There is one thing about this video I take very seriously, and that is the thumbnail. Question my scholarship all you want, but you cannot deny that my thumbnail carries scholarly gravitas. ALSO: I respond to some criticism here: ua-cam.com/users/postUgkx1VMlzlE9wnLYdZpeuifApMjlrJmEVUsZ
Here here. Seeing the thumbnail made me quiet myself and steel my nerves before clicking the video, seeing how deeply weighty the matter would be. (In all reality though, so excited to see your scholarly work! Watching right now!)
As a Catholic considering Protestantism for several years now, this video was very important for me. Thank you Gavin. I've been doing my best building a defensive case for my Catholic beliefs, but more and more I feel like some of Catholic doctrines are impossible to properly defend, it boils down to appeal to authority of Pope in so many issues... Veneration of images was ALWAYS a hard pill to swallow for me too. I remember being on a Retreat Mass where all participants were asked to venerate an Icon of Mary. Not even Mary herself, but very specifically, her icon, and the prayer that followed was also, very specifically, addressing and asking THE HOLY ICON to answer the prayers. I can not describe how haunting and disturbing was this event for me. I wasn't educated enough to know why what was going on was wrong, but I knew it, I felt it in my heart, in my very soul. I was watching lots of both Catholic and Protestant Apologists on this and other topics that were concerning to me for years, and your channel has been, hands down, the best content for this purpose I've ever seen. Please keep answering these hard questions Gavin. You have no idea how hard it is for us Catholics to find a way out, even if we feel in our gut that we should. These videos are very helpful.
I very nearly decided to become Catholic not long ago. I'm massively drawn towards the emphasis on tradition, high-church liturgy, and having a simple way to settle disputes of doctrine. What stopped me was that I couldn't get the idea out of my head, feelings, conscience, whatever one wants to call it, that Christ almost certainly would not want people anathematized and, so, removed from the Church for merely being unable to believe in, say, Mary's perpetual virginity, her assumption, or even her being immaculately conceived. There were a few other issues, but this, I think, was the biggest. How can it be Christ's Church, His body, if man can remove members from it erroneously, especially if such tradition is as authoritative as scripture?
@@Real_LiamOBryan have you ever considered other high church contexts with a structure of authority for setting disputes, but more inclusive and open? Like Anglicans or high Methodist or others? As a Catholic, by far the most powerful asset of protestantism is the freedom of choice. Catholics have no say about anything as far as their fate is concerned. We have to do and believe everything the magisterium teaches. I'm technically not even Catholic anymore for even having the doubts that I have. It's strict to the point of absurdity. It's not the "freedom in Christ" that Jesus promised us for sure.
@@mitromney Yes, I have. My doctrinal beliefs align very closely with conservative sorts of Methodism, and even fairly closely with conservative sorts of Anglicanism. I'm definitely not Lutheran in my beliefs. Still, being relatively close to Catholicism on some doctrines I don't feel 100% Protestant, and definitely not 100% Catholic. I believe that prayer to the saints is acceptable, that the Bishop of Rome should have a primacy of honor, that Sola Scriptura is either false or incomplete, that the dulia/latria distinction is true and useful and, therefore, that worshipping others (such as saints) is acceptable, that there is great importance--necessity even--in unity, that tradition is really important, etc. This is mostly academic for me, unless I choose Catholicism (which seems unlikely to me) or Methodism, because I only have two churches within reasonable travel distance from me, Catholic and low-church Wesleyan (which is a type of Methodist). By the way, what are your thoughts on whether Jesus would want disbelievers in Marian dogmas removed from the Church? I suppose another large issue I had is that it seems that the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which is formal dogma (as far as I know), seems--in part--to directly contradict the writings of Ignatius, not have biblical support (which isn't massively important to me), be influenced by Greek philosophy, and ontologically subordinates The Son to The Father by removing His aseity, making His existence ab alio instead. It says that Christ is eternally (πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων/before all of the ages) begotten, but Ignatius says that The Son is begotten in the flesh and, explicitly, unbegotten in the spