t explain to you any better and if what I said made no sense to you, god bless you and I hope you will experience same really soon! Love and respect! ❤️☦️🙏
Favorite part of this video is the comments. I do find this answer very lackluster though. Im an inquirer of Orthodoxy coming from Protestantism and this is a pitiful attempt at answering this question. I took a class at a reformed seminary and learned about the tactic of “strawman” arguments. Basically this video in a nutshell.
@@GregorasProject 1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) prohibits making an image and bowing to it. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Irenaeus, (c. 130-202) in his Against Heresies (1:25;6) says of the Gnostic Carpocratians "They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.." 4. Celsus, a pagan philosopher criticizes Christians for not using images. Origen (184-254) responded by admitting that Christians used no images. He states that Christians “being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues;” Jews and Christians are among “those who cannot allow in the worship of the Di-vine Being altars, or temples, or images.” He mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 5. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote to Constantia Augusta (Op. ii. 1545), the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius. Constantia had asked Eusebius to send her a certain likeness of Christ, of which she had heard. He rebukes her for the request, saying that such representations are inadequate in themselves and tend to idolatry. He states that a foolish woman had brought him two likenesses, which might be philosophers, but were alleged by her to represent St. Paul and the Savior. He had detained them lest they should prove a stumbling-block to her or to others. He reminds Constantia that St. Paul declares his intention of "knowing Christ no longer after the flesh." This letter was quoted by the Iconoclasts, and this led their opponents to rake up all the questionable expressions in his writings, that they might blacken his character for orthodoxy. 6. Epiphanius: (inter 310-320 - 403): Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9: "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.”
It is lamentable that this is what passes for "scholarly discussion" in some protestant circles. I ran this by a good friend of mine who is a Baptist minister and even he was amazed at the amount of hubris being passed of as fact in this video. This is why thorough study of your subject is important.
It's the second commandment. "You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath, or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them nor serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, inflicting the punishment of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me" Exodus 20:1-7 God gives us clear instructions on how to deal with idols. Take a look at this verse from 1 Kings: "Now Asa did what was right in the sight of the Lord, like his father David. He also removed the male cult prostitutes from the land and removed all the idols which his fathers had made. And even his mother Maacah, he also removed her from the position of queen mother, because she had made an abominable image as an Asherah; and Asa cut down her abominable image and burned it at the brook Kidron." Asa did what was right in the sight of the Lord. He removed the idols. The only hubris here is taking your pre-conceived notions and rejecting what is clearly laid out in scripture.
The Orthodox do not “pray to” pictures or things, an Icon is something that is a representation of the divine thing you’re praying too, God. It’s a representation to draw inference from. Listen to an actual Orthodox person on their own beliefs.
Yes. It is that simple. Research Orthodoxy for yourself and consult an Orthodox priest with questions. I left the Lutheran church for Orthodoxy and I wish I had done it sooner.
1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) prohibits making an image and bowing to it. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Irenaeus, (c. 130-202) in his Against Heresies (1:25;6) says of the Gnostic Carpocratians "They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.." 4. Celsus, a pagan philosopher criticizes Christians for not using images. Origen (184-254) responded by admitting that Christians used no images. He states that Christians “being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues;” Jews and Christians are among “those who cannot allow in the worship of the Di-vine Being altars, or temples, or images.” He mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 5. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote to Constantia Augusta (Op. ii. 1545), the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius. Constantia had asked Eusebius to send her a certain likeness of Christ, of which she had heard. He rebukes her for the request, saying that such representations are inadequate in themselves and tend to idolatry. He states that a foolish woman had brought him two likenesses, which might be philosophers, but were alleged by her to represent St. Paul and the Savior. He had detained them lest they should prove a stumbling-block to her or to others. He reminds Constantia that St. Paul declares his intention of "knowing Christ no longer after the flesh." This letter was quoted by the Iconoclasts, and this led their opponents to rake up all the questionable expressions in his writings, that they might blacken his character for orthodoxy. 6. Epiphanius: (inter 310-320 - 403): Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9: "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.”
@@yeoberry 1. Then why were they commanded to make the Arc of the Covenant? The Arc had two cherubim on either side. 2. "Considering the Seventh Ecumenical Council and the writings of Saint John of Damascus upheld the proper use and veneration of the holy icons both in private homes and in the liturgical services and worship spaces, I think these random quotes are a moot point as they don't reflect what has been accepted universally by the Church." It was also not universally accepted. 3. This is talking of gnostics, not Christians. 4. Origen is not a saint or church father of the Orthodox Church, and, he was anathematized from the church for his teachings, and that was during his life, not afterwards. 5. Again, Eusebius is not saint or church father in the Eastern Orthodox Church, or Roman Catholic Church, only in the Oriental Orthodox Church, which we are not in communion with. 6. "St. Epiphanius had a history of being out of the loop and isolated due to his being a bishop on the island of Cyprus. In one case he mistook the Nicene theology (that is, Orthodoxy) of contemporaries like St. Basil the Great as being heresy until corrected. There is a letter, though missing later context, in which he left Cyprus to travel to the Holy Land as a pilgrim and entered a church on the mainland, saw the curtain you mentioned, freaked out and tore it down - the letter was in part instructions to pay for a replacement out of his own pocket. This letter was later inflated greatly by the Iconoclasts who added other forged and fraudulent writings to St. Epiphanius' name to bolster their cause (it is somewhat telling that they had to latch onto him so strongly based on a single episode rather than having a consistent patristic tradition to point to). Once his writings became a matter of debate during the Iconoclast Controversy in Constantinople, some of the Anti-Iconoclasts traveled to Cyprus to research him more closely and found that his tomb, which had been built by one of his disciples, was covered in iconography, and they concluded it to be very unlikely that his flock and disciples would have done so had he died as an iconoclast. Given his track record elsewhere (such as in Trinitarian theology) of jumping to conclusions and then humbly accepting correction and/or clarification, the most likely explanation was that like his initial negative reaction to normative Orthodox theology (unlike the mainland which was mainly concerned with Arianism, he was concerned with Sabellianism and thus seems to have jumped a bit too far before realizing the over-correction), the most likely explanation was that Cyprus like a few other pockets of the Church (especially in Armenia and parts of Asia Minor) had little to no iconographic tradition and he thus overreacted when encountering it for the first time but eventually accepted it (as demonstrated by his tomb). Ironically, if his letter proves anything, it is that iconography was considered normal elsewhere." But in the end, one person's opinion does not contribute to the decisions of the rest of church. If this were the case, gnostics would rule it, and our doctrine (of all mainstream denoms, Protestant, RC, and Orthodox), would all be ruined, and we wouldn't have the trinity, their would be *multiple* gods, etc. If one person's opinion changed the entire church's decision, it wouldn't be a church.
This clown’s false claims of idolatry in Eastern Orthodoxy are so readily put aside by the least perusal of central documents of the Christian faith, such a St. John of Damascus and the Tomos of the VII. ecumenical council (II Nicaea, 787 AD), which definitively settled the misprision of the heretic iconoclasts. Douglas is a heretic many times over, and a prevaricator as anyone with his level education and informational resources cannot reasonably claim that Orthodoxy involves ‘worship of idols’.
@@yeoberry to,claim that Epiphanius’ opinion of one usage in his early day epitomizes all correct understanding of sacred imagery is ridiculous, a sophomoric appeal to authority that can’t hold a candle to the writing of St. John of Damascus and the Tomos of the VII Ecumnical council (Nicaea 787 AD). it is clear from the instructions revealed to Moses on Mt. Sinai that the Ark and the Tabernacle depicted images of angels and the Temple of Solomon was completely iconographed. Hebrew synagogues and early churches were adorned with images that helped the faithful in prayer and no fool thought they were gods to be worshipped instead of the Lord.
Did Paul ever write on that? He contributed more than anyone else to the development of theological understanding, including church order. Did he say that churches can only be founded if by someone who has a direct line of reference to an apostle? No. They had a special authority, they alone, because they were specifically chosen. Them alone. End of Revelation has the names of the 12 as the foundations of the wall. No successors.
In the Mass, people had little to no participation (something which V2 tried to correct). They also had no say or participation in choosing whom their bishops would be. In the East, our Divine Liturgies cannot happen without the laity who chant/say much of the Liturgy. Thus, in Eastern ecclesiology, the laity are as much a functioning part of the Church as any bishop or priest. At a bishop's consecration, the people (who had a say in his election) shout "axios"(he is worthy) to give their assent
This man is extremely ignorant. Both Catholics and Orthodox do not worship images nor any other creation. Worship is given only to God. We venerate images and the saints. The iconoclastic heresy was defeated at Second Nicea in 787. We venerate icons because our Lord invaded our time and our space and made himself visible while remaining invisible through the person of Jesus Christ. Protestantism has been an absolute catastrophe.
Educate yourself better, please. In romanian, and we are in the great majority orthodox, we say we adore God (Lord) and we venerate Mother of Lord (Jesus Christ) and we venerate ALL the Saints, All the Saint Angels and Holy Heavenly Powers. So, it's a difference wich we DO. Amin!
Beyond rejecting the council(s) and actually what Orthodox say about what icons truly are and what we do with them, he's got a really big problem explaining how the earliest christian churches also have Mary with Christ (as icons), obviously this is problematic for him on many levels as a Protestant, I'm guessing. People like this act like a book just fell out of the sky and God said,"Figure it out" It's laughable on that basic level, really. Oh and you have to learn another language first (ha!)
@@thomasglass9491 Catacombs that are either gone or extant that show the same things. It's not controversial or a stretch to know, even if you don't want to believe it, that they continued the practices that they always had (same idea with the gospels being written "later" which you and I know is not a valid criticism of anything as to their veracity). It's quite a basic principle given the reality that in 313 (4th century) Christianity became finally legal - no, in reality they didn't "start" then.
Doug doesn't know what he's talking about. He shouldn't have been interviewed on a topic he is ignorant of. Look at the Roman catacombs, and one will see icons of Mary, the Saints, and Christ. The Orthodox Church is the true Church started by our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
OrthodoxDefender no those were not icons those were pictures painted on the catacombs. Art. An icon is made and established as God's presence in it, it is venerated in the church. Veneration is a direct form of worship but orthodox are in denial and ignorance concerning and call everyone else ignorant. What irony it all is
This is such a dishonest debate anymore. The Orthodox commentators here have already done a great job at ripping Mr. Wilson's ignorance to shreds in regard to praying "to" icons, so there is not much I would add to it. I will say this, however: that wife you speak of, Mr. Wilson. If--God forbid--you are ever shipwrecked somewhere and separated from her for a long period of time, yet you carry around a picture of her in your wallet which sometimes you look upon with love, stroke, and even kiss--in your mind, are you adoring that piece of paper itself, or are you adoring your wife by proxy? The same is true of icons: the honor goes to the prototype, not the icon itself. Further, the Seventh Ecumenical Council put an end to this debate long ago, concluding that he who denies the icon denies the divinity of Christ. By the way, it is convenient that he does not question the authenticity of Saint Epiphanios' supposed iconoclasm. In short, the letter from which the account comes is not authentic. Orthodoxy is the true Church of Christ. There is no other.
John Vougias it was all one christian church in book of acts. Way later on orthodoxy came in during the councils and creeds and officislly formed themselves as orthodoxy. You cant fool us with your own true church claims.
Denise fitness The Church of the first, second and third century taught the same thing as the Church of the fourth centuty and beyond. We know this because we have the writings of the Church Fathers. They all teach the same thing going back to the first century. There are prophecies of the gentiles converting and worshiping God, speaking of the Church, Malachi 1:11says they will burn incense to the Lord. What protestants burn incense? Apostle Paul himself wrote in 1 Timothy 3:15 that the CHURCH is the PILLAR and FOUNDATION of truth because when he wrote it there was no official compiled canon of the New Testament. This completely refutes the doctrine of scripture alone. You are aware the canon of scripture, the Bible was decided upon by that 4th century council amongst others. We have the Bible given to us by the Church and fathers of the Church. How can you deny these Church Fathers when it is upon there testimony that you even know what the scriptures are? The protestant position makes no sense.
Plus, God commands the Israelites to make icons in the OT. But no, let's ignore facts and make up our own...and that's just what happens when you take the Bible outside of the context of the Church, as does this Reformed heretic.
@@adamray8371 Every book in scripture was written before 100 ad. And the church recognized these writings as being from God long before the 4th century. God gave his holy words by the holy ghost to his people. An institution or council did not sanction what He Himself gave in the first place.
How is it ignorant, you said it yourself Doug. Catholic and Orthodox were merged until severe difference separated them on 1084. Orthodox still trace back to before that time. Not sure what point you're making here.
+Ayios Georgios schism is claiming to be the only true church. I recognize the Orthodox Church as a valid Christian church. I am not the schismatic one.
Daniel Foucachon I am not understanding you fully. What are your beliefs? What is your denomination? I do not deny that other Christians may find the grace and mercy of God. I do believe that false teachers whom deny the sanctity of the preserved faith as valid will be in God's grace. From your comment I consider you a part of the ladder ("I recognize the Orthodox Church as a valid Christian church"). I see no quarrels with humble protestants that refrain from judgement and seek God's grace with humility.
+Ayios Georgios I'm a Protestant, and I believe Orthodox and Roman Catholics are part of the Church. God's Church doesn't reside in the East alone. I reject the idea that the West has seen "1,000 years of ecclesiastical dark ages" as a radical (new) convert to EO recent told me. You might say I'm a Reformed Catholic. I'm too Catholic to be Roman or Orthodox. I pray for the unity of the Church, but I believe that can only come when Rome and Constantinople relinquish their schismatic "we alone" ism. And Protestants have lots of heresies to get over too, don't think I don't know we have issues too! We have much to learn from each other, but that starts by recognizing each other. I don't see many EOs doing that, hence the "schism."
Lots of folks from the Orthodox side claiming how wrong this video is, and they never deal with some of the big problems such as iconoclasm, praying to dead saints, and myriad others.
These things have been dealt with myriad times over the last 20 centuries. Protestants, unfortunately, tend to be like the atheists in that they assume that because they have ignorance of the arguments therefore the arguments must not have been made.
That's not even true. I can agree that Martin Luther set a problematic precedent of just splitting over any and every disagreement, although it might be necessary sometimes, but many indovidual groups of Protestant Christians believe more or less the same things on core doctrinal issues, but at one point or another, went off to do their own thing with likeminded individuals over non-essential issies ecause someone or another got lost in the weeds somewhere along the line. There are a few fundamental distinctions between Protestant groups on the macro level, but saying that there are hundreds of thousands of seperate religions altogether is dishonest or ignorantly failing to see the forest for the trees.
People do not know where this number came from. Most of these numbers are due to changes leaders of the same denomination, making it seem as if it is separation. The same source even list many Catholics rites within the number of denominations. You will also find many sects of Jehovah's witnesses, Mormons, etc. You do not know where u pull that number, such a copy and paste response
It’s over 9000!!! Real talk if they had the truth to begin with why is every Protestant denomination essentially protesting each other? They protest the sacraments Christ established and use legalistic thinking to try and argue it. Mostly over wording, many prots I’ve talked to seem to think the. Oboe was written as it is in English right at the time of Jesus and had also been in its current form.
Imagine not knowing this: 1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) prohibits making an image and bowing to it. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Irenaeus, (c. 130-202) in his Against Heresies (1:25;6) says of the Gnostic Carpocratians "They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.." 4. Celsus, a pagan philosopher criticizes Christians for not using images. Origen (184-254) responded by admitting that Christians used no images. He states that Christians “being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues;” Jews and Christians are among “those who cannot allow in the worship of the Di-vine Being altars, or temples, or images.” He mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 5. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote to Constantia Augusta (Op. ii. 1545), the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius. Constantia had asked Eusebius to send her a certain likeness of Christ, of which she had heard. He rebukes her for the request, saying that such representations are inadequate in themselves and tend to idolatry. He states that a foolish woman had brought him two likenesses, which might be philosophers, but were alleged by her to represent St. Paul and the Savior. He had detained them lest they should prove a stumbling-block to her or to others. He reminds Constantia that St. Paul declares his intention of "knowing Christ no longer after the flesh." This letter was quoted by the Iconoclasts, and this led their opponents to rake up all the questionable expressions in his writings, that they might blacken his character for orthodoxy. 6. Epiphanius: (inter 310-320 - 403): Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9: "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.”
@@yeoberry Synod of Elvira, Canon 22: “If people fall from the Catholic church into heresy and then return, let them not be denied penance, since they have acknowledged their sin. Let them be given communion after ten years' penance. If children have been led into heresy, it is not their own fault, and they should be received back immediately.” (web.archive.org/web/20120716202800/faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Canon%20Law/ElviraCanons.htm#Sex%20Bishops,%20presbyters,%20and%20deacons)
This is for u Doug . You said = in min 3:33 they pray through pictures I say= we dont worship (images and icons)doug ! We revere and honor them. let me give you examples:Joshua 7:6=And Joshua rent his clothes, and fell to the earth upon his face before the ark !( Exo 25:18) of the Lord until the eventide ! CHECK Genesis 23:7,psalm 132:7, 1 sam 20:41, 1 sam 25:23-24, 1 sam 25:41, 1 sam 28:14, 2 sam 9:6, 2 sam 14:4, 2 sam 14:22, WE REVERE N HONOUR OUT OF RESPECT, WE DO NOT WORSHIP THE ICONS, JUST LIKE MOSES, JOSUA, N DAVID DID IN ALL THESE VERSES, KEEP STUDY OLD MAN Check also Deu 4:15-16= John 1:14
Waya crazy wolf You said= check these versus Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind,the man Jesus Christ I say= Lets examine 1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus (( WHO GAVE HIMSELF AS A RANSOM FOR ALL PEOPLE )). Now where did i say that Christ did not GAVE HIMSELF AS A RANSOM FOR ALL PEOPLE??? You said= John 14:6 "Jesus said unto him,I am the way,the truth,and the life:no man cometh unto the father,but by me. I say= WHERE DID I SAY that Christ is NOT the way,the truth,and the life and that no man cometh unto the father,but by him???? You said= 1 Samuel chapter 4 is when the Israelite lost the ark because they put too much faith into the box rather than God. Your evidence denied. I say= Are u ok?? , what scripture is that???? Now that i call reloaded and refuted ! Now, we dont worship (images and icons) ! We revere and honor them. let me give you examples:Joshua 7:6=And Joshua rent his clothes, and fell to the earth upon his face before the ark !( Exo 25:18) of the Lord until the eventide ! CHECK Genesis 23:7,psalm 132:7, 1 sam 20:41, 1 sam 25:23-24, 1 sam 25:41, 1 sam 28:14, 2 sam 9:6, 2 sam 14:4, 2 sam 14:22, WE REVERE AND HONOUR OUT OF RESPECT, WE DO NOT WORSHIP THE ICONS, JUST LIKE MOSES, JOSUA, N DAVID DID IN ALL THESE VERSES. Check also Deu 4:15-16= John 1:14
Denise fitness & recovery where do you see it, you must have never gone to a catholic or Orthodox Church. We have statues as representations of holy people we do not pray to statues we ask mary to pray for us we do not pray to her. The statue is an image nothing more we do not pray to statues you are just a Protestant who has no knowledge of ancient Christianity
In Canada and throughout the Commonwealth, it's illegal to deface a coin with the monarch's image on it. Why? Because the understanding has always been that dishonour passes from the defacement of the image to the monarch.
My goodness, I am so saddened by intentional mischaracterizations such as this. We really can do better for one another. -An Orthodox brother in Christ.
If you’re “orthodox” your whole identity is an intentional mischaracterization. The early church strictly prohibited icons. Your sect lies about the early church and then lies about its own history.
Saying something is not an idol does not make it not an idol. Praying to created beings, rather than the Creator, is the very definition of idolatry. It is placing something else in God's stead.
I hadn't been to their site yet, but thanks for directing me there. I just read their article "Refuting Eastern 'Orthodox'" by Bro. Peter Dimond. I think that the article may convince those already confirmed in RC belief, but it failed to convince me. For example, much of the article engages in the "question begging" fallacy of questionable presuppositions used in drawing out a conclusion based on the evidence.
And yet we have icons of the Mother of God in the ancient Christian catacombs. If you don't want to be like the historical Christians don't call yourself a Christian. Also, why did the prophet Moses have large statues of angels placed in the temple when it was conducted? Did he perhaps forget the commandment? Clearly that is not what Jesus was referring to when he gave them to us
That's false. There are no such icons in the catacombs. 1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) prohibits making an image and bowing to it. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Irenaeus, (c. 130-202) in his Against Heresies (1:25;6) says of the Gnostic Carpocratians "They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.." 4. Celsus, a pagan philosopher criticizes Christians for not using images. Origen (184-254) responded by admitting that Christians used no images. He states that Christians “being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues;” Jews and Christians are among “those who cannot allow in the worship of the Di-vine Being altars, or temples, or images.” He mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 5. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote to Constantia Augusta (Op. ii. 1545), the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius. Constantia had asked Eusebius to send her a certain likeness of Christ, of which she had heard. He rebukes her for the request, saying that such representations are inadequate in themselves and tend to idolatry. He states that a foolish woman had brought him two likenesses, which might be philosophers, but were alleged by her to represent St. Paul and the Savior. He had detained them lest they should prove a stumbling-block to her or to others. He reminds Constantia that St. Paul declares his intention of "knowing Christ no longer after the flesh." This letter was quoted by the Iconoclasts, and this led their opponents to rake up all the questionable expressions in his writings, that they might blacken his character for orthodoxy. 6. Epiphanius: (inter 310-320 - 403): Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9: "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.”
1. They are with Christ. 2 Corinthians 5:6-8 2. Christ is with us. Matthew 28:20 3. They are in Christ. 2 Corinthians 5:17 4. Christ is in us. 2 Corinthians 13:5 5. We are part of one body -- the Body of Christ. 1 Corinthians 12:12-14 How can there be death in the Body of Christ? How can there be division in the Body of Christ? 1 Corinthians 12:25 If they are in Christ, and we are in Christ, they are alive to us. Orthodox and Catholics do not pray TO the saints -- they ask the saints to pray FOR them. It is the same as asking a member of your church to pray for you.
First of all, institutions are not the real church of Christ, they may contain members of the body of Christ, but Christ did not die for human institutions we call churches. Christ died for individual people, for their sins, and everyone He gives faith to believe in Him is part of His very body and is the Church...you think material things are the church of God and that is simply not accurate...yes there are physical places we call churches, but the Church is nothing less than all the believers. Do not confuse the Church of Christ with buildings, icons, organizations, etc., you seem to completely miss these Scriptures: John 4:22-24 "You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. 24 God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” Luke 17:20-22 "Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; 21 nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or, ‘There it is!’ For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst."
You must believe your denomination out of the 40,000 is the right one also it's common sense that people believe their church is right because if they didn't why would they be a part of it it's your comment that's laughable
@@alexanderalbano5897 But God doesn't damn the Son, because the whole point, on substitionary atonement doctrines, is that the Son is the only sacrifice that could satisfy God's Justice because it's the sacrifice of someone of infinite value (the Son's divine nature) but it also must be of something that can have damage done to Him (the Son's human nature). The sinlessness of Jesus' human nature, enabled by His divine nature, then means that the payment of sin (death) doesn't apply, so therefore the sacrifice of the Son doesn't have the additional consequence of damning Him. I'm not wedded to substitutionary atonement, but it makes sense and explains the mechanism of atonement quite elegantly. It also makes sense of the the centrality of sacrifices to the Judiac faith.
The iconostasis separates the congregation from the Holy of Holies. It is the same with the screen or curtain in the Jewish Temples. Everything in Orthodoxy has its roots or connection to Scriptures or the Old Temple worship.
1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) prohibits making an image and bowing to it. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Irenaeus, (c. 130-202) in his Against Heresies (1:25;6) says of the Gnostic Carpocratians "They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.." 4. Celsus, a pagan philosopher criticizes Christians for not using images. Origen (184-254) responded by admitting that Christians used no images. He states that Christians “being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues;” Jews and Christians are among “those who cannot allow in the worship of the Di-vine Being altars, or temples, or images.” He mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 5. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote to Constantia Augusta (Op. ii. 1545), the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius. Constantia had asked Eusebius to send her a certain likeness of Christ, of which she had heard. He rebukes her for the request, saying that such representations are inadequate in themselves and tend to idolatry. He states that a foolish woman had brought him two likenesses, which might be philosophers, but were alleged by her to represent St. Paul and the Savior. He had detained them lest they should prove a stumbling-block to her or to others. He reminds Constantia that St. Paul declares his intention of "knowing Christ no longer after the flesh." This letter was quoted by the Iconoclasts, and this led their opponents to rake up all the questionable expressions in his writings, that they might blacken his character for orthodoxy. 6. Epiphanius: (inter 310-320 - 403): Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9: "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.”
@@yeoberry this is absolutely false. The later Ecumenical councils were the authoritative councils, not the earlier ones in Spain. Icons are not worshipped, and have nothing to do with the Commandment of making and worshipping images. Icons are a visual that reminds us of the great cloud of witnesses that we are always surrounded by. Images that are created to be worshipped as God is what this commandment is referencing. Paul even used the “ unknown God” statue in Rome as a vehicle to tell the people about the real God.
One of the most painful things I saw is Protestant missionaries forcing Pacific Islanders to wear Victorian era clothing. Orthodoxy likes to blend with the culture of the people involved.
EO is such bulloney. We want a museum not a living church. We want heritage not the Gospel. An institution not salvation. Im ex orthodox. Brothers: avoid! He's bang on. The narrative of the one true church is nonsense if you deeply research history.
haha what is laughable is that at the end of this clip is an advertisement for a conference featuring Mark Driscoll. You sir, have just completely discredited everything you said in this video with that promotion and association lol
1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) prohibits making an image and bowing to it. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Irenaeus, (c. 130-202) in his Against Heresies (1:25;6) says of the Gnostic Carpocratians "They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.." 4. Celsus, a pagan philosopher criticizes Christians for not using images. Origen (184-254) responded by admitting that Christians used no images. He states that Christians “being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues;” Jews and Christians are among “those who cannot allow in the worship of the Di-vine Being altars, or temples, or images.” He mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 5. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote to Constantia Augusta (Op. ii. 1545), the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius. Constantia had asked Eusebius to send her a certain likeness of Christ, of which she had heard. He rebukes her for the request, saying that such representations are inadequate in themselves and tend to idolatry. He states that a foolish woman had brought him two likenesses, which might be philosophers, but were alleged by her to represent St. Paul and the Savior. He had detained them lest they should prove a stumbling-block to her or to others. He reminds Constantia that St. Paul declares his intention of "knowing Christ no longer after the flesh." This letter was quoted by the Iconoclasts, and this led their opponents to rake up all the questionable expressions in his writings, that they might blacken his character for orthodoxy. 6. Epiphanius: (inter 310-320 - 403): Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9: "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.”
@@yeoberryWow you are totally very very great with keeping things in context. The Council of Elvira is often put forward by Reformed and other iconoclastic Protestants as proof that the early Church opposed images and icons. Some, such as R. Scott Clark, have gone so far as to claim that “the Church was universally opposed to images until the 7th century.” They rely heavily upon Elvira to support such claims. Specifically they appeal to Canon 36 which states, “There shall be no pictures in Churches, lest what is venerated and adored be depicted on the walls.” To understand this statement it is not enough to simply quote it without regards to their ecclesiastical context and import it into ours. We must take a broader look at the Spanish Church and this council. The Spanish Church, as seen in the canons of Elvira, was beset with sexual immorality and idolatry. Because of this, the Spanish took strict and ascetic measures to stem idolatry and fornication. Elvira forbade priests from wearing pagan wreaths and sacrificing to idols (Canon 55), forbidding Christians to watch idol worship (Canon 59), forbidding people marrying their daughters to pagan priests (Canon 17), and forbidding people from profiting in land sales by marking part of the price as a gift to idols (Canon 40). It gave no mercy to those who lapsed into idolatry but wished to repent (Canon 46). Elvira addressed repeat sexual offenders by permanently excommunicating them (Canon 7), permanently excommunicating consecrated virgins who committed fornication (Canon 13), refusing ordination to subdeacon or higher to any who had ever “sinned sexually” (Canon 30), and demands clergy, even if married, to have no sexual relations at all (Canon 33). Clearly the Spanish Church at the beginning of the fourth century had serious issues with idolatry and sexual immorality within the Church. They imposed strict sanctions and pushed for clerical abstinence. Later, at Nicea, the Spanish Church pushed for universal clerical abstinence. They went further than anyone today would feel comfortable going in seeking to stop these sins and showed little grace to those who struggled with sin.
@@yeoberry In that context, let us read again Canon 36, carefully. A careful reading shows that it is assumed that there are Christian images and that they are venerated and adored! That assumption underlies the prohibition of images in Churches. What IS venerated and adored (no condemnation of such veneration is given) should not be seen on the walls of Churches. Why? The reason is clear: to prevent offense and appearance of wrongdoing to pagans entering the Church, as well as to prevent weak or new Christians from struggling with idolatry while trying to worship God! Canon 36 does not say what many Reformed and other iconoclasts claim. It presumes without condemnation the existence and veneration of Christian images. Elvira is therefore evidence that there were common Christian images in the early fourth century. It does not condemn their existence or veneration, but their presence at that time in Spanish Churches for good pastoral reasons as part of broader, very strict code. Additionally, to take a canon of a council (any council) as a universal and objective binding rule is to misunderstand what a canon even is. Canons of councils were pastoral decisions on issues immediately pertinent to the Church and period in which the council took place. While many canons, such as canons against simony or pederasty, are obviously still binding, not every canon of every council is still in effect. No Church on the planet observes all of the Canons of Nicea, yet we consider the Council valid and consider its canons wise given the time and circumstance. The Spanish Church at Elvira was wise to ban at that time images inside Churches, though they arguably went too far with many of the other canons. Furthermore, there is a serious question of authority. Are those who seek to use Canon 36 of Elvira in support of inconoclasm ready to accept it all as authoritative? They seem to be claiming the Canons as Church law and the council as a valid council of the true Church. So they ought to accept Canon 34: “Candles shall not be burned in a cemetery during the day, for the spirits of the saints are not to be disturbed.” If they consider a Church which lights candles in cemeteries for the dead, which is connected to prayers for the dead, to be heretical, why even appeal to Canon 36? How can Elvira be authoritative if it was in fact, by Reformed definition, a council of heretics? And if a president of Nicea approved of lighting candles and prayers for the dead, which they regard as heresy, why accept Nicea? Did Nicea “just happen” to be right? Furthermore, Elvira’s Canon 36 cannot be taken as the general rule of the Church at the time. There is no evidence the Church was universally banning images inside the Churches, and Elvira as noted did not actually oppose the existence and veneration of Christian images. And we have images of Christ from before and after Elvira, in spite of the widespread destruction of images by later Iconoclasts. Additionally, Eusebius (despite a letter supposedly by him first produced by Iconoclasts) speaks of a statue of Christ existing from before his day [Ecclesiastical History, VII.XVIII]. So Elvira cannot be used as evidence that the Church at the time generally rejected Christian images.
@@yeoberry he Council of Elvira sought to stem idolatry and sexual immorality within the Spanish Church; they did so with severe rules. Its canons address the situation in the early fourth century Spanish Church. They do not necessarily apply today nor was Elvira an Ecumenical Council. The presence and veneration of Christian images is assumed and is not condemned in Canon 36. That canon commanded that such Christian images not be painted in the Churches to help stem idolatry and lessen pagan confusion. [cf. Von Funk in “Tübingen Quartalschrift”, 1883, 270-78; Nolte in “Rev. des Sciences ecclésiastiques”, 1877, 482-84; Turmel in “Rev. du clergé français”, 1906, XLV, 508.] Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira cannot be taken out of its conciliar and historical context and used a simple prooftext for iconoclasm. It does not support iconoclasm nor does it state a universal, objective law which is to be applied to other contexts. The Council of Elvira and Canon 36 in particular pose no problem to the use and veneration of Christian images in the Liturgy today
BTW: What about Dura Europos? I was raised Orthodox, and we never prayed to the icons themselves. We used them as tools, and as a small child I was able to grasp this concept. We know those depicted therein are real, and that God, who is ineffable, inconceivable, incomprehensible, ever-existing and eternally the same took on matter, redeemed it, and utilized it for Divine purposes.
Praying to pictures..... Why do we have pictures in our homes of past loved ones? Please visit an Orthodox church and ask them why they "pray to pictures" Let me know in the comments bellow ;-)
1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) prohibits making an image and bowing to it. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Irenaeus, (c. 130-202) in his Against Heresies (1:25;6) says of the Gnostic Carpocratians "They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.." 4. Celsus, a pagan philosopher criticizes Christians for not using images. Origen (184-254) responded by admitting that Christians used no images. He states that Christians “being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues;” Jews and Christians are among “those who cannot allow in the worship of the Di-vine Being altars, or temples, or images.” He mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 5. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote to Constantia Augusta (Op. ii. 1545), the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius. Constantia had asked Eusebius to send her a certain likeness of Christ, of which she had heard. He rebukes her for the request, saying that such representations are inadequate in themselves and tend to idolatry. He states that a foolish woman had brought him two likenesses, which might be philosophers, but were alleged by her to represent St. Paul and the Savior. He had detained them lest they should prove a stumbling-block to her or to others. He reminds Constantia that St. Paul declares his intention of "knowing Christ no longer after the flesh." This letter was quoted by the Iconoclasts, and this led their opponents to rake up all the questionable expressions in his writings, that they might blacken his character for orthodoxy. 6. Epiphanius: (inter 310-320 - 403): Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9: "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.”
This guy is so smug, read Isaiah 44. It's quite explicit. An icon is not an idol, idol is worshiping a false god,. Icons are nearly a way to represent what we cannot see. If one argues an icon of a saint is an idol then one could argue that the Bible itself is an icon. That words themselves are icons. We know reading the Bible is not idol worship. Therefore using icons is not idle worship.
1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) prohibits making an image and bowing to it. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Irenaeus, (c. 130-202) in his Against Heresies (1:25;6) says of the Gnostic Carpocratians "They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.." 4. Celsus, a pagan philosopher criticizes Christians for not using images. Origen (184-254) responded by admitting that Christians used no images. He states that Christians “being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues;” Jews and Christians are among “those who cannot allow in the worship of the Di-vine Being altars, or temples, or images.” He mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 5. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote to Constantia Augusta (Op. ii. 1545), the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius. Constantia had asked Eusebius to send her a certain likeness of Christ, of which she had heard. He rebukes her for the request, saying that such representations are inadequate in themselves and tend to idolatry. He states that a foolish woman had brought him two likenesses, which might be philosophers, but were alleged by her to represent St. Paul and the Savior. He had detained them lest they should prove a stumbling-block to her or to others. He reminds Constantia that St. Paul declares his intention of "knowing Christ no longer after the flesh." This letter was quoted by the Iconoclasts, and this led their opponents to rake up all the questionable expressions in his writings, that they might blacken his character for orthodoxy. 6. Epiphanius: (inter 310-320 - 403): Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9: "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.”
@@yeoberry Appreciate the dialog on this! 1. You didnt address my point about Isaiah 44, (and add to that similar line of rebuttal: There is imagery on the Ark of the Covenant. Solomon’s temple uses images as well). The second commandment is about worshipping false Gods, not about using an image in a setting in which we worship the Holy Trinity. 2. You reference the Council of Elvira. This was not an ecumenical council, it was a synod. I’m sure you’re aware, but the 7th Ecumenical Council deals with iconoclasm explicitly. Either your unaware, or what…you don’t accept it? Why accept the synod you mention but not this council? Elaborate for me. 3-6. You’re aware that Origen was anathematized by the Church. Men can be huge figures in the Church, hold great respect, and write important works…while also being completely wrong about specific matters. The Church is not held in place by any single person, or group of men. But by the entire Church body of Bishops and laity, with Ecumenical Councils used to weed out the heresies and pin down doctrine and dogma. As for the other quotes, I would need to know the broader context. And even if I were to grant you every quote is exactly what it appears to be. This proves nothing. We can cherry pick quotes from certain Fathers and Scripture to prove almost anything we’d like, but we need to look at the bigger picture and how the Church, as a whole, concluded on the issue.
To my knowledge, every archeological dig of early house Churches has found that they had many images: both symbols and primitive iconography. Of course, many of the house Churches and Christian texts of the Epistles, Gospels, and Church Fathers were destroyed in the Diocletian persecutions, yet some survive. Yeoberry, and other sectarians hypocritically use random seemingly iconoclastic quotes - yet, at the most, these quotes would only "prove" that there was a diversity of opinion about images.
You say random iconoclastic quotes. That wording sounds highly disingenuous. Either they are iconoclastic in nature, and not random at all, or not iconoclast and to be disregarded as refutation of an argument. I can’t stand when people try to manipulate arguments with mischaracterizations. This hurts whatever church you purport to support.
Wilson is right. Read this first: "Answering Eastern Orthodox Apologists regarding Icons" www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/answering-eastern-orthodox-apologists-regarding-icons/
In my country (Canada) and throughout the British commonwealth, it is illegal to deface a coin with the Monarch's image on it. Such a crime can incur severe penalties. My question is why would a Protestant British government worry that dishonour may be shown to the Queen by defacing her image, yet someone it is impossible or "superstitious" to show honour to a person by honouring that person's image! How inconsistent is it for Puritans to be iconoclast and yet burn effigies of Guy Fawkes?
1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) prohibits making an image and bowing to it. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Irenaeus, (c. 130-202) in his Against Heresies (1:25;6) says of the Gnostic Carpocratians "They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.." 4. Celsus, a pagan philosopher criticizes Christians for not using images. Origen (184-254) responded by admitting that Christians used no images. He states that Christians “being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues;” Jews and Christians are among “those who cannot allow in the worship of the Di-vine Being altars, or temples, or images.” He mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 5. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote to Constantia Augusta (Op. ii. 1545), the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius. Constantia had asked Eusebius to send her a certain likeness of Christ, of which she had heard. He rebukes her for the request, saying that such representations are inadequate in themselves and tend to idolatry. He states that a foolish woman had brought him two likenesses, which might be philosophers, but were alleged by her to represent St. Paul and the Savior. He had detained them lest they should prove a stumbling-block to her or to others. He reminds Constantia that St. Paul declares his intention of "knowing Christ no longer after the flesh." This letter was quoted by the Iconoclasts, and this led their opponents to rake up all the questionable expressions in his writings, that they might blacken his character for orthodoxy. 6. Epiphanius: (inter 310-320 - 403): Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9: "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.”
@@yeoberry I'm not completely sure what your response was for, though I could probably guess. I was not defending images in churches. I was saying try again to the claim that the Roman Catholic came before Orthodoxy. The latter preceded the former. Moreover, the Roman Catholic Church, despite certain aspects of orthodox creeds, is an aberration and distortion from the way Jesus established New Testament and Apostolic Christianity.
Though I couldn't agree more; too often it seems people conflate theological knowledge with salvation. Intellectualizing eases discomfort with the raw exposure of repentance. The 12 (and the thousands of other believers of the so-called Acts church) seemed to get along okay without the writings of the guys who came after them in the following centuries; how'd they do it? Must mean, following Jesus is not dependent on lifting up the traditions of the church fathers as equal to Scripture...weird..
8 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me. 9 But he said to me, “Don’t do that! I am a fellow servant with you and with your fellow prophets and with all who keep the words of this scroll. Worship God!”
@yeoberry You avoided answering my question about which aspect of "church history" you have a Ph.D in? What was your thesis about? Have you ever bothered to read "On the Divine Images" by St John of Damascus? This was one book, which convinced me that Calvinism was ahistorical and patently wrong - and I was a very staunch Calvinist. Have you bothered to study what the 7th Ecumenical Council had to say? You seem totally unable to address the questions posed to you - especially the argument that
Doesn't Jesus give a new commandment - to "love each other as I have loved you" ? Doesn't God say "do you think a building can contain Me?" Of course church order developed - but the greater church is without doubt the unity we all have in Jesus. Or do you think Almighty God unable to perceive past the words "I join the orthodox church" into the faith of the person who says them? How then could allegiance to a tradition ever be more important than the decision to follow Jesus? It could not.
Amen. Indeed. I understand their gripe with modern evangelical churches. I share the same gripe and I share a ton of the same views as they do on eschatology, etc., but it really does boil down to Jesus over men. There's an arrogance there. If Christ isn't the model to which everything else is judged, then we can go astray. Holy water? How is that pertaining to Jesus? It's frustrating. Each group sitting, pointing fingers at the other. If you have the gospel correct, you're doing well for yourself. I do appreciate many Orthodox people and do agree with them on many things, but salvation is NOT by works. If Jesus and the Apostles (the men who literally walked with Jesus.... not men 100 years later) didn't say that, then we need to throw away our Bibles and just listen to history instead.
1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) prohibits making an image and bowing to it. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Irenaeus, (c. 130-202) in his Against Heresies (1:25;6) says of the Gnostic Carpocratians "They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.." 4. Celsus, a pagan philosopher criticizes Christians for not using images. Origen (184-254) responded by admitting that Christians used no images. He states that Christians “being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues;” Jews and Christians are among “those who cannot allow in the worship of the Di-vine Being altars, or temples, or images.” He mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 5. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote to Constantia Augusta (Op. ii. 1545), the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius. Constantia had asked Eusebius to send her a certain likeness of Christ, of which she had heard. He rebukes her for the request, saying that such representations are inadequate in themselves and tend to idolatry. He states that a foolish woman had brought him two likenesses, which might be philosophers, but were alleged by her to represent St. Paul and the Savior. He had detained them lest they should prove a stumbling-block to her or to others. He reminds Constantia that St. Paul declares his intention of "knowing Christ no longer after the flesh." This letter was quoted by the Iconoclasts, and this led their opponents to rake up all the questionable expressions in his writings, that they might blacken his character for orthodoxy. 6. Epiphanius: (inter 310-320 - 403): Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9: "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.”
@@bigger_mibber6029 : I'm just showing what the early church believed. Your sect broke away from the teachings of the early church. It teaches you to refuse to listen to the truth because if you do, you'll leave that sect. I have the teachings of the early church. You have only the lies of your self-serving, semi-pagan, medieval sect.
"Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men" ~ Tertullian (The Prescription against Heretics: Chapter 32).
"All doctrine must be prejudged as false which savors of disagreement with the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours ... has its origin in the tradition of the apostles ... We hold communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no respect different from theirs. This is our witness of truth." (Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, 21) "...those churches which, although they do not derive their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. (The Prescription against Heretics, 32)
Reading the books of the New Testament, we probably asked ourselves more than once: *"Why 2000 years we do not see those miracles that accompanied the Сhurch of Christ in the I century, as described in the New Testament?"* Why do the so-called preachers of Christ have to prove that Jesus really existed and atheists boldly deny the historicity or divine origin of Christ? Maybe because the Сhurch of Christ has not existed for 2000 years? The Сhurch does not exist in the form in which it is presented in the books of the New Testament, but there are Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant and other christian sects claiming to be the place of the Church, but they not have the only thing that distinguishes the divine from the human and is characteristic of just the Сhurch of Christ -the reinforcement of the word with signs, that is, miracles (Mark 16:15-20). Therefore, some researchers doubt the historicity of Christ, and some of them are not opposed to declaring him a an ordinary philosopher, teacher. But even if Jesus were an ordinary philosopher, his disciples would be ordinary followers of Jesus. And they would not dare to write about the miracles that not only Jesus, but also his disciples, could perform. If there were the Church in our time as described by the authors of the New Testament books, where miracles are performed, the sick are healed, where prophesied, and the dead are raised, no one would doubt the historicity of Christ. Then there would be the same controversy throughout the world as in the first century - Jesus the Son of God or the false prophet who seduces the world by miracles. As a result, we can say that the emergence and development of christian sects and atheism was the result of the fact that over the 2000 years the Сhurch of Christ did not exist. Find *"The Mystery about the Church of Christ"* video on UA-cam. The video reveals the prophecy of the disappearance and reappearance of the Church of Christ before the End of the World. Watching this video will give hope to all who sincerely seek God and will interest those who are not too lazy to think freely. Click on my name to watch the video (The video is in Russian, but English subtitles are included).
1Kings 8:54 When Solomon had finished praying this entire prayer and supplication to the LORD, he arose from before the altar of the LORD, from kneeling on his knees with his hands spread toward heaven. So Solomon worshiped the alter?? uhh, no!
While there were certainly references to holy icons made by the Orthodox Church Fathers like St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Gregory of Nysaa, St. John Chrysostom and the Synod in Trullo, the need for a strong defense of icons did not arise until the early 8th century when the iconoclastic controversy began.
Then the master of that servant was moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt. But that servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and he laid hands on him and took him by the throat, saying, ‘Pay me what you owe!’ So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’” (Matthew 18:23-29). Here (relative) worship is shown from the servant to the master.
As Orthodox Christians we find Christ through Prayer not reason. The question of Iconoclasim was settled in the 9th Century. We venerate Icons not worship them. We are led otherwise by tradition and the scriptures. You are welcome to return to the Ancient Church at any time.
Well, I remember being an arrogant Protestant thinking I would go after the Orthodox and Catholic's. I got my keester handed to me in love. I resisted and fought it until the church's Christology was too much for my piddly Calvinistic defences. So pray for him and others to see the truth and beauty of the faith once for all delivered.
One of my brothers has shown that Eusebius elsewhere approves of the image "made without hands" icon and recorded it in his writings. Jesus himself made an icon of himself and had it sent to the King of Edessa. Nevertheless, no one person, even a Church Father, is infallible - only Ecumenical Councils (i.e. the Church in Council) are infallible (1 Tim 3:15)!
If you are Roman Catholic, your church shared the same rich apostolic and doctrinal heritage as the Orthodox Church for the first thousand years of its history, since during the first millennium they were one and the same Church. Lamentably, in 1054, the Pope of Rome broke away from the other four Apostolic Patriarchates (which include Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem), by tampering with the Original Creed of the Church, and considering himself to be infallible. Thus your church is 1,000 years old.
Just for reference: 1 John 2:27 - The anointing you received from Him remains in you, and you don't need anyone to teach you. Instead, His anointing teaches you about all things and is true and is not a lie; just as He has taught you, remain in Him. John 16:12-13 "I still have many things to tell you, but you can't bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth." Matt. 23:10 "And do not be called masters either, because you have one Master, the Messiah."
The Icon is a representation of the Saint, and kissing icon or giving a gift is to show respect in a sense to the saint and to show to people and the angelic hosts that you are giving honor to them no one can read your mind except God. Faith is action not only words.
@@winniefindstheway I would love for you to do some real research about idolatry. You can read the Bible first, or if you don't take that seriously, you can look at secular understandings of idolatry and how it actually functioned before christianity. Or you could read about modern cultures which still practice idolatry. As a modern person, with 2000 years of separation from any real idolatry, I understand how you could mistake the two, but that is only ignorance, and you should really learn about what you're claiming to understand.
@@PhilosophyOfNoa Hinduism has the same practice of veneration of their version of saints know as gurus... buddhism and islam also hold to these practices... Janism too holds a version of this practice... I rather worship God alone... Jesus is our only mediator and He and the Holy Spirit's intercession is the only intercession that is biblical... I don't care about traditions of man I care what the bible actually says... and it sure doesn't give pictures of saints magical powers... or tell us it's ok to kiss them or give them gifts... it actually forbids that practice
@@winniefindstheway No, it actually does not forbid those things, or say that there aren't intercessors between men and Jesus, that is an unbiblical opinion.
@ Yeo Most of the Church Fathers were and (continue to be to this day) "priests" or bishops (who were made priests before being elevated to the episcopacy). So again, thank you for clearly demonstrating that Baptists are a radically different religion from Orthodox Catholic Christianity. Baptists can claim no support from Fathers, Councils, or the canonized Bible, since all are "tainted" by "priestcraft" (to borrow the term of Charles Spurgeon") Lol.
@@CornerTalker You’re comment amounts to weak ad hominem. Either there is a central authority for understanding scripture, or... everyone is their own authority. Which way western man?
@@GS-cj7rf Church fathers vs Scripture is a false dichotomy. Scripture never stands alone, and it’s disingenuous for any denomination to imply otherwise. Every denom has its paradigm of an accepted range of interpretation that has been established by denominational consensus. Name your denomination and we can decide if it actually adheres to “sola scriptural” or if it ironically defaults to a consensus authority to validate what the scripture means.
“I kiss my wife not other women” 2 questions Would you kiss a picture of your wife? Would you kiss your mother? Even St Paul speaks of kissing other believers as a greeting. So right here we see the are valid and rightly ordered exceptions to this rule you made up The bible never forbids the use of religious images for liturgy, only worship/adoration/submission to false Gods or depictions of false Gods. Idolatry is placing your end in the creature Bible study class is not a covenant with God
He is definitely a heretic. If one was to read Acts, then one would understand that the church grew as a community of worshippers. Certain practices and teachings became apparent as the church developed. It isn't just a matter of believing in Christ, but being a part of the community and Communion that brings us closer to God.
I know this is 7 years ago, but the necessity of community as mentioned in Acts does not then mean that their traditions and teachings (other than the Bible) hold as much weight as scripture. If it were necessary to practice the correct traditions as well, would the Bible not say something other than it's consistent stance that you are saved only through grace by faith in Jesus Christ, not by anything that you yourself do (like practice the proper traditions). Obviously the Bible describes the best way to go about living, but it doesn't seem to imply that belief in Christ needs anything else to validate salvation. (Unless you also choose to misinterpret the places where the Bible is talking about salvation on earth from certain things, as not every time salvation is translated does it mean the eternal salvation you receive from Christ through Faith.)? (Btw I still want to understand EO because I still have much to learn and much I may be mistaken on).
@@vibeauxssxuaebiv3489 there's a verse in the epistles that clearly commends a church for carrying on the instructions of the apostles through letters and WORD of mouth. I.e tradition. So they do hold just as much weight.
@@lorenioooooas And yet is it not true that many of the traditions practiced are ones that were created since that was written. And if that ie the case, sure they could have good meaning, but that would make them the traditions of man and many then turn into pointless repetition. Then it would come down to an understanding of Church authority and there is a good argument against the interpretation that is held by both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. (But it's at least clear by actions alone that the Catholic church has been corrupted according to both their history and present.)
+Daniel Sarmas I'm not a Roman Catholic, but I'd like to offer a perspective on this. In the eastern understanding it is not equated to as what one would understand worship which belongs only to God. Hmmm bear with me I'm going to give my best attempt and see if I can perhaps help your western mind understand it from an eastern perspective. Regarding bowing down: For example: ever notice how the Chinese or the Japanese (others in the east as well) bow down when they greet someone who is their perhaps their elder. It isn't worship, but rather more so taking a stance of humility and respect towards an elder. Another example: I born and raised in India. In our culture we greet our elders (mother/father/grandparents etc.) by bending down and touching their feet. And in return the elders will say something like - May God bless you richly. It's a sign of honor and respect. lol we do realize they are human beings and not God. It's culturally nonsensical to say that we're worshipping them. And as for kissing bit: For example: a soldier who is deployed at war and away from his beloved wife and children, keeps pictures of them in his wallet and every night he kisses their those pictures before he goes to bed as a sign of his love and longing to be reunited with them. Another example: A widow whose husband has passed on may find comfort and solace in kissing the picture of her deceased husband in her longing to someday be reunited with him once she has met her grave as he. The Ecclesia - the body of Christ is a family of believers, whether departed or alive. Christ has only one body. So even the departed believers / beloved Saints are indeed still part of the family. Kissing the drawings or paintings of them is really no different than the soldier or the widow kissing the pictures of their loved ones who at the moment are physically afar from them. I hope that makes sense. ☺
Preet Wilson When a person bows before their elders, in order to show respect and honor, they don't do that in a religious context. None of the examples you gave are done in a religious context. When a Catholic bows down before a statue of Mary and prays to her, no one would deny that that is done in a religious context, and therefore it is worship, and since that worship is addressed to a creature rather than to the Creator, it is idolatry. Revelation 22:8-9 "I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed me these things. 9 But he said to me, “Do not do that. I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets and of those who heed the words of this book. Worship God.”
Daniel Sarmas Notice what Scripture states - I fell down "to worship" at the feet of the Angel John fell down to the feet of the Angel with the intention of worship. This was the reason within his heart for why he was doing what he was doing. Intent is prior to content. If the intention is worship, then of course it is indeed wrong. But if the intention is merely honor and respect in remembrance, of one Saint to another, then that is hardly the equivalency of worship which is solely owed to God. Christ judges the inward contents of a man, not the outward. The intentions of the heart defile a person. If it were the outward acts, deeds and rituals, then Jesus would have not have called the Pharisees - outward white washed tombs.
"Christ judges the inward contents of a man, not the outward." Wrong. Matthew 7:17-20 "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 So then, you will know them by their fruits." Romans 2:5-6 "But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS" "Notice what Scripture states - I fell down "to worship" at the feet of the Angel" The New Testament wasn't written in English, but in Koine Greek. The word προσκυνέω means: 1. to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence 2. among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence 3. in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank -to the Jewish high priests -to God -to Christ -to heavenly beings -to demons The word προσκυνέω was translated as "worship" in Revelation 22:8-9 because it was done in a religious worship. And you have not addressed my previous comment, let me re-post it here: When a person bows before their elders, in order to show respect and honor, they don't do that in a religious context. None of the examples you gave are done in a religious context. When a Catholic bows down before a statue of Mary and prays to her, no one would deny that that is done in a religious context, and therefore it is worship, and since that worship is addressed to a creature rather than to the Creator, it is idolatry.
Yes, but despite having eaten pancakes for my breakfast in conquering, victorious fashion and made all manner of mess, I can confirm that the validity of pancakes as a construct of reality remains intact and undisturbed despite my best efforts. It's possible that trying to destroy things by our own efforts doesn't actually change anything.
1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) prohibits making an image and bowing to it. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” 3. Irenaeus, (c. 130-202) in his Against Heresies (1:25;6) says of the Gnostic Carpocratians "They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.." 4. Celsus, a pagan philosopher criticizes Christians for not using images. Origen (184-254) responded by admitting that Christians used no images. He states that Christians “being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues;” Jews and Christians are among “those who cannot allow in the worship of the Di-vine Being altars, or temples, or images.” He mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 5. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote to Constantia Augusta (Op. ii. 1545), the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius. Constantia had asked Eusebius to send her a certain likeness of Christ, of which she had heard. He rebukes her for the request, saying that such representations are inadequate in themselves and tend to idolatry. He states that a foolish woman had brought him two likenesses, which might be philosophers, but were alleged by her to represent St. Paul and the Savior. He had detained them lest they should prove a stumbling-block to her or to others. He reminds Constantia that St. Paul declares his intention of "knowing Christ no longer after the flesh." This letter was quoted by the Iconoclasts, and this led their opponents to rake up all the questionable expressions in his writings, that they might blacken his character for orthodoxy. 6. Epiphanius: (inter 310-320 - 403): Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9: "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.”
@@yeoberry orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2020/04/23/answering-john-carpenters-aniconist-historical-arguments/amp/ That aniconist nonsense of John Carpenter has been answered. Look it up.
I really have been blessed by what "Doug" has to say on his podcast of recent times.....I am so sad to see that he clearly has not even bothered to look into Orthodoxy at all . I also believed there was nothing there to see but the Lord led me to read some of the Orthodox Saints of the very early centuries and some that were in Greece and Russia in the 19th century and even some recognized Saints writings of recent times......If you read the early church fathers writings the Holy Spirit fills their words with truth and life ...... the depth of the words of those Saints made me look deeper into the earliest Orthodox traditions of Christianity and to hear what they had to say for themselves about what they are doing in their worship.....
"It is not Scripture alone that guides the church, but the Oral Traditions" That was my point. But you said over and over that all your traditions can be found in Scriptures. Yet, I proved you wrong cause you cant prove that the processions of the rolls, the Kairos, the assumption of Mary among many others, can be found in Scriptures. Blessings!
The way Protestants (I’m “Protestant” ) misrepresent iconography etc and refuse to even consider what it actually is and represents, is enough to make me question Protestantism entirely. It’s incredibly dishonest and uncharitable, and The extent to which I hear them all do it it in the same way is kind of mind blowing. I’m not Catholic or Orthodox, but the way fellow Protestants talk about Catholicism and Greek Orthodox is enough to make me think I’m on the wrong side and in the wrong church. Truth is truth.
“They don’t know what the Church was like in the 2nd century” well it damn sure wasn’t Pastor Bobs Community Tabernacle
No, but that doesn't change anything. We've all got it wrong. It's high time we admit it.
@Alexandre Ventura orthodoxy ain’t all gold cathedrals dude. When the church was in the catacombs they weren’t doing self help seminars, they were doing Liturgy and Eucharist
Damn he deleted his comment
How do we not know what happened at that council? The minutes were recorded. CCEL.org if you want to look them up! Or just compare each church to the Didache. Or just research history. Or simply follow the lineage of each Apostle to each bishop. It's not really all that hard . It takes an open mind and an inquisitive spirit to trace it back. The Orthodox Church is the only church that matches up with all this.
Pastor Bob's Friendship, Politically Correct vibes Community Congregation 🥰😇🥳😎
Its ironic because one of the driving forces that led me and my family of 11 into the Holy Orthodox Church was that one day i was sitting in the balcony of our reformed baptist church, and i was struck with a terrifying thought ... if the apostles or any Christian of the first 4 (or 15) centuries wandered in here, would they even recognize this as worship or a Church? The thought never left me and the answer was clear. Several weeks later my wife suggested that we just make a visit to the Orthodox Church down the road. We did so the following week and it was a wrap . Best decision our family ever made. Glory to Jesus Christ!☦️☦️☦️
He says that the Orthodox claim of the Eucharist is false and that no such evidence exists. He must deny Church fathers such as St. Ignatius, who was a direct disciple of St. John the Apostle, who specifically defends the real presence of the Eucharist. What he has done is claimed that those traditions are garbage and replaced them with traditions of his own liking, while claiming that his traditions are more Christian and authentic, what a bunch of rubbish.
Yeah, but proponents of sola scriptura don't (and can't) care too much about the Church Fathers. I'm actually disappointed that Dr. Wilson doesn't know a little more about Eastern Orthodoxy or, at least, how to give it an honest voice in his answers regarding the EOC.
Yes, that's the problem isn't it? He must reject Christianity history, including those who personally knew the Apostles, Church Fathers in order to make his interpretation of the scriptures work, which is a sad notion.
It is a sad notion. It is one characteristic most protestant denominations (and traditions) have in common with the cults: the rejection of the authority of the apostles and Holy Tradition. Deny the fathers, and you deny orthodoxy (i.e., right belief/worship/thinking).
Even if you want to reject Christian tradition, it's pretty clear from the Bible itself... Jesus said, "This is my body." and "This is my blood." He also said "I am the bread of life." It also relates to the old testament. Just like the Israelites would partake in the lamb sacrificed on Passover, we do the same with Jesus' sacrifice during communion. All you have to do is let go of your biases and read the Word of God for yourself! It will lead you to the truth!
@@DanPrinMan You never read systematic theology of the Reformation, by far the most important work of the Reformation....The Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin...because if you did, you would shut up immediately. Calvin quotes the church fathers more than any orthodox writers....you people have no idea what you are talking about, read before you open your mouth. You can find the Institutes free online at a couple of different websites, www.ccel.org is one of them.
In the divine Liturgy we all (as Orthodox Christians) stand in the presence of the Divine and it matters little if our ancestors were Greek, Macedonian, German, etc. As a senior Deacon in the OCA whom I know says when people of the orthodox community act poorly, as humans often do, (through a wry smile) "No seriously, this church is the bride of Christ."
Macedonians we are Greeks.
It's pretty clear from his ill-informed responses that Wilson has never attended an Orthodox service or studied Orthodoxy in any depth at all.
Its pretty clear that all his responses on any questions are ill -informed .Every subject same story..Just talks shit..
I know Doug Wilson needs to go to confession and get chrismated.
Ehh, I follow a orthodox group on social media to find the perspective of an average orthodox member. Unfortunately, I find them to be just as unreasonable and unintelligent as sects they mock. I was hoping to find something different with orthodoxy. I find exactly what you mention though. Caricatures of Protestantism from people who know nothing about it other than “not true church”.
It shows the same about Eastern Orthodox incase of Reformed doctrines and teachings. Thinking they understand, never enlightened by God Himself about the Reformation and the teachings.
@@ChrisTisking12256 you can't base your Christian faith off of a few people on the internet.
Some thoughts on idols vs. icons...
First, some Hebrew words for idol are pasal and tselem. Pasal implies a hand fashioned image, which can be positive or negative, and which is completely controllable by human whims. Tselem means shadow... Something that has no substance on its own, or something that is not really deity; a phantom if you will. This did not mean that human designed or manufactured items/images never had a place in ancient worship.
Even the Hebrews fashioned angelic beings to sit atop the Ark of the Covenant and the curtains in the tabernacle. The Ark was the mercy seat and meeting place between God and man, to which man (namely the High Priest) looked toward symbolically to gaze upon the invisible God. The angels weren't seen as God, nor were they worshiped, but they were graven images in a manufactured sense and contained only their appropriate meaning in context of God. Likewise, the word sometimes used for image/idol is also used of humanity--we are the tselem of God. In other words, we are created in the shadow of God. We can never fully be like God, but we mirror God in many ways as the pinnacle of His creation.
So, this is how the ancient Church used icons.These were artistic symbols of an invisible and eternal reality... Not an empty shadow or controllable thing like an idol. Just as angels on the Ark spoke to the humility of a created class of beings at the throne, icons are seen as windows into a reality; not shadows of something insubstantial, but shadows of something profound and of real substance. Images have consistently been revered (honored for the reality the point to and not substance they actually contain) in Christendom, whether a fish, a cross, or loaves of bread, all the way to icons.
Another way to think about it is as a photo album of long lost relatives. The photos themselves aren't worshiped, but serve as reminders of real meaning and affection. How many people kiss the photos of their spouse when absent for any time away? Affection showed to an icon is not worship, it is connectivity to a real person through the mental exercise of being reminded. After all, those who have passed into God's presence are no less real than when they were physically with us. Therefore, images help of transcend the mystery of time and space in communion and fellowship. They aren't truly dead if they're with Christ.
Furthermore, Orthodox do not worship these images, nor do they pray "to" them as if they were deities. When they pray using the images as connective to a transcendent reality, they are merely seeking intercession. Obviously, our only necessary high priest is Christ, who is perfectly capable of hearing our prayers alone, yet we still confess our sins and seek intercessory prayers from brothers and sisters in Christ in this life, so if they're [those who have passed] eternally alive, they are alive and still capable for interceding, especially in their proximity to Christ. Plus, the Church is the Body of Christ, visible and invisible (includes the dead in Christ, who aren't truly dead, just not yet resurrected), so it is responsible for functioning by the Spirit in the work of Christ, which includes prayer for one another.
Clearly, the bias against icons is built upon presuppositions and not historicity, except where it supports a view of contention. The suspicions of icons in the Church [iconoclasts] is probably influenced by Islamic pushes into historic Christian areas, whereby their hypersensitivity over imagery was influential historically. Let's not throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water, shall we.
@reno moore God also said so it. So what’s the principle. Protestants need to realize the letter kills, but the spirit gives life.
1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) prohibits making an image and bowing to it.
2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.”
3. Irenaeus, (c. 130-202) in his Against Heresies (1:25;6) says of the Gnostic Carpocratians "They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.."
4. Celsus, a pagan philosopher criticizes Christians for not using images. Origen (184-254) responded by admitting that Christians used no images. He states that Christians “being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues;” Jews and Christians are among “those who cannot allow in the worship of the Di-vine Being altars, or temples, or images.” He mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.)
5. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote to Constantia Augusta (Op. ii. 1545), the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius. Constantia had asked Eusebius to send her a certain likeness of Christ, of which she had heard. He rebukes her for the request, saying that such representations are inadequate in themselves and tend to idolatry. He states that a foolish woman had brought him two likenesses, which might be philosophers, but were alleged by her to represent St. Paul and the Savior. He had detained them lest they should prove a stumbling-block to her or to others. He reminds Constantia that St. Paul declares his intention of "knowing Christ no longer after the flesh." This letter was quoted by the Iconoclasts, and this led their opponents to rake up all the questionable expressions in his writings, that they might blacken his character for orthodoxy.
6. Epiphanius: (inter 310-320 - 403): Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9:
"I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person."
He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.”
@@yeoberry And Leviticus 20:13 proscribes a certain degenerate activity (also proscribed by name in the NT, btw) with a very clear prescription (death), and yet you prots don't busy yourself in enforcing the OT law you worship so hard! With that said, there is no mention of Ex 20:4 any time when Christ himself lists the Commandments. Not once does He mention it. It would seem to me that the Incarnate Word would be pretty specific on this point if He meant what you believe in, but then again, the Incarnation changed...well...quite a lot. The Synod of Elvira wasn't a ecumenical council thus doesn't have much to say for the Church as the Body of Christ. Do a better reading the quote of Irenaeus you provided yourself and you'll see that his issue was placing worldly philosophers alongside Christ as if they were equal. The lette you mention is attributed to Eusebius, but the authorship is uncertain. In sum: if you're going to be all in for the OT law, then get out and do it all. Don't cherry pick and don't claim Christ fulfilled it when you actually believe He meant that we ought to apply it super-duper hard instead.
Icon veneration is demonic. I was an ordained EO reader in the Greek Church in the UK. God delivered me from all this deception. Don't be fooled by the Orthodox spin. It messed me up for 9; years but praise God He opened my eyes.
I was raised and currently part of the protestant church. These days I'm starting to question the sanity of Modern American Protestantism. Just look at how many false teachers it produced, how many different denominations was birthed, how many different cults spawned, how many different heresies created and it's plain to see that something is terribly wrong. The orthodox church is becoming very interesting after doing some research into their history, doctrine and practices. Planning on attending a Vesper to check it out in person.
Glad you’re starting to see the error in Protestantism. I became EO after a year of reading the apostolic fathers and much prayer to the Holy Spirit to guide me into truth. I got rid of all my biases and preconceived notions and just ask the Holy Spirit to lead me to wherever the truth. I hope you make your way to the One Church soon. God bless may God grant you clarity and guidance.
If a year ago, someone told me - a hard core Protestant - that I will ever become an Orthodox, I would laugh in their face.
Today I'm an Orthodox Christian, and I can't be happier about it.
@@Aleksandr-Herman been attending an Orthodox Church, Anthiochian since then. if you have genuine faith in Jesus, I highly recommend checking out an Eastern Orthodox Church
@@ganktuh Glory be to Jesus Christ!
I converted to Orthodoxy this year and attending Russian Orthodox Church since last summer.
I too am a convert from the Baptist Church. I early on questioned the symbolism of everything when in the Bible it sounded more important, ie baptism, communion, etc. I’m so blessed that I was clearly lead to the Orthodox Church by St. Seraphim of Russia. I’ve never known such love and joyful tears just being in the presence of Christ Jesus in His temple! I pray today for the Protestants that they too may know the fullness of the faith.
1. His first statement that it is laughable that we the Eastern ORthodox (eo for short) are not as if not more ancient than RCC(roman catholic) is in fact laughable and ahistorical.
2. Our stance on the split is that ROME left the church not that we split mutually in error, but one was in error and it was rome. This is a rather silly stance Doug has taken.
3. A single bishop disagreeing on a stance doesn't "change" or mean we have changed it means we held councils to hammer out the issues hence the 7 ecumenical councils.
4. Notice how Doug qualifies his statement. They don't know what the church was like in the second century...first yes we do we have numerous saints and bishops who spoke on these things. Second it is rather presumptuous of you to say you know better than the Saints of the church. Church history is what the Church believed and anyone who looks at for example the earliest councils will know that it was Orthodox.
5. If you can't trust the councils you should throw out all your scripture completely. It was in fact those councils that were led by the Holy spirit to put the Bible together...so you are suggesting that they had the Holy spirit for the Bible, but all the other things they said in those councils were false and not led by Holy spirit? Nonsense.
6. Through Western Eyes while a decent take on a Protestant perspective on EO it does not in fact understand the core differences between EO and Prots. Also the book concluded that their is A LOT reformed and prots could learn from EO.
Maybe the reason you can learn a lot is cause we haven't changed and remain true to the original teachings. Notice Prots never go to the Early church fathers for information on what the Church was like or what we believed it is always some modern theologian or scholar...this is suspect imho.
7. Last point he said was false the Bible doesn't say not to pray through pictures. It says not pray to Idols or graven images...look up idol and graven images. Icons do not meet that standard at all. Also we are not praying to saints or anyone besides Christ. When we "pray" to a saint we are asking that person who (is alive in Christ since you know the Cross matters) still alive and can pray for us the same way our grandparents or sisters or brothers would.
"Notice Prots never go to the Early church fathers for information on what the Church was like or what we believed it is always some modern theologian or scholar...this is suspect imho." If you're going to go to the effort of dismissing Doug Wilson as ill-informed and having never engaged properly with EO, don't then retort in likewise ill-informed fashion betraying clear signs that you've never engaged properly with 'Prots' on this issue, just because you happen to have not looked into it. Just because DudeBro Joe the cool guy pastor at your local semi-evangelical circus couldn't tell his Polycarps from his own buttocks and thinks the church emerged in the second century singing second-rate U2 songs with acoustic guitars, doesn't actually mean the historical Reformers as well as plenty of Reformed and/or Protestant laypeople and pastors today don't exist who love and cherish and read the early church fathers without difficulty or fear of contradiction (and, crucially, ALL of the church fathers' words).
It's really trendy right now to convert to Orthodoxy, mainly because of cheesy mega church culture and Israel worship heresy in the "Protestant" churches, BUT..... give it time and some of these people will see the flaws in your system too. All trends die. You guys can LARP all you want that you're the ancient church, but it's nowhere near as smoothly traced back as you guys let on.
Isn't it no wonder WHY the World is as effed up as it is?
Even Christian Faith is divided... And let's not mention those who've turned their backs on God altogether.
Stay faithful.
Remain Vigilant.
1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) prohibits making an image and bowing to it.
2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.”
3. Irenaeus, (c. 130-202) in his Against Heresies (1:25;6) says of the Gnostic Carpocratians "They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.."
4. Celsus, a pagan philosopher criticizes Christians for not using images. Origen (184-254) responded by admitting that Christians used no images. He states that Christians “being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues;” Jews and Christians are among “those who cannot allow in the worship of the Di-vine Being altars, or temples, or images.” He mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.)
5. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote to Constantia Augusta (Op. ii. 1545), the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius. Constantia had asked Eusebius to send her a certain likeness of Christ, of which she had heard. He rebukes her for the request, saying that such representations are inadequate in themselves and tend to idolatry. He states that a foolish woman had brought him two likenesses, which might be philosophers, but were alleged by her to represent St. Paul and the Savior. He had detained them lest they should prove a stumbling-block to her or to others. He reminds Constantia that St. Paul declares his intention of "knowing Christ no longer after the flesh." This letter was quoted by the Iconoclasts, and this led their opponents to rake up all the questionable expressions in his writings, that they might blacken his character for orthodoxy.
6. Epiphanius: (inter 310-320 - 403): Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9:
"I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person."
He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.”
You guys pray to saints? That's idolatrous and unbiblical.
I love it how he said "that's simply historically ignorant," then he went on and proved himself to be historically ignorant AND culturally ignorant AND theologically ignorant. That's a lot of ignorance. . .
So, I guess you’re a pagan “orthodox”. Roman Catholics and orthodox are the same! Pagans!
I find your unsubstantiated claim interesting.
@@Parks179-hI find your rebuttal of his allegedly unsubstantiated claim even more amusing.
@@icxcnika7722 assuming? Casper called willing “historically and culturally ignorant” and didn’t point to any issue. Then stated, “that’s a lot of ignorance.”
That’s not assuming, my friend. So, yes, I stand by my claim.
@@Parks179-h where did I say anything about assuming?
I said amusing..
Guy has never stepped foot into an Orthodox Church
Original Sinner he’d be all offended due to his form of holiness that denies it’s true power..😏😏☦️💖
Definitely not
1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) prohibits making an image and bowing to it.
2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.”
3. Irenaeus, (c. 130-202) in his Against Heresies (1:25;6) says of the Gnostic Carpocratians "They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.."
4. Celsus, a pagan philosopher criticizes Christians for not using images. Origen (184-254) responded by admitting that Christians used no images. He states that Christians “being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues;” Jews and Christians are among “those who cannot allow in the worship of the Di-vine Being altars, or temples, or images.” He mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.)
5. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote to Constantia Augusta (Op. ii. 1545), the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius. Constantia had asked Eusebius to send her a certain likeness of Christ, of which she had heard. He rebukes her for the request, saying that such representations are inadequate in themselves and tend to idolatry. He states that a foolish woman had brought him two likenesses, which might be philosophers, but were alleged by her to represent St. Paul and the Savior. He had detained them lest they should prove a stumbling-block to her or to others. He reminds Constantia that St. Paul declares his intention of "knowing Christ no longer after the flesh." This letter was quoted by the Iconoclasts, and this led their opponents to rake up all the questionable expressions in his writings, that they might blacken his character for orthodoxy.
6. Epiphanius: (inter 310-320 - 403): Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9:
"I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person."
He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.”
@@yeoberry whatever you do, DONT look at the shroud...you will come face to face with the image of our Lord Jesus Christ.
@@someguyoverthere3275 :
The early church strictly prohibited icons.
The problem with Douglas's characterization of Icons is that he's "the Bible says", sola scriptura claim is his interpretation first and foremost but going further, all historical sources point to St. Luke having been the first to write an icon. This is the reason why the eldest images of St. Luke to date show him holding an icon of Jesus Christ with the Theotokos.
Furthermore his comment showed that he doesn't know why Orthodox Christians even use icons. To quote Archbishop Lazar, they are another language for which the gospel was translated in a time when most couldn't read. That's why they are written [yes they refer to them as written] according to strict conventions.
They're kissing them and bowing to them.
@@starlodear2987
And? Neither of those two things constitute proper worship.
@@icxcnika7722 "proper worship"
Praying to, kissing, and bowing down to images and carvings is not "proper worship." Fascinating.
The pagans of Baal can use the exact same argumentation as you, unironically.
@@kevinmiller6443 Really??? Where is this argumentation written down???
I’m not a member of the Orthodox Church, but I do know the difference between praying to a “picture” and the veneration of an icon. From everything I understand, veneration is asking the saints to essentially pray for you - the same way we might ask another to pray for us. There is a distinct difference between this and idol worship. I’m not sure how conflating the two is a just argument, but alas…
Who are the saints? Every single believer. Why ask dead saints to pray for you? When God dwells in all of us by his Spirit.
@@addjoaprekobaah5914Exactly. And you’re technically talking to the dead, too …
THE SAINT ARNT DEAD TO BE ABSENT FROM THE BODY IS TO BE PRESENT WITH THE LORD AND ITF THERE RIGHT BY THE LORD ID PREFER ASKING THEM TO PRAY FOR ME ON MY BEHALF JUST LIKE I WOULD ASK A FRIEND
@@addjoaprekobaah5914
You don't pray for guidance from your deceased relatives? You guys are Godless whack jobs.
This disclaimer of not praying to icons but venerate them doesn't justify what they do as they claim to be asking the saints to intervene on their behalf to God. In my Ancestral veneratimg culture . Facing the same argument and interesting this is prominent among the Ethiopian Orthodox church.Like the historic Orthodox church they reject the sole authority of scripture which is why they exempt themselves from the 10 commandments,specifically the 1st commandments. And frankly the idea being able to trace one body of Christians to the Apostles is as ridiculous as some fundamental Baptists claim in their writings. We can trace the fundamental doctrines of the Bible/Gospel from patriarchs, prophets and apostles writings. The is inough of what the early church fathers writings to confirm the apostolic teachings that are recovered in the protestant revival/reformation which is the womb of the various denominations today.
What Doug Wilson is not saying is that this issue was one of the things addressed in the 7th Eccumenical council, and was almost universally understood to be a fabrication. "We know that Epiphanius is a saint and a great wonder-worker. Sabinus, his disciple and a member of his household, erected a church in his honor after his death, and had it decorated with pictures of all the Gospel stories. He would not have done this if he had not been following the doctrine of his own teacher. Leonitus also, the interpreter of the divine Epiphanius’ writings, who was himself bishop of the church in Neapolis in Cyprus, teaches very clearly in his discourse on Epiphanius how steadfast he was in regard to the holy icons, and reports nothing derogatory concerning him. So the composition against the icons is spurious and not at all the work of the divine Epiphanius."
I know that nobody can be knowledgeable about the fact surrounding every system outside of their perspective, but this is oddly sloppy.
If Mr. Douglas doesn't mean to issue the false pretense that all Orthodox Christians are historically illiterate then his comment beginning at 2:30 is imprudent at best.
But with regards to the iconography in Orthodox temples, I always wonder what iconoclast Protestants make of the graven images God Himself commands to be made for the temple of Solomon in the book of Kings and the religious artwork of pre-Constantinian Christians in the catacombs. I'm imagining a response to the first would be something to the effect that God does not command their veneration and to the second that those were misguided or heretical Christians. Nevertheless, the command not to make graven images takes on a different meaning when we consider the book of Kings. It is much more reasonable to consider that what is prohibited is not the making of graven images but the worshipping of them, or else God contradicts Himself. And with regard to the second point, what must be granted at least is that there is very early precedent for religious artwork in the early Church.
What isn't appreciated by Protestants is the ACTUAL theology behind iconography which is rooted in the Incarnation. If God became a man, then, since man is the image of God, it is now possible to depict this historical figure in images. These images were never meant to supplant the worship of God but were used as reminders of God THROUGH which we more easily arrive at the contemplation and veneration or worship of HEAVENLY realities. It's very hard for me to see anything else going on with this complaint, if it is maintained after sufficient explanation, than a total unwillingness to listen and a very unfortunate hardening of the heart. How many times do Orthodox have to respond that they are neither worshipping the saints nor the images? After a certain point this argument must become dishonest and malicious.
Anyone who has softened their heart to the radiant beauty of an Orthodox service understands immediately that the "beautify of His house" is a condescension to our carnal nature. It is the perpetual kenosis and Incarnation of God in His Church that goes "from glory to glory". The dynamic between the human mind and the religious artwork has nothing to do with the idolatrous dethronement of God's central place in our hearts, but instead, when the mind and what the icons are depicting meet, one's mind is FORMed into the image of the icon and goes through it to the heavenly reality; and once it has gone through to it, the PROPER attitude towards it is certainly not one of indifference but of deep reverence and appreciation. With regard to the Mother of God and saints we call this reverence and appreciation VENERATION and with regard to God we call it WORSHIP.
Moreover, veneration and worship are both willful, and so long as one does not choose to worship an image he or she does not. We don't worship these images because they have no value in and of themselves; their only value lies in their relation to God and the aid they provide in reminding and orienting the mind and heart to Him. And the simplest way this can be known is by the simple fact that icons are only made of Christ, His Mother and His saints. Why? Look for the common factor, GOD. These icons are venerated because they depict sacred realities which merit reverence and respect. We are literally indebted to these people for the transmission of the saving Faith, which is why the icons remind us of the holy work and literal presence of God in history.
If we can have pictures of friends, family and events that remind us of the past, and if we can watch movies and television shows, ALL OF WHICH ARE COMPOSED OF IMAGES, then how much more would we benefit from images of our Lord, His blessed Mother and the events in history to which our salvation is indebted? If the wisdom of the Church is still rejected then I would recommend intellectual honesty and consistency which in this case would mean ridding oneself of all interaction with artificial images including pictures, movies and television programs.
But the saddest of all consequences of this Protestant polemic is that it portrays God as a petty and arbitrary task master instead of what the Orthodox call Him, "lover of mankind". Towards the end of the video, Mr. Douglas describes how he would not want to be found praying to images when Christ returns. When Christ returns He will find faithful Orthodox Christians doing what their Fathers did and what Christ Himself instituted through His Holy Spirit, who He promised would lead us into all truth. He will find them worshipping Him alone as they always have. And when He sees them bow with loving reverence before His icon, the icon of His blessed Mother, through whom we have salvation, and those of His holy and God bearing saints, He will see what is there, His deep and profound reverence, gratitude and love these pious hearts have for Him, His Mother and His holy saints.
Excellent response.
You need to understand that the temple in the OT was only a shadow of the reality in Christ. We are no longer in the Levite priesthood of the OT, but we are under another priesthood of Christ. The old things, like the tabernacle, the Levite priesthood with the incense, garments, sacrifices have passed away once Christ appeared and entered into the Holy of Holies in heaven itself with His own blood to propitiate for the sins of His people....You need to seriously read from the Bible from the epistle of the Hebrews chapters 7-10 and you should quickly understand why there no longer is a need for a physical altar, priestly garnmets, images, incense, etc...these things were only shadows of the reality in Christ. Christ is after the priesthood of Melchizedek, not Levi.
@ACROSS Christ is Risen! All is forgiven, brother, it is Bright Week! May Christ bless you and your loved ones, He is Risen!
I don’t pray to idols, I don’t pray to anyone but God alone. But I do pray to God, and I use icons to “see” into Heaven and the living Body of Christ.
That’s what Doug was saying...
"If Orthodoxy true then why Augustine have pointy hat?"
-Doug Wilson
1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) prohibits making an image and bowing to it.
2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.”
3. Irenaeus, (c. 130-202) in his Against Heresies (1:25;6) says of the Gnostic Carpocratians "They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.."
4. Celsus, a pagan philosopher criticizes Christians for not using images. Origen (184-254) responded by admitting that Christians used no images. He states that Christians “being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues;” Jews and Christians are among “those who cannot allow in the worship of the Di-vine Being altars, or temples, or images.” He mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.)
5. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote to Constantia Augusta (Op. ii. 1545), the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius. Constantia had asked Eusebius to send her a certain likeness of Christ, of which she had heard. He rebukes her for the request, saying that such representations are inadequate in themselves and tend to idolatry. He states that a foolish woman had brought him two likenesses, which might be philosophers, but were alleged by her to represent St. Paul and the Savior. He had detained them lest they should prove a stumbling-block to her or to others. He reminds Constantia that St. Paul declares his intention of "knowing Christ no longer after the flesh." This letter was quoted by the Iconoclasts, and this led their opponents to rake up all the questionable expressions in his writings, that they might blacken his character for orthodoxy.
6. Epiphanius: (inter 310-320 - 403): Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9:
"I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person."
He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.”
@@yeoberry there are some very good resources by Eastern Orthodox apologists and scholars responding to all these accusations. not to mention many scholars (including Protestants) have conceded that iconography was, at the very least, practiced as early as the 3rd century. We don't deny that certain church Father's made mistakes (although some of your resources, like Irenaeus, seem taken out of context, and Epiphanius himself conceded that almost no one else agreed with his Iconoclasm), but we must concede that the early church was very diverse at the time, but the Apostles themselves supported iconography.
@@yeoberry I think you should be more bothered by the fact that baptismal regeneration was taught as early as the 1st century (the Shepherd of Hermas, Justin Martyr, etc), and was the resounding teaching of the church for 1500 years.
I’m so grateful that I’ve come to see the delusion of Protestantism.
Same here, my friend. God is good!
Something I agree with you on
Me too! I found Orthodoxy a few months ago.
Amen! The holy Spirit will guide into all truth if you’re open and willing to follow the truth wherever it may lead.
Amen. That's why us Orthodox respect Catholics. Rather than Protestants. Jesus is King. Orthodox Christianity is the Truth. Pray to Him and Pray to Mary. Have faith in Him. 2021 will be your year.
“We don’t know what it was like in the second century”
*thousands of pages of documents have entered the chat*
Like some of these:
1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) prohibits making an image and bowing to it.
2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.”
3. Irenaeus, (c. 130-202) in his Against Heresies (1:25;6) says of the Gnostic Carpocratians "They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.."
4. Celsus, a pagan philosopher criticizes Christians for not using images. Origen (184-254) responded by admitting that Christians used no images. He states that Christians “being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues;” Jews and Christians are among “those who cannot allow in the worship of the Di-vine Being altars, or temples, or images.” He mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.)
5. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote to Constantia Augusta (Op. ii. 1545), the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius. Constantia had asked Eusebius to send her a certain likeness of Christ, of which she had heard. He rebukes her for the request, saying that such representations are inadequate in themselves and tend to idolatry. He states that a foolish woman had brought him two likenesses, which might be philosophers, but were alleged by her to represent St. Paul and the Savior. He had detained them lest they should prove a stumbling-block to her or to others. He reminds Constantia that St. Paul declares his intention of "knowing Christ no longer after the flesh." This letter was quoted by the Iconoclasts, and this led their opponents to rake up all the questionable expressions in his writings, that they might blacken his character for orthodoxy.
6. Epiphanius: (inter 310-320 - 403): Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9:
"I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person."
He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.”
@@yeoberry
1. Then why were they commanded to make the Arc of the Covenant? The Arc had two cherubim on either side.
2. "Considering the Seventh Ecumenical Council and the writings of Saint John of Damascus upheld the proper use and veneration of the holy icons both in private homes and in the liturgical services and worship spaces, I think these random quotes are a moot point as they don't reflect what has been accepted universally by the Church."
It was also not universally accepted.
3. This is talking of gnostics, not Christians.
4. Origen is not a saint or church father of the Orthodox Church, and, he was anathematized from the church for his teachings, and that was during his life, not afterwards.
5. Again, Eusebius is not saint or church father in the Eastern Orthodox Church, or Roman Catholic Church, only in the Oriental Orthodox Church, which we are not in communion with.
6. "St. Epiphanius had a history of being out of the loop and isolated due to his being a bishop on the island of Cyprus. In one case he mistook the Nicene theology (that is, Orthodoxy) of contemporaries like St. Basil the Great as being heresy until corrected. There is a letter, though missing later context, in which he left Cyprus to travel to the Holy Land as a pilgrim and entered a church on the mainland, saw the curtain you mentioned, freaked out and tore it down - the letter was in part instructions to pay for a replacement out of his own pocket. This letter was later inflated greatly by the Iconoclasts who added other forged and fraudulent writings to St. Epiphanius' name to bolster their cause (it is somewhat telling that they had to latch onto him so strongly based on a single episode rather than having a consistent patristic tradition to point to). Once his writings became a matter of debate during the Iconoclast Controversy in Constantinople, some of the Anti-Iconoclasts traveled to Cyprus to research him more closely and found that his tomb, which had been built by one of his disciples, was covered in iconography, and they concluded it to be very unlikely that his flock and disciples would have done so had he died as an iconoclast.
Given his track record elsewhere (such as in Trinitarian theology) of jumping to conclusions and then humbly accepting correction and/or clarification, the most likely explanation was that like his initial negative reaction to normative Orthodox theology (unlike the mainland which was mainly concerned with Arianism, he was concerned with Sabellianism and thus seems to have jumped a bit too far before realizing the over-correction), the most likely explanation was that Cyprus like a few other pockets of the Church (especially in Armenia and parts of Asia Minor) had little to no iconographic tradition and he thus overreacted when encountering it for the first time but eventually accepted it (as demonstrated by his tomb). Ironically, if his letter proves anything, it is that iconography was considered normal elsewhere."
But in the end, one person's opinion does not contribute to the decisions of the rest of church. If this were the case, gnostics would rule it, and our doctrine (of all mainstream denoms, Protestant, RC, and Orthodox), would all be ruined, and we wouldn't have the trinity, their would be multiple gods, etc. If one person's opinion changed the entire church's decision, it wouldn't be a church.
God bless.
@@variuz2559 :
That’s all nonsense. The Bible and the early church strictly prohibited icons.
@@variuz2559 :
The ark of the covenant isn’t an icon.
@@yeoberry But those were graven images is my point, and they were of angels (beings in heaven).
There’s one thing I do know and that one thing is the fact that my life is hidden in Christ who loves me and gave himself for me. ✔️
They aren't "praying to pictures."
The ignorance of this man when it comes to Icons is astounding.
Facts 😂😂😂😂
@J 3 They lie about everyone else to make it seem like they are the true Christians but the irony is they are the heretics. The amount of anti-Catholic propaganda I was fed throughout my non-denominational evangelical years is astounding
Except they do. My mother in law prays to the queen of heavens.
@@mirandataylor6385 Except she doesn't. She's asking for Mary to pray for her.
@@CatholicKavanagh If you don’t understand why that’s doctrinally mental then you can’t be helped. Try reading through Acts.
An icon is an image, usually painted on wood, that is to be venerated as a sacred object.
Although people who use icons in their worship would deny that they are practicing idolatry, it is difficult to see how “venerating” an object as “sacred” is different from idolatry.
Any kissing of, bowing down before, or praying toward an icon is certainly idolatrous.
Members of the Orthodox Church insist that they are not worshiping the paint and wood, but they admit that they give veneration, adoration, and reverence to the saints and Mary depicted in the icons. They pray to men and women; they ascribe to the icons a spiritual power that it does not possess. This is unbiblical.
There is nothing wrong with producing or enjoying religious art, per se.
But using icons to aid one’s worship or viewing them as a “window to heaven” is definitely idolatry.
The Bible strictly forbids idolatry (Leviticus 26:1; Deuteronomy 5:9). God alone deserves to be bowed down to and worshiped. Icons are not intercessors before the throne of grace, and neither are the saints they represent. People in heaven do not have the power to hear our prayers or grant our requests. Only Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit can intercede for us before the Father (Romans 8:26-27, 34). We should stay as far away as we can from anything that could possibly lead to idolatry.
You don't need icons to worship God. He has never ever said that you need one. God is a Spirit and true worshippers worship Him in spirit and in truth for such God seeks.
read this:
"Answering Eastern Orthodox Apologists regarding Icons," Themelios, Volume 43 - Issue 3, by John Carpenter.
Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:
Colossians 3:5 KJV
The Western Christians, who are bogged down into covetousness blame eastern Orthodox Church in idolatry because they venerate icons?!, I bag you pardon.... 🤣
@@Aleksandr-Herman If they are covetous then they are as sinful as the Eastern Orthodox people who are worshipping idols according to the passage you quoted. However I don't think they blame, I think they point out what idolatrous practices the E O church has which is fundamentally wrong and it is unbiblical. In your argument your pointing out that the westerners are covetous which may be true or not but that doesn't make the idolatrous practices of EOC right.
You shouldn't defend idolatry in one group of believers by pointing out the idolatry of the other group.
You know what I mean ?!
@@cogito_ergo_sum-y2h when I was a Protestant, I was also entitled to my opinion about icons, and I had the same prejudice as you have. When I started to explore Orthodox Christianity, and read the Orthodox Church explanation of icons, I understood that I was wrong, and that it is very biblical, and not an idolatery in anyway.
I hope one day you will find the Only True Church too.
Well put! So many people are claiming that Eastern orthodoxy is the true church but I can’t accept that when they participate in practices that go against scripture. Why can’t we just keep the gospel simple? Christ died for our sins. He said it is finished, and He meant it.
Cool stats
have you refuted this point by point
I wish you could get your hands on this doug idiot. But my guess is that, like most prots, he won't debate. Just wants to quote mine and spew his crap with no challenge.
Going to an Orthodox Church you really do get the feeling that you are part of something very ancient and divine. By contrast, I don't get that same kind of feeling during Catholic ceremonies. Maybe, I'll have to visit one of the great cathedrals in Europe to better understand Catholic practices. For now I'm sticking with the Orthodox Church.
Go to a Tridentine Mass, the ones completely in Latin like was done before Vatican II. It's almost a different religion.
You need to be born again to be part of God's divine church. You won't find it a church building only in your repented heart. It is not a feeling you should search for but a new creation in Christ through faith and not ceremonies.
You are blessed to be with true faith with Christ true church, keep fighting for it never leave it because you are with god while others it pains me to say are lost and being dragged to hell by these false denominations
@@Lasharella What makes the EOC the true church ???
How can you be with God ? Are you with God ? How ? Could you give an explanation that supports your claim ?!
@@cogito_ergo_sum-y2h I would love to explain o you why but I’m not best person for as I’m not a good preacher I know one thing that this is only church and faith where you truly experience real grace of god I have felt lived and still am blessed to be part of it, it is hard to describe I’m not well educated on the subject of orthodox Christianity teachings I’m just blessed to be actually experienced unexplainable grace which is so powerful that it feels like breath of fresh air, oxygen to you soul, forgive me if I can’t explain to you any better and if what I said made no sense to you, god bless you and I hope you will experience same really soon! Love and respect! ❤️☦️🙏
Favorite part of this video is the comments. I do find this answer very lackluster though. Im an inquirer of Orthodoxy coming from Protestantism and this is a pitiful attempt at answering this question. I took a class at a reformed seminary and learned about the tactic of “strawman” arguments. Basically this video in a nutshell.
This dude getting steam rolled in his own comment section 😂😂😂😂
read this:
"Answering Eastern Orthodox Apologists regarding Icons," Themelios, Volume 43 - Issue 3, by John Carpenter.
@@yeoberry I'll pass. Thanks
@@GregorasProject :
Idol worshippers want to suppress the truth.
@@yeoberry no, I've just learned Protestants schtick (Being one my whole life), and they're really the joke of the "Christian denominations".
@@GregorasProject
1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) prohibits making an image and bowing to it.
2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.”
3. Irenaeus, (c. 130-202) in his Against Heresies (1:25;6) says of the Gnostic Carpocratians "They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.."
4. Celsus, a pagan philosopher criticizes Christians for not using images. Origen (184-254) responded by admitting that Christians used no images. He states that Christians “being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues;” Jews and Christians are among “those who cannot allow in the worship of the Di-vine Being altars, or temples, or images.” He mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.)
5. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote to Constantia Augusta (Op. ii. 1545), the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius. Constantia had asked Eusebius to send her a certain likeness of Christ, of which she had heard. He rebukes her for the request, saying that such representations are inadequate in themselves and tend to idolatry. He states that a foolish woman had brought him two likenesses, which might be philosophers, but were alleged by her to represent St. Paul and the Savior. He had detained them lest they should prove a stumbling-block to her or to others. He reminds Constantia that St. Paul declares his intention of "knowing Christ no longer after the flesh." This letter was quoted by the Iconoclasts, and this led their opponents to rake up all the questionable expressions in his writings, that they might blacken his character for orthodoxy.
6. Epiphanius: (inter 310-320 - 403): Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9:
"I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person."
He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.”
It is lamentable that this is what passes for "scholarly discussion" in some protestant circles. I ran this by a good friend of mine who is a Baptist minister and even he was amazed at the amount of hubris being passed of as fact in this video. This is why thorough study of your subject is important.
Read the history of the Orthodox Church. Is full of paganism and idolatry. Is not a real Christian church.
Orthodox is a heretical system similar to Roman Catholicism, sorry to burst your bubble. Recommend you listen to John MacArthur
It's the second commandment.
"You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath, or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them nor serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, inflicting the punishment of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me" Exodus 20:1-7
God gives us clear instructions on how to deal with idols. Take a look at this verse from 1 Kings:
"Now Asa did what was right in the sight of the Lord, like his father David. He also removed the male cult prostitutes from the land and removed all the idols which his fathers had made. And even his mother Maacah, he also removed her from the position of queen mother, because she had made an abominable image as an Asherah; and Asa cut down her abominable image and burned it at the brook Kidron."
Asa did what was right in the sight of the Lord. He removed the idols. The only hubris here is taking your pre-conceived notions and rejecting what is clearly laid out in scripture.
The Orthodox do not “pray to” pictures or things, an Icon is something that is a representation of the divine thing you’re praying too, God. It’s a representation to draw inference from. Listen to an actual Orthodox person on their own beliefs.
What makes the EOC the only true church ? Can you simply answer that simple question ⁉️
Yes. It is that simple. Research Orthodoxy for yourself and consult an Orthodox priest with questions. I left the Lutheran church for Orthodoxy and I wish I had done it sooner.
1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) prohibits making an image and bowing to it.
2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.”
3. Irenaeus, (c. 130-202) in his Against Heresies (1:25;6) says of the Gnostic Carpocratians "They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.."
4. Celsus, a pagan philosopher criticizes Christians for not using images. Origen (184-254) responded by admitting that Christians used no images. He states that Christians “being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues;” Jews and Christians are among “those who cannot allow in the worship of the Di-vine Being altars, or temples, or images.” He mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.)
5. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote to Constantia Augusta (Op. ii. 1545), the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius. Constantia had asked Eusebius to send her a certain likeness of Christ, of which she had heard. He rebukes her for the request, saying that such representations are inadequate in themselves and tend to idolatry. He states that a foolish woman had brought him two likenesses, which might be philosophers, but were alleged by her to represent St. Paul and the Savior. He had detained them lest they should prove a stumbling-block to her or to others. He reminds Constantia that St. Paul declares his intention of "knowing Christ no longer after the flesh." This letter was quoted by the Iconoclasts, and this led their opponents to rake up all the questionable expressions in his writings, that they might blacken his character for orthodoxy.
6. Epiphanius: (inter 310-320 - 403): Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9:
"I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person."
He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.”
@@yeoberry Still shilling for Brother Billy's Baptist Bungalow I see.
@@yeoberry
1. Then why were they commanded to make the Arc of the Covenant? The Arc had two cherubim on either side.
2. "Considering the Seventh Ecumenical Council and the writings of Saint John of Damascus upheld the proper use and veneration of the holy icons both in private homes and in the liturgical services and worship spaces, I think these random quotes are a moot point as they don't reflect what has been accepted universally by the Church."
It was also not universally accepted.
3. This is talking of gnostics, not Christians.
4. Origen is not a saint or church father of the Orthodox Church, and, he was anathematized from the church for his teachings, and that was during his life, not afterwards.
5. Again, Eusebius is not saint or church father in the Eastern Orthodox Church, or Roman Catholic Church, only in the Oriental Orthodox Church, which we are not in communion with.
6. "St. Epiphanius had a history of being out of the loop and isolated due to his being a bishop on the island of Cyprus. In one case he mistook the Nicene theology (that is, Orthodoxy) of contemporaries like St. Basil the Great as being heresy until corrected. There is a letter, though missing later context, in which he left Cyprus to travel to the Holy Land as a pilgrim and entered a church on the mainland, saw the curtain you mentioned, freaked out and tore it down - the letter was in part instructions to pay for a replacement out of his own pocket. This letter was later inflated greatly by the Iconoclasts who added other forged and fraudulent writings to St. Epiphanius' name to bolster their cause (it is somewhat telling that they had to latch onto him so strongly based on a single episode rather than having a consistent patristic tradition to point to). Once his writings became a matter of debate during the Iconoclast Controversy in Constantinople, some of the Anti-Iconoclasts traveled to Cyprus to research him more closely and found that his tomb, which had been built by one of his disciples, was covered in iconography, and they concluded it to be very unlikely that his flock and disciples would have done so had he died as an iconoclast.
Given his track record elsewhere (such as in Trinitarian theology) of jumping to conclusions and then humbly accepting correction and/or clarification, the most likely explanation was that like his initial negative reaction to normative Orthodox theology (unlike the mainland which was mainly concerned with Arianism, he was concerned with Sabellianism and thus seems to have jumped a bit too far before realizing the over-correction), the most likely explanation was that Cyprus like a few other pockets of the Church (especially in Armenia and parts of Asia Minor) had little to no iconographic tradition and he thus overreacted when encountering it for the first time but eventually accepted it (as demonstrated by his tomb). Ironically, if his letter proves anything, it is that iconography was considered normal elsewhere."
But in the end, one person's opinion does not contribute to the decisions of the rest of church. If this were the case, gnostics would rule it, and our doctrine (of all mainstream denoms, Protestant, RC, and Orthodox), would all be ruined, and we wouldn't have the trinity, their would be *multiple* gods, etc. If one person's opinion changed the entire church's decision, it wouldn't be a church.
This clown’s false claims of idolatry in Eastern Orthodoxy are so readily put aside by the least perusal of central documents of the Christian faith, such a St. John of Damascus and the Tomos of the VII. ecumenical council (II Nicaea, 787 AD), which definitively settled the misprision of the heretic iconoclasts. Douglas is a heretic many times over, and a prevaricator as anyone with his level education and informational resources cannot reasonably claim that Orthodoxy involves ‘worship of idols’.
@@yeoberry to,claim that Epiphanius’ opinion of one usage in his early day epitomizes all correct understanding of sacred imagery is ridiculous, a sophomoric appeal to authority that can’t hold a candle to the writing of St. John of Damascus and the Tomos of the VII Ecumnical council (Nicaea 787 AD). it is clear from the instructions revealed to Moses on Mt. Sinai that the Ark and the Tabernacle depicted images of angels and the Temple of Solomon was completely iconographed. Hebrew synagogues and early churches were adorned with images that helped the faithful in prayer and no fool thought they were gods to be worshipped instead of the Lord.
Did Paul ever write on that? He contributed more than anyone else to the development of theological understanding, including church order. Did he say that churches can only be founded if by someone who has a direct line of reference to an apostle? No. They had a special authority, they alone, because they were specifically chosen. Them alone. End of Revelation has the names of the 12 as the foundations of the wall. No successors.
In the Mass, people had little to no participation (something which V2 tried to correct). They also had no say or participation in choosing whom their bishops would be. In the East, our Divine Liturgies cannot happen without the laity who chant/say much of the Liturgy. Thus, in Eastern ecclesiology, the laity are as much a functioning part of the Church as any bishop or priest. At a bishop's consecration, the people (who had a say in his election) shout "axios"(he is worthy) to give their assent
This man is extremely ignorant. Both Catholics and Orthodox do not worship images nor any other creation. Worship is given only to God. We venerate images and the saints. The iconoclastic heresy was defeated at Second Nicea in 787. We venerate icons because our Lord invaded our time and our space and made himself visible while remaining invisible through the person of Jesus Christ.
Protestantism has been an absolute catastrophe.
aquinasapologist yes catholics do it! #MuhRelics
I have a Catholic prayer book that literally says "Mary, we worship thee". So.... yes, both religions practice idolatry
Chad Daniels Lol
Educate yourself better, please. In romanian, and we are in the great majority orthodox, we say we adore God (Lord) and we venerate Mother of Lord (Jesus Christ) and we venerate ALL the Saints, All the Saint Angels and Holy Heavenly Powers. So, it's a difference wich we DO. Amin!
aquinasapologist venerating. Worshiping. Same thing. To God
Beyond rejecting the council(s) and actually what Orthodox say about what icons truly are and what we do with them, he's got a really big problem explaining how the earliest christian churches also have Mary with Christ (as icons), obviously this is problematic for him on many levels as a Protestant, I'm guessing. People like this act like a book just fell out of the sky and God said,"Figure it out" It's laughable on that basic level, really. Oh and you have to learn another language first (ha!)
Mary and Jesus in icons start at the 4th century. What happened before?
@@thomasglass9491 Catacombs that are either gone or extant that show the same things. It's not controversial or a stretch to know, even if you don't want to believe it, that they continued the practices that they always had (same idea with the gospels being written "later" which you and I know is not a valid criticism of anything as to their veracity). It's quite a basic principle given the reality that in 313 (4th century) Christianity became finally legal - no, in reality they didn't "start" then.
Doug doesn't know what he's talking about. He shouldn't have been interviewed on a topic he is ignorant of. Look at the Roman catacombs, and one will see icons of Mary, the Saints, and Christ. The Orthodox Church is the true Church started by our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
***** Soccer guy, you should educate yourself and go read the Seventh Ecumenical Council.
OrthodoxDefender no those were not icons those were pictures painted on the catacombs. Art. An icon is made and established as God's presence in it, it is venerated in the church. Veneration is a direct form of worship but orthodox are in denial and ignorance concerning and call everyone else ignorant. What irony it all is
Denise fitness gal you also have no idea what you are talking about. May God judge you.
Can I ask you questions via an email address?
Lucas Süchting I am right now too!!
This is such a dishonest debate anymore. The Orthodox commentators here have already done a great job at ripping Mr. Wilson's ignorance to shreds in regard to praying "to" icons, so there is not much I would add to it. I will say this, however: that wife you speak of, Mr. Wilson. If--God forbid--you are ever shipwrecked somewhere and separated from her for a long period of time, yet you carry around a picture of her in your wallet which sometimes you look upon with love, stroke, and even kiss--in your mind, are you adoring that piece of paper itself, or are you adoring your wife by proxy? The same is true of icons: the honor goes to the prototype, not the icon itself. Further, the Seventh Ecumenical Council put an end to this debate long ago, concluding that he who denies the icon denies the divinity of Christ.
By the way, it is convenient that he does not question the authenticity of Saint Epiphanios' supposed iconoclasm. In short, the letter from which the account comes is not authentic.
Orthodoxy is the true Church of Christ. There is no other.
John Vougias it was all one christian church in book of acts. Way later on orthodoxy came in during the councils and creeds and officislly formed themselves as orthodoxy. You cant fool us with your own true church claims.
Denise fitness The Church of the first, second and third century taught the same thing as the Church of the fourth centuty and beyond. We know this because we have the writings of the Church Fathers. They all teach the same thing going back to the first century. There are prophecies of the gentiles converting and worshiping God, speaking of the Church, Malachi 1:11says they will burn incense to the Lord. What protestants burn incense? Apostle Paul himself wrote in 1 Timothy 3:15 that the CHURCH is the PILLAR and FOUNDATION of truth because when he wrote it there was no official compiled canon of the New Testament. This completely refutes the doctrine of scripture alone. You are aware the canon of scripture, the Bible was decided upon by that 4th century council amongst others. We have the Bible given to us by the Church and fathers of the Church. How can you deny these Church Fathers when it is upon there testimony that you even know what the scriptures are? The protestant position makes no sense.
John Vougias, amen, my brother.
Plus, God commands the Israelites to make icons in the OT. But no, let's ignore facts and make up our own...and that's just what happens when you take the Bible outside of the context of the Church, as does this Reformed heretic.
@@adamray8371
Every book in scripture was written before 100 ad. And the church recognized these writings as being from God long before the 4th century. God gave his holy words by the holy ghost to his people. An institution or council did not sanction what He Himself gave in the first place.
How is it ignorant, you said it yourself Doug. Catholic and Orthodox were merged until severe difference separated them on 1084. Orthodox still trace back to before that time. Not sure what point you're making here.
We Orthodox have same doctrine in 2000 years. And will stay like that forever. ☦
Yikes. Talk about being utterly confused on history
Could you please provide me the citation, for the Augustine's comment on pointed hat, from his "city of God"
and this is a joke.. right?
No...but the idea that the modern Eastern Orthodox Church is the "only true church" is a joke.
+Daniel Foucachon
There is no salvation in your schism.
+Ayios Georgios schism is claiming to be the only true church. I recognize the Orthodox Church as a valid Christian church. I am not the schismatic one.
Daniel Foucachon
I am not understanding you fully.
What are your beliefs?
What is your denomination?
I do not deny that other Christians may find the grace and mercy of God. I do believe that false teachers whom deny the sanctity of the preserved faith as valid will be in God's grace.
From your comment I consider you a part of the ladder ("I recognize the Orthodox Church as a valid Christian church"). I see no quarrels with humble protestants that refrain from judgement and seek God's grace with humility.
+Ayios Georgios I'm a Protestant, and I believe Orthodox and Roman Catholics are part of the Church. God's Church doesn't reside in the East alone. I reject the idea that the West has seen "1,000 years of ecclesiastical dark ages" as a radical (new) convert to EO recent told me.
You might say I'm a Reformed Catholic. I'm too Catholic to be Roman or Orthodox. I pray for the unity of the Church, but I believe that can only come when Rome and Constantinople relinquish their schismatic "we alone" ism. And Protestants have lots of heresies to get over too, don't think I don't know we have issues too!
We have much to learn from each other, but that starts by recognizing each other. I don't see many EOs doing that, hence the "schism."
So because there were iconoclasts means that the Church wasn’t consistent?
Lots of folks from the Orthodox side claiming how wrong this video is, and they never deal with some of the big problems such as iconoclasm, praying to dead saints, and myriad others.
These things have been dealt with myriad times over the last 20 centuries. Protestants, unfortunately, tend to be like the atheists in that they assume that because they have ignorance of the arguments therefore the arguments must not have been made.
solo scriptura that's the reason we have 1000 diferent religions
40,000
*LOL*
Original Sinner 43000 lol
That's not even true. I can agree that Martin Luther set a problematic precedent of just splitting over any and every disagreement, although it might be necessary sometimes, but many indovidual groups of Protestant Christians believe more or less the same things on core doctrinal issues, but at one point or another, went off to do their own thing with likeminded individuals over non-essential issies ecause someone or another got lost in the weeds somewhere along the line. There are a few fundamental distinctions between Protestant groups on the macro level, but saying that there are hundreds of thousands of seperate religions altogether is dishonest or ignorantly failing to see the forest for the trees.
People do not know where this number came from. Most of these numbers are due to changes leaders of the same denomination, making it seem as if it is separation. The same source even list many Catholics rites within the number of denominations. You will also find many sects of Jehovah's witnesses, Mormons, etc. You do not know where u pull that number, such a copy and paste response
It’s over 9000!!! Real talk if they had the truth to begin with why is every Protestant denomination essentially protesting each other? They protest the sacraments Christ established and use legalistic thinking to try and argue it. Mostly over wording, many prots I’ve talked to seem to think the. Oboe was written as it is in English right at the time of Jesus and had also been in its current form.
Imagine knowing absolutely nothing about eastern orthodoxy and then speaking on it as a "Pastor."
Cringe.
Imagine not knowing this:
1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) prohibits making an image and bowing to it.
2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.”
3. Irenaeus, (c. 130-202) in his Against Heresies (1:25;6) says of the Gnostic Carpocratians "They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.."
4. Celsus, a pagan philosopher criticizes Christians for not using images. Origen (184-254) responded by admitting that Christians used no images. He states that Christians “being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues;” Jews and Christians are among “those who cannot allow in the worship of the Di-vine Being altars, or temples, or images.” He mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.)
5. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote to Constantia Augusta (Op. ii. 1545), the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius. Constantia had asked Eusebius to send her a certain likeness of Christ, of which she had heard. He rebukes her for the request, saying that such representations are inadequate in themselves and tend to idolatry. He states that a foolish woman had brought him two likenesses, which might be philosophers, but were alleged by her to represent St. Paul and the Savior. He had detained them lest they should prove a stumbling-block to her or to others. He reminds Constantia that St. Paul declares his intention of "knowing Christ no longer after the flesh." This letter was quoted by the Iconoclasts, and this led their opponents to rake up all the questionable expressions in his writings, that they might blacken his character for orthodoxy.
6. Epiphanius: (inter 310-320 - 403): Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9:
"I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person."
He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.”
Imagine not having read this:
"Answering Eastern Orthodox Apologists regarding Icons," Themelios, Volume 43 - Issue 3, by John Carpenter.
@@yeoberry excellent sources. Bravo
@@yeoberry Synod of Elvira, Canon 22: “If people fall from the Catholic church into heresy and then return, let them not be denied penance, since they have acknowledged their sin. Let them be given communion after ten years' penance. If children have been led into heresy, it is not their own fault, and they should be received back immediately.” (web.archive.org/web/20120716202800/faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Canon%20Law/ElviraCanons.htm#Sex%20Bishops,%20presbyters,%20and%20deacons)
@@castellano1462 :
Totally irrelevant. The early church strictly prohibited icons.
This is for u Doug .
You said = in min 3:33 they pray through pictures
I say= we dont worship (images and icons)doug !
We revere and honor them. let me give you examples:Joshua 7:6=And Joshua rent his clothes, and fell to the earth upon his face before the ark !( Exo 25:18) of the Lord until the eventide !
CHECK Genesis 23:7,psalm 132:7, 1 sam 20:41, 1 sam 25:23-24, 1 sam 25:41, 1 sam 28:14, 2 sam 9:6, 2 sam 14:4, 2 sam 14:22, WE REVERE N HONOUR OUT OF RESPECT, WE DO NOT WORSHIP THE ICONS, JUST LIKE MOSES, JOSUA, N DAVID DID IN ALL THESE VERSES, KEEP STUDY OLD MAN
Check also Deu 4:15-16= John 1:14
Waya crazy wolf
You said= check these versus Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind,the man Jesus Christ
I say= Lets examine 1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus (( WHO GAVE HIMSELF AS A RANSOM FOR ALL PEOPLE )).
Now where did i say that Christ did not GAVE HIMSELF AS A RANSOM FOR ALL PEOPLE???
You said= John 14:6 "Jesus said unto him,I am the way,the truth,and the life:no man cometh unto the father,but by me.
I say= WHERE DID I SAY that Christ is NOT the way,the truth,and the life and that no man cometh unto the father,but by him????
You said= 1 Samuel chapter 4 is when the Israelite lost the ark because they put too much faith into the box rather than God. Your evidence denied.
I say= Are u ok?? , what scripture is that????
Now that i call reloaded and refuted !
Now, we dont worship (images and icons) !
We revere and honor them. let me give you examples:Joshua 7:6=And Joshua rent his clothes, and fell to the earth upon his face before the ark !( Exo 25:18) of the Lord until the eventide !
CHECK Genesis 23:7,psalm 132:7, 1 sam 20:41, 1 sam 25:23-24, 1 sam 25:41, 1 sam 28:14, 2 sam 9:6, 2 sam 14:4, 2 sam 14:22,
WE REVERE AND HONOUR OUT OF RESPECT, WE DO NOT WORSHIP THE ICONS, JUST LIKE MOSES, JOSUA, N DAVID DID IN ALL THESE VERSES.
Check also Deu 4:15-16= John 1:14
Joshua Dotson i see them pray to statues of mary all the time. Samething. I think you all in denial real bad
Denise fitness & recovery where do you see it, you must have never gone to a catholic or Orthodox Church. We have statues as representations of holy people we do not pray to statues we ask mary to pray for us we do not pray to her. The statue is an image nothing more we do not pray to statues you are just a Protestant who has no knowledge of ancient Christianity
In Canada and throughout the Commonwealth, it's illegal to deface a coin with the monarch's image on it. Why? Because the understanding has always been that dishonour passes from the defacement of the image to the monarch.
Is this satire?
My goodness, I am so saddened by intentional mischaracterizations such as this.
We really can do better for one another.
-An Orthodox brother in Christ.
If you’re “orthodox” your whole identity is an intentional mischaracterization. The early church strictly prohibited icons. Your sect lies about the early church and then lies about its own history.
continued: and it was affirmed that icons were not idols. Anyone with a knowledge of the history of icons would know that.
Can you explain a bit more? I'm new to Orthodoxy
Saying something is not an idol does not make it not an idol. Praying to created beings, rather than the Creator, is the very definition of idolatry. It is placing something else in God's stead.
I hadn't been to their site yet, but thanks for directing me there. I just read their article "Refuting Eastern 'Orthodox'" by Bro. Peter Dimond. I think that the article may convince those already confirmed in RC belief, but it failed to convince me. For example, much of the article engages in the "question begging" fallacy of questionable presuppositions used in drawing out a conclusion based on the evidence.
And yet we have icons of the Mother of God in the ancient Christian catacombs. If you don't want to be like the historical Christians don't call yourself a Christian.
Also, why did the prophet Moses have large statues of angels placed in the temple when it was conducted? Did he perhaps forget the commandment? Clearly that is not what Jesus was referring to when he gave them to us
That's false. There are no such icons in the catacombs.
1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) prohibits making an image and bowing to it.
2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.”
3. Irenaeus, (c. 130-202) in his Against Heresies (1:25;6) says of the Gnostic Carpocratians "They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.."
4. Celsus, a pagan philosopher criticizes Christians for not using images. Origen (184-254) responded by admitting that Christians used no images. He states that Christians “being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues;” Jews and Christians are among “those who cannot allow in the worship of the Di-vine Being altars, or temples, or images.” He mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.)
5. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote to Constantia Augusta (Op. ii. 1545), the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius. Constantia had asked Eusebius to send her a certain likeness of Christ, of which she had heard. He rebukes her for the request, saying that such representations are inadequate in themselves and tend to idolatry. He states that a foolish woman had brought him two likenesses, which might be philosophers, but were alleged by her to represent St. Paul and the Savior. He had detained them lest they should prove a stumbling-block to her or to others. He reminds Constantia that St. Paul declares his intention of "knowing Christ no longer after the flesh." This letter was quoted by the Iconoclasts, and this led their opponents to rake up all the questionable expressions in his writings, that they might blacken his character for orthodoxy.
6. Epiphanius: (inter 310-320 - 403): Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9:
"I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person."
He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.”
it is prohibited in the bible to pray to the dead. they are alive to God but not to us.
Deuteronomy 18:11
1. They are with Christ. 2 Corinthians 5:6-8
2. Christ is with us. Matthew 28:20
3. They are in Christ. 2 Corinthians 5:17
4. Christ is in us. 2 Corinthians 13:5
5. We are part of one body -- the Body of Christ. 1 Corinthians 12:12-14
How can there be death in the Body of Christ? How can there be division in the Body of Christ? 1 Corinthians 12:25
If they are in Christ, and we are in Christ, they are alive to us.
Orthodox and Catholics do not pray TO the saints -- they ask the saints to pray FOR them. It is the same as asking a member of your church to pray for you.
the pastor is wrong. the claim of orthodox and Catholics to do idolatry is just ignorance..
Out of the 40,000 Protestant denominations, he has the right one?
Now *THAT’S* laughable.
First of all, institutions are not the real church of Christ, they may contain members of the body of Christ, but Christ did not die for human institutions we call churches. Christ died for individual people, for their sins, and everyone He gives faith to believe in Him is part of His very body and is the Church...you think material things are the church of God and that is simply not accurate...yes there are physical places we call churches, but the Church is nothing less than all the believers. Do not confuse the Church of Christ with buildings, icons, organizations, etc., you seem to completely miss these Scriptures:
John 4:22-24 "You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. 24 God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”
Luke 17:20-22 "Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; 21 nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or, ‘There it is!’ For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst."
You must believe your denomination out of the 40,000 is the right one also it's common sense that people believe their church is right because if they didn't why would they be a part of it it's your comment that's laughable
@@alexanderalbano5897 But God doesn't damn the Son, because the whole point, on substitionary atonement doctrines, is that the Son is the only sacrifice that could satisfy God's Justice because it's the sacrifice of someone of infinite value (the Son's divine nature) but it also must be of something that can have damage done to Him (the Son's human nature). The sinlessness of Jesus' human nature, enabled by His divine nature, then means that the payment of sin (death) doesn't apply, so therefore the sacrifice of the Son doesn't have the additional consequence of damning Him. I'm not wedded to substitutionary atonement, but it makes sense and explains the mechanism of atonement quite elegantly. It also makes sense of the the centrality of sacrifices to the Judiac faith.
If you are going to throw stones, try not to live in a glass house and at least get your facts straight.
The iconostasis separates the congregation from the Holy of Holies. It is the same with the screen or curtain in the Jewish Temples. Everything in Orthodoxy has its roots or connection to Scriptures or the Old Temple worship.
"Old Temple worship"
So... not Jesus or His teachings??? got it.
Why is he so nervous?
He either has a complete misunderstanding or is totally ignorant of what he is saying about Orthodox practice and belief.
1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) prohibits making an image and bowing to it.
2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.”
3. Irenaeus, (c. 130-202) in his Against Heresies (1:25;6) says of the Gnostic Carpocratians "They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.."
4. Celsus, a pagan philosopher criticizes Christians for not using images. Origen (184-254) responded by admitting that Christians used no images. He states that Christians “being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues;” Jews and Christians are among “those who cannot allow in the worship of the Di-vine Being altars, or temples, or images.” He mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.)
5. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote to Constantia Augusta (Op. ii. 1545), the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius. Constantia had asked Eusebius to send her a certain likeness of Christ, of which she had heard. He rebukes her for the request, saying that such representations are inadequate in themselves and tend to idolatry. He states that a foolish woman had brought him two likenesses, which might be philosophers, but were alleged by her to represent St. Paul and the Savior. He had detained them lest they should prove a stumbling-block to her or to others. He reminds Constantia that St. Paul declares his intention of "knowing Christ no longer after the flesh." This letter was quoted by the Iconoclasts, and this led their opponents to rake up all the questionable expressions in his writings, that they might blacken his character for orthodoxy.
6. Epiphanius: (inter 310-320 - 403): Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9:
"I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person."
He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.”
@@yeoberry this is absolutely false. The later Ecumenical councils were the authoritative councils, not the earlier ones in Spain.
Icons are not worshipped, and have nothing to do with the Commandment of making and worshipping images.
Icons are a visual that reminds us of the great cloud of witnesses that we are always surrounded by.
Images that are created to be worshipped as God is what this commandment is referencing.
Paul even used the “ unknown God” statue in Rome as a vehicle to tell the people about the real God.
"An icon (from Greek εἰκών eikōn "image") is a religious work of art, most commonly a painting"
One of the most painful things I saw is Protestant missionaries forcing Pacific Islanders to wear Victorian era clothing. Orthodoxy likes to blend with the culture of the people involved.
EO is such bulloney. We want a museum not a living church. We want heritage not the Gospel. An institution not salvation. Im ex orthodox. Brothers: avoid! He's bang on. The narrative of the one true church is nonsense if you deeply research history.
haha what is laughable is that at the end of this clip is an advertisement for a conference featuring Mark Driscoll. You sir, have just completely discredited everything you said in this video with that promotion and association lol
This guy is misconstruing facts to validate his point. Sad, really.
I can't believe someone can touch on such a sensitive topic without doing any research
1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) prohibits making an image and bowing to it.
2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.”
3. Irenaeus, (c. 130-202) in his Against Heresies (1:25;6) says of the Gnostic Carpocratians "They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.."
4. Celsus, a pagan philosopher criticizes Christians for not using images. Origen (184-254) responded by admitting that Christians used no images. He states that Christians “being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues;” Jews and Christians are among “those who cannot allow in the worship of the Di-vine Being altars, or temples, or images.” He mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.)
5. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote to Constantia Augusta (Op. ii. 1545), the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius. Constantia had asked Eusebius to send her a certain likeness of Christ, of which she had heard. He rebukes her for the request, saying that such representations are inadequate in themselves and tend to idolatry. He states that a foolish woman had brought him two likenesses, which might be philosophers, but were alleged by her to represent St. Paul and the Savior. He had detained them lest they should prove a stumbling-block to her or to others. He reminds Constantia that St. Paul declares his intention of "knowing Christ no longer after the flesh." This letter was quoted by the Iconoclasts, and this led their opponents to rake up all the questionable expressions in his writings, that they might blacken his character for orthodoxy.
6. Epiphanius: (inter 310-320 - 403): Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9:
"I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person."
He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.”
@@yeoberryWow you are totally very very great with keeping things in context.
The Council of Elvira is often put forward by Reformed and other iconoclastic Protestants as proof that the early Church opposed images and icons. Some, such as R. Scott Clark, have gone so far as to claim that “the Church was universally opposed to images until the 7th century.” They rely heavily upon Elvira to support such claims. Specifically they appeal to Canon 36 which states, “There shall be no pictures in Churches, lest what is venerated and adored be depicted on the walls.” To understand this statement it is not enough to simply quote it without regards to their ecclesiastical context and import it into ours. We must take a broader look at the Spanish Church and this council.
The Spanish Church, as seen in the canons of Elvira, was beset with sexual immorality and idolatry. Because of this, the Spanish took strict and ascetic measures to stem idolatry and fornication. Elvira forbade priests from wearing pagan wreaths and sacrificing to idols (Canon 55), forbidding Christians to watch idol worship (Canon 59), forbidding people marrying their daughters to pagan priests (Canon 17), and forbidding people from profiting in land sales by marking part of the price as a gift to idols (Canon 40). It gave no mercy to those who lapsed into idolatry but wished to repent (Canon 46).
Elvira addressed repeat sexual offenders by permanently excommunicating them (Canon 7), permanently excommunicating consecrated virgins who committed fornication (Canon 13), refusing ordination to subdeacon or higher to any who had ever “sinned sexually” (Canon 30), and demands clergy, even if married, to have no sexual relations at all (Canon 33).
Clearly the Spanish Church at the beginning of the fourth century had serious issues with idolatry and sexual immorality within the Church. They imposed strict sanctions and pushed for clerical abstinence. Later, at Nicea, the Spanish Church pushed for universal clerical abstinence. They went further than anyone today would feel comfortable going in seeking to stop these sins and showed little grace to those who struggled with sin.
@@yeoberry In that context, let us read again Canon 36, carefully. A careful reading shows that it is assumed that there are Christian images and that they are venerated and adored! That assumption underlies the prohibition of images in Churches. What IS venerated and adored (no condemnation of such veneration is given) should not be seen on the walls of Churches. Why? The reason is clear: to prevent offense and appearance of wrongdoing to pagans entering the Church, as well as to prevent weak or new Christians from struggling with idolatry while trying to worship God!
Canon 36 does not say what many Reformed and other iconoclasts claim. It presumes without condemnation the existence and veneration of Christian images. Elvira is therefore evidence that there were common Christian images in the early fourth century. It does not condemn their existence or veneration, but their presence at that time in Spanish Churches for good pastoral reasons as part of broader, very strict code.
Additionally, to take a canon of a council (any council) as a universal and objective binding rule is to misunderstand what a canon even is. Canons of councils were pastoral decisions on issues immediately pertinent to the Church and period in which the council took place. While many canons, such as canons against simony or pederasty, are obviously still binding, not every canon of every council is still in effect. No Church on the planet observes all of the Canons of Nicea, yet we consider the Council valid and consider its canons wise given the time and circumstance. The Spanish Church at Elvira was wise to ban at that time images inside Churches, though they arguably went too far with many of the other canons. Furthermore, there is a serious question of authority. Are those who seek to use Canon 36 of Elvira in support of inconoclasm ready to accept it all as authoritative? They seem to be claiming the Canons as Church law and the council as a valid council of the true Church. So they ought to accept Canon 34: “Candles shall not be burned in a cemetery during the day, for the spirits of the saints are not to be disturbed.” If they consider a Church which lights candles in cemeteries for the dead, which is connected to prayers for the dead, to be heretical, why even appeal to Canon 36? How can Elvira be authoritative if it was in fact, by Reformed definition, a council of heretics? And if a president of Nicea approved of lighting candles and prayers for the dead, which they regard as heresy, why accept Nicea? Did Nicea “just happen” to be right?
Furthermore, Elvira’s Canon 36 cannot be taken as the general rule of the Church at the time. There is no evidence the Church was universally banning images inside the Churches, and Elvira as noted did not actually oppose the existence and veneration of Christian images. And we have images of Christ from before and after Elvira, in spite of the widespread destruction of images by later Iconoclasts. Additionally, Eusebius (despite a letter supposedly by him first produced by Iconoclasts) speaks of a statue of Christ existing from before his day [Ecclesiastical History, VII.XVIII]. So Elvira cannot be used as evidence that the Church at the time generally rejected Christian images.
@@yeoberry he Council of Elvira sought to stem idolatry and sexual immorality within the Spanish Church; they did so with severe rules. Its canons address the situation in the early fourth century Spanish Church. They do not necessarily apply today nor was Elvira an Ecumenical Council. The presence and veneration of Christian images is assumed and is not condemned in Canon 36. That canon commanded that such Christian images not be painted in the Churches to help stem idolatry and lessen pagan confusion. [cf. Von Funk in “Tübingen Quartalschrift”, 1883, 270-78; Nolte in “Rev. des Sciences ecclésiastiques”, 1877, 482-84; Turmel in “Rev. du clergé français”, 1906, XLV, 508.] Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira cannot be taken out of its conciliar and historical context and used a simple prooftext for iconoclasm. It does not support iconoclasm nor does it state a universal, objective law which is to be applied to other contexts. The Council of Elvira and Canon 36 in particular pose no problem to the use and veneration of Christian images in the Liturgy today
@@yeoberry3. Key word is ALSO posses.
BTW: What about Dura Europos?
I was raised Orthodox, and we never prayed to the icons themselves. We used them as tools, and as a small child I was able to grasp this concept. We know those depicted therein are real, and that God, who is ineffable, inconceivable, incomprehensible, ever-existing and eternally the same took on matter, redeemed it, and utilized it for Divine purposes.
Praying to pictures..... Why do we have pictures in our homes of past loved ones? Please visit an Orthodox church and ask them why they "pray to pictures" Let me know in the comments bellow ;-)
1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) prohibits making an image and bowing to it.
2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.”
3. Irenaeus, (c. 130-202) in his Against Heresies (1:25;6) says of the Gnostic Carpocratians "They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.."
4. Celsus, a pagan philosopher criticizes Christians for not using images. Origen (184-254) responded by admitting that Christians used no images. He states that Christians “being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues;” Jews and Christians are among “those who cannot allow in the worship of the Di-vine Being altars, or temples, or images.” He mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.)
5. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote to Constantia Augusta (Op. ii. 1545), the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius. Constantia had asked Eusebius to send her a certain likeness of Christ, of which she had heard. He rebukes her for the request, saying that such representations are inadequate in themselves and tend to idolatry. He states that a foolish woman had brought him two likenesses, which might be philosophers, but were alleged by her to represent St. Paul and the Savior. He had detained them lest they should prove a stumbling-block to her or to others. He reminds Constantia that St. Paul declares his intention of "knowing Christ no longer after the flesh." This letter was quoted by the Iconoclasts, and this led their opponents to rake up all the questionable expressions in his writings, that they might blacken his character for orthodoxy.
6. Epiphanius: (inter 310-320 - 403): Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9:
"I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person."
He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.”
@@yeoberry I hear you.. I used to be the same way. If that is your conviction so be it. God bless and remember (also to self) , to love your neighbor.
This guy is so smug, read Isaiah 44. It's quite explicit. An icon is not an idol, idol is worshiping a false god,. Icons are nearly a way to represent what we cannot see. If one argues an icon of a saint is an idol then one could argue that the Bible itself is an icon. That words themselves are icons. We know reading the Bible is not idol worship. Therefore using icons is not idle worship.
1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) prohibits making an image and bowing to it.
2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.”
3. Irenaeus, (c. 130-202) in his Against Heresies (1:25;6) says of the Gnostic Carpocratians "They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.."
4. Celsus, a pagan philosopher criticizes Christians for not using images. Origen (184-254) responded by admitting that Christians used no images. He states that Christians “being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues;” Jews and Christians are among “those who cannot allow in the worship of the Di-vine Being altars, or temples, or images.” He mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.)
5. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote to Constantia Augusta (Op. ii. 1545), the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius. Constantia had asked Eusebius to send her a certain likeness of Christ, of which she had heard. He rebukes her for the request, saying that such representations are inadequate in themselves and tend to idolatry. He states that a foolish woman had brought him two likenesses, which might be philosophers, but were alleged by her to represent St. Paul and the Savior. He had detained them lest they should prove a stumbling-block to her or to others. He reminds Constantia that St. Paul declares his intention of "knowing Christ no longer after the flesh." This letter was quoted by the Iconoclasts, and this led their opponents to rake up all the questionable expressions in his writings, that they might blacken his character for orthodoxy.
6. Epiphanius: (inter 310-320 - 403): Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9:
"I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person."
He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.”
@@yeoberry Appreciate the dialog on this!
1. You didnt address my point about Isaiah 44, (and add to that similar line of rebuttal: There is imagery on the Ark of the Covenant. Solomon’s temple uses images as well). The second commandment is about worshipping false Gods, not about using an image in a setting in which we worship the Holy Trinity.
2. You reference the Council of Elvira. This was not an ecumenical council, it was a synod. I’m sure you’re aware, but the 7th Ecumenical Council deals with iconoclasm explicitly. Either your unaware, or what…you don’t accept it? Why accept the synod you mention but not this council? Elaborate for me.
3-6. You’re aware that Origen was anathematized by the Church. Men can be huge figures in the Church, hold great respect, and write important works…while also being completely wrong about specific matters. The Church is not held in place by any single person, or group of men. But by the entire Church body of Bishops and laity, with Ecumenical Councils used to weed out the heresies and pin down doctrine and dogma.
As for the other quotes, I would need to know the broader context. And even if I were to grant you every quote is exactly what it appears to be. This proves nothing. We can cherry pick quotes from certain Fathers and Scripture to prove almost anything we’d like, but we need to look at the bigger picture and how the Church, as a whole, concluded on the issue.
To my knowledge, every archeological dig of early house Churches has found that they had many images: both symbols and primitive iconography. Of course, many of the house Churches and Christian texts of the Epistles, Gospels, and Church Fathers were destroyed in the Diocletian persecutions, yet some survive. Yeoberry, and other sectarians hypocritically use random seemingly iconoclastic quotes - yet, at the most, these quotes would only "prove" that there was a diversity of opinion about images.
You say random iconoclastic quotes.
That wording sounds highly disingenuous. Either they are iconoclastic in nature, and not random at all, or not iconoclast and to be disregarded as refutation of an argument.
I can’t stand when people try to manipulate arguments with mischaracterizations. This hurts whatever church you purport to support.
There were a lot of heresies in the early years. That doesn't make the right.
I’m a Protestant - and studying Church History at university. Wilson is so wrong that it’s strange!
Wilson is right.
Read this first: "Answering Eastern Orthodox Apologists regarding Icons"
www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/answering-eastern-orthodox-apologists-regarding-icons/
In my country (Canada) and throughout the British commonwealth, it is illegal to deface a coin with the Monarch's image on it. Such a crime can incur severe penalties. My question is why would a Protestant British government worry that dishonour may be shown to the Queen by defacing her image, yet someone it is impossible or "superstitious" to show honour to a person by honouring that person's image!
How inconsistent is it for Puritans to be iconoclast and yet burn effigies of Guy Fawkes?
0:34. With all due respect, try again.
1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) prohibits making an image and bowing to it.
2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.”
3. Irenaeus, (c. 130-202) in his Against Heresies (1:25;6) says of the Gnostic Carpocratians "They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.."
4. Celsus, a pagan philosopher criticizes Christians for not using images. Origen (184-254) responded by admitting that Christians used no images. He states that Christians “being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues;” Jews and Christians are among “those who cannot allow in the worship of the Di-vine Being altars, or temples, or images.” He mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.)
5. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote to Constantia Augusta (Op. ii. 1545), the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius. Constantia had asked Eusebius to send her a certain likeness of Christ, of which she had heard. He rebukes her for the request, saying that such representations are inadequate in themselves and tend to idolatry. He states that a foolish woman had brought him two likenesses, which might be philosophers, but were alleged by her to represent St. Paul and the Savior. He had detained them lest they should prove a stumbling-block to her or to others. He reminds Constantia that St. Paul declares his intention of "knowing Christ no longer after the flesh." This letter was quoted by the Iconoclasts, and this led their opponents to rake up all the questionable expressions in his writings, that they might blacken his character for orthodoxy.
6. Epiphanius: (inter 310-320 - 403): Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9:
"I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person."
He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.”
@@yeoberry I'm not completely sure what your response was for, though I could probably guess. I was not defending images in churches. I was saying try again to the claim that the Roman Catholic came before Orthodoxy. The latter preceded the former. Moreover, the Roman Catholic Church, despite certain aspects of orthodox creeds, is an aberration and distortion from the way Jesus established New Testament and Apostolic Christianity.
@@peacengrease3901 :
The early church strictly prohibited icons. Any organization that uses icons is not following the Lord.
Though I couldn't agree more; too often it seems people conflate theological knowledge with salvation. Intellectualizing eases discomfort with the raw exposure of repentance.
The 12 (and the thousands of other believers of the so-called Acts church) seemed to get along okay without the writings of the guys who came after them in the following centuries; how'd they do it? Must mean, following Jesus is not dependent on lifting up the traditions of the church fathers as equal to Scripture...weird..
8 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me. 9 But he said to me, “Don’t do that! I am a fellow servant with you and with your fellow prophets and with all who keep the words of this scroll. Worship God!”
What you're missing is that the scripture is part of the Tradition.
@yeoberry You avoided answering my question about which aspect of "church history" you have a Ph.D in? What was your thesis about?
Have you ever bothered to read "On the Divine Images" by St John of Damascus? This was one book, which convinced me that Calvinism was ahistorical and patently wrong - and I was a very staunch Calvinist. Have you bothered to study what the 7th Ecumenical Council had to say? You seem totally unable to address the questions posed to you - especially the argument that
There is a problem with this. We don't pray to a picture, we pray to God even though we use the picture to help us remember and focus.
Contrary to the commandment.
Doesn't Jesus give a new commandment - to "love each other as I have loved you" ?
Doesn't God say "do you think a building can contain Me?"
Of course church order developed - but the greater church is without doubt the unity we all have in Jesus. Or do you think Almighty God unable to perceive past the words "I join the orthodox church" into the faith of the person who says them?
How then could allegiance to a tradition ever be more important than the decision to follow Jesus? It could not.
Amen. Indeed. I understand their gripe with modern evangelical churches. I share the same gripe and I share a ton of the same views as they do on eschatology, etc., but it really does boil down to Jesus over men. There's an arrogance there. If Christ isn't the model to which everything else is judged, then we can go astray. Holy water? How is that pertaining to Jesus? It's frustrating. Each group sitting, pointing fingers at the other. If you have the gospel correct, you're doing well for yourself. I do appreciate many Orthodox people and do agree with them on many things, but salvation is NOT by works. If Jesus and the Apostles (the men who literally walked with Jesus.... not men 100 years later) didn't say that, then we need to throw away our Bibles and just listen to history instead.
Is that a picture of Calvin on one of the beer bottles?
Imagine bringing iconoclasm to a debate against orthodoxy.
1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) prohibits making an image and bowing to it.
2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.”
3. Irenaeus, (c. 130-202) in his Against Heresies (1:25;6) says of the Gnostic Carpocratians "They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.."
4. Celsus, a pagan philosopher criticizes Christians for not using images. Origen (184-254) responded by admitting that Christians used no images. He states that Christians “being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues;” Jews and Christians are among “those who cannot allow in the worship of the Di-vine Being altars, or temples, or images.” He mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.)
5. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote to Constantia Augusta (Op. ii. 1545), the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius. Constantia had asked Eusebius to send her a certain likeness of Christ, of which she had heard. He rebukes her for the request, saying that such representations are inadequate in themselves and tend to idolatry. He states that a foolish woman had brought him two likenesses, which might be philosophers, but were alleged by her to represent St. Paul and the Savior. He had detained them lest they should prove a stumbling-block to her or to others. He reminds Constantia that St. Paul declares his intention of "knowing Christ no longer after the flesh." This letter was quoted by the Iconoclasts, and this led their opponents to rake up all the questionable expressions in his writings, that they might blacken his character for orthodoxy.
6. Epiphanius: (inter 310-320 - 403): Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9:
"I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person."
He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.”
@@yeoberry spam this copypasta as much as you want, it aint ganna make it true.
@@bigger_mibber6029 :
I'm just showing what the early church believed. Your sect broke away from the teachings of the early church. It teaches you to refuse to listen to the truth because if you do, you'll leave that sect.
I have the teachings of the early church. You have only the lies of your self-serving, semi-pagan, medieval sect.
"Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men" ~ Tertullian (The Prescription against Heretics: Chapter 32).
"All doctrine must be prejudged as false which savors of disagreement with the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours ... has its origin in the tradition of the apostles ... We hold communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no respect different from theirs. This is our witness of truth." (Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, 21) "...those churches which, although they do not derive their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. (The Prescription against Heretics, 32)
Reading the books of the New Testament, we probably asked ourselves more than once: *"Why 2000 years we do not see those miracles that accompanied the Сhurch of Christ in the I century, as described in the New Testament?"* Why do the so-called preachers of Christ have to prove that Jesus really existed and atheists boldly deny the historicity or divine origin of Christ? Maybe because the Сhurch of Christ has not existed for 2000 years?
The Сhurch does not exist in the form in which it is presented in the books of the New Testament, but there are Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant and other christian sects claiming to be the place of the Church, but they not have the only thing that distinguishes the divine from the human and is characteristic of just the Сhurch of Christ -the reinforcement of the word with signs, that is, miracles (Mark 16:15-20). Therefore, some researchers doubt the historicity of Christ, and some of them are not opposed to declaring him a an ordinary philosopher, teacher. But even if Jesus were an ordinary philosopher, his disciples would be ordinary followers of Jesus. And they would not dare to write about the miracles that not only Jesus, but also his disciples, could perform. If there were the Church in our time as described by the authors of the New Testament books, where miracles are performed, the sick are healed, where prophesied, and the dead are raised, no one would doubt the historicity of Christ. Then there would be the same controversy throughout the world as in the first century - Jesus the Son of God or the false prophet who seduces the world by miracles. As a result, we can say that the emergence and development of christian sects and atheism was the result of the fact that over the 2000 years the Сhurch of Christ did not exist.
Find *"The Mystery about the Church of Christ"* video on UA-cam. The video reveals the prophecy of the disappearance and reappearance of the Church of Christ before the End of the World. Watching this video will give hope to all who sincerely seek God and will interest those who are not too lazy to think freely. Click on my name to watch the video (The video is in Russian, but English subtitles are included).
1Kings 8:54 When Solomon had finished praying this entire prayer and supplication to the LORD, he arose from before the altar of the LORD, from kneeling on his knees with his hands spread toward heaven.
So Solomon worshiped the alter?? uhh, no!
While there were certainly references to holy icons made by the Orthodox Church Fathers like St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Gregory of Nysaa, St. John Chrysostom and the Synod in Trullo, the need for a strong defense of icons did not arise until the early 8th century when the iconoclastic controversy began.
It's interesting that the Greek-speaking church has never interpreted them in that way.
Famous Iconoclasts: Moses, King David, King Asa, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Micah, the Apostle John
Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:4)
Then the master of that servant was moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt. But that servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and he laid hands on him and took him by the throat, saying, ‘Pay me what you owe!’ So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’” (Matthew 18:23-29).
Here (relative) worship is shown from the servant to the master.
As Orthodox Christians we find Christ through Prayer not reason. The question of Iconoclasim was settled in the 9th Century. We venerate Icons not worship them. We are led otherwise by tradition and the scriptures. You are welcome to return to the Ancient Church at any time.
Well, I remember being an arrogant Protestant thinking I would go after the Orthodox and Catholic's. I got my keester handed to me in love. I resisted and fought it until the church's Christology was too much for my piddly Calvinistic defences. So pray for him and others to see the truth and beauty of the faith once for all delivered.
One of my brothers has shown that Eusebius elsewhere approves of the image "made without hands" icon and recorded it in his writings. Jesus himself made an icon of himself and had it sent to the King of Edessa.
Nevertheless, no one person, even a Church Father, is infallible - only Ecumenical Councils (i.e. the Church in Council) are infallible (1 Tim 3:15)!
"they pray through pictures" my man has no clue what he is on about.
If you are Roman Catholic, your church shared the same rich apostolic and doctrinal heritage as the Orthodox Church for the first thousand years of its history, since during the first millennium they were one and the same Church. Lamentably, in 1054, the Pope of Rome broke away from the other four Apostolic Patriarchates (which include Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem), by tampering with the Original Creed of the Church, and considering himself to be infallible. Thus your church is 1,000 years old.
Just for reference:
1 John 2:27 - The anointing you received from Him remains in you, and you don't need anyone to teach you. Instead, His anointing teaches you about all things and is true and is not a lie; just as He has taught you, remain in Him.
John 16:12-13 "I still have many things to tell you, but you can't bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth."
Matt. 23:10 "And do not be called masters either, because you have one Master, the Messiah."
The Icon is a representation of the Saint, and kissing icon or giving a gift is to show respect in a sense to the saint and to show to people and the angelic hosts that you are giving honor to them no one can read your mind except God. Faith is action not only words.
That is worship of idols hate to break it to you
@@winniefindstheway I would love for you to do some real research about idolatry. You can read the Bible first, or if you don't take that seriously, you can look at secular understandings of idolatry and how it actually functioned before christianity. Or you could read about modern cultures which still practice idolatry. As a modern person, with 2000 years of separation from any real idolatry, I understand how you could mistake the two, but that is only ignorance, and you should really learn about what you're claiming to understand.
@@PhilosophyOfNoa Hinduism has the same practice of veneration of their version of saints know as gurus... buddhism and islam also hold to these practices... Janism too holds a version of this practice... I rather worship God alone... Jesus is our only mediator and He and the Holy Spirit's intercession is the only intercession that is biblical... I don't care about traditions of man I care what the bible actually says... and it sure doesn't give pictures of saints magical powers... or tell us it's ok to kiss them or give them gifts... it actually forbids that practice
@@winniefindstheway No, it actually does not forbid those things, or say that there aren't intercessors between men and Jesus, that is an unbiblical opinion.
@@winniefindstheway kissing is worship?
@ Yeo Most of the Church Fathers were and (continue to be to this day) "priests" or bishops (who were made priests before being elevated to the episcopacy). So again, thank you for clearly demonstrating that Baptists are a radically different religion from Orthodox Catholic Christianity. Baptists can claim no support from Fathers, Councils, or the canonized Bible, since all are "tainted" by "priestcraft" (to borrow the term of Charles Spurgeon") Lol.
"Da Bible Says" = The little Pope that lives in this guy's head
😂😂😂 pretty much
Your comment reveals a lack of respect for Jesus and the Apostles. It's difficult to believe such a comment came from any Christian of any creed.
@@CornerTalker Once everyone becomes their own interpreter of the Sacred Scriptures you get division; hence 40,000 protestant denominations today
@@CornerTalker
You’re comment amounts to weak ad hominem. Either there is a central authority for understanding scripture, or... everyone is their own authority.
Which way western man?
@@GS-cj7rf
Church fathers vs Scripture is a false dichotomy.
Scripture never stands alone, and it’s disingenuous for any denomination to imply otherwise.
Every denom has its paradigm of an accepted range of interpretation that has been established by denominational consensus.
Name your denomination and we can decide if it actually adheres to “sola scriptural” or if it ironically defaults to a consensus authority to validate what the scripture means.
“I kiss my wife not other women”
2 questions
Would you kiss a picture of your wife?
Would you kiss your mother? Even St Paul speaks of kissing other believers as a greeting. So right here we see the are valid and rightly ordered exceptions to this rule you made up
The bible never forbids the use of religious images for liturgy, only worship/adoration/submission to false Gods or depictions of false Gods. Idolatry is placing your end in the creature
Bible study class is not a covenant with God
These guys are very unknowledgeable when it comes to church history. The Catholic Church separates from us in 1054 with their new doctrine.
No, you don't know this: "Answering Eastern Orthodox Apologists regarding Icons", Themelios, Volume 43 - Issue 3, by John Carpenter.
Then:
Er, what new doctrine did the Catholic Church devise in 1054?
He is definitely a heretic. If one was to read Acts, then one would understand that the church grew as a community of worshippers. Certain practices and teachings became apparent as the church developed. It isn't just a matter of believing in Christ, but being a part of the community and Communion that brings us closer to God.
I know this is 7 years ago, but the necessity of community as mentioned in Acts does not then mean that their traditions and teachings (other than the Bible) hold as much weight as scripture. If it were necessary to practice the correct traditions as well, would the Bible not say something other than it's consistent stance that you are saved only through grace by faith in Jesus Christ, not by anything that you yourself do (like practice the proper traditions). Obviously the Bible describes the best way to go about living, but it doesn't seem to imply that belief in Christ needs anything else to validate salvation. (Unless you also choose to misinterpret the places where the Bible is talking about salvation on earth from certain things, as not every time salvation is translated does it mean the eternal salvation you receive from Christ through Faith.)? (Btw I still want to understand EO because I still have much to learn and much I may be mistaken on).
@@vibeauxssxuaebiv3489 there's a verse in the epistles that clearly commends a church for carrying on the instructions of the apostles through letters and WORD of mouth. I.e tradition. So they do hold just as much weight.
@@lorenioooooas And yet is it not true that many of the traditions practiced are ones that were created since that was written. And if that ie the case, sure they could have good meaning, but that would make them the traditions of man and many then turn into pointless repetition. Then it would come down to an understanding of Church authority and there is a good argument against the interpretation that is held by both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. (But it's at least clear by actions alone that the Catholic church has been corrupted according to both their history and present.)
Icons are not Idols.
+bishop Bowing down before statues kissing them is not a form of worship to you?
+Daniel Sarmas
I'm not a Roman Catholic, but I'd like to offer a perspective on this.
In the eastern understanding it is not equated to as what one would understand worship which belongs only to God. Hmmm bear with me I'm going to give my best attempt and see if I can perhaps help your western mind understand it from an eastern perspective.
Regarding bowing down:
For example: ever notice how the Chinese or the Japanese (others in the east as well) bow down when they greet someone who is their perhaps their elder. It isn't worship, but rather more so taking a stance of humility and respect towards an elder.
Another example: I born and raised in India. In our culture we greet our elders (mother/father/grandparents etc.) by bending down and touching their feet. And in return the elders will say something like - May God bless you richly. It's a sign of honor and respect. lol we do realize they are human beings and not God. It's culturally nonsensical to say that we're worshipping them.
And as for kissing bit:
For example: a soldier who is deployed at war and away from his beloved wife and children, keeps pictures of them in his wallet and every night he kisses their those pictures before he goes to bed as a sign of his love and longing to be reunited with them.
Another example: A widow whose husband has passed on may find comfort and solace in kissing the picture of her deceased husband in her longing to someday be reunited with him once she has met her grave as he.
The Ecclesia - the body of Christ is a family of believers, whether departed or alive. Christ has only one body. So even the departed believers / beloved Saints are indeed still part of the family. Kissing the drawings or paintings of them is really no different than the soldier or the widow kissing the pictures of their loved ones who at the moment are physically afar from them.
I hope that makes sense. ☺
Preet Wilson When a person bows before their elders, in order to show respect and honor, they don't do that in a religious context. None of the examples you gave are done in a religious context. When a Catholic bows down before a statue of Mary and prays to her, no one would deny that that is done in a religious context, and therefore it is worship, and since that worship is addressed to a creature rather than to the Creator, it is idolatry.
Revelation 22:8-9 "I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed me these things. 9 But he said to me, “Do not do that. I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets and of those who heed the words of this book. Worship God.”
Daniel Sarmas
Notice what Scripture states - I fell down "to worship" at the feet of the Angel
John fell down to the feet of the Angel with the intention of worship. This was the reason within his heart for why he was doing what he was doing.
Intent is prior to content.
If the intention is worship, then of course it is indeed wrong. But if the intention is merely honor and respect in remembrance, of one Saint to another, then that is hardly the equivalency of worship which is solely owed to God.
Christ judges the inward contents of a man, not the outward. The intentions of the heart defile a person. If it were the outward acts, deeds and rituals, then Jesus would have not have called the Pharisees - outward white washed tombs.
"Christ judges the inward contents of a man, not the outward."
Wrong. Matthew 7:17-20 "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 So then, you will know them by their fruits."
Romans 2:5-6 "But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS"
"Notice what Scripture states - I fell down "to worship" at the feet of the Angel"
The New Testament wasn't written in English, but in Koine Greek. The word προσκυνέω means:
1. to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence
2. among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence
3. in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication
used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank
-to the Jewish high priests
-to God
-to Christ
-to heavenly beings
-to demons
The word προσκυνέω was translated as "worship" in Revelation 22:8-9 because it was done in a religious worship.
And you have not addressed my previous comment, let me re-post it here:
When a person bows before their elders, in order to show respect and honor, they don't do that in a religious context. None of the examples you gave are done in a religious context. When a Catholic bows down before a statue of Mary and prays to her, no one would deny that that is done in a religious context, and therefore it is worship, and since that worship is addressed to a creature rather than to the Creator, it is idolatry.
Jay Dyer will eat Doug's claims for breakfast.
Yes, but despite having eaten pancakes for my breakfast in conquering, victorious fashion and made all manner of mess, I can confirm that the validity of pancakes as a construct of reality remains intact and undisturbed despite my best efforts. It's possible that trying to destroy things by our own efforts doesn't actually change anything.
1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) prohibits making an image and bowing to it.
2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.”
3. Irenaeus, (c. 130-202) in his Against Heresies (1:25;6) says of the Gnostic Carpocratians "They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.."
4. Celsus, a pagan philosopher criticizes Christians for not using images. Origen (184-254) responded by admitting that Christians used no images. He states that Christians “being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues;” Jews and Christians are among “those who cannot allow in the worship of the Di-vine Being altars, or temples, or images.” He mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.)
5. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote to Constantia Augusta (Op. ii. 1545), the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius. Constantia had asked Eusebius to send her a certain likeness of Christ, of which she had heard. He rebukes her for the request, saying that such representations are inadequate in themselves and tend to idolatry. He states that a foolish woman had brought him two likenesses, which might be philosophers, but were alleged by her to represent St. Paul and the Savior. He had detained them lest they should prove a stumbling-block to her or to others. He reminds Constantia that St. Paul declares his intention of "knowing Christ no longer after the flesh." This letter was quoted by the Iconoclasts, and this led their opponents to rake up all the questionable expressions in his writings, that they might blacken his character for orthodoxy.
6. Epiphanius: (inter 310-320 - 403): Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9:
"I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person."
He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.”
Read: "Answering Eastern Orthodox Apologists regarding Icons", Themelios, Volume 43 - Issue 3, by John Carpenter.
@@yeoberry orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2020/04/23/answering-john-carpenters-aniconist-historical-arguments/amp/
That aniconist nonsense of John Carpenter has been answered. Look it up.
@@SlavaBogu7 :
That’s all lies.
I really have been blessed by what "Doug" has to say on his podcast of recent times.....I am so sad to see that he clearly has not even bothered to look into Orthodoxy at all . I also believed there was nothing there to see but the Lord led me to read some of the Orthodox Saints of the very early centuries and some that were in Greece and Russia in the 19th century and even some recognized Saints writings of recent times......If you read the early church fathers writings the Holy Spirit fills their words with truth and life ...... the depth of the words of those Saints made me look deeper into the earliest Orthodox traditions of Christianity and to hear what they had to say for themselves about what they are doing in their worship.....
"It is not Scripture alone that guides the church, but the Oral Traditions"
That was my point.
But you said over and over that all your traditions can be found in Scriptures.
Yet, I proved you wrong cause you cant prove that the processions of the rolls, the Kairos, the assumption of Mary among many others, can be found in Scriptures.
Blessings!
The way Protestants (I’m “Protestant” ) misrepresent iconography etc and refuse to even consider what it actually is and represents, is enough to make me question Protestantism entirely. It’s incredibly dishonest and uncharitable, and The extent to which I hear them all do it it in the same way is kind of mind blowing. I’m not Catholic or Orthodox, but the way fellow Protestants talk about Catholicism and Greek Orthodox is enough to make me think I’m on the wrong side and in the wrong church. Truth is truth.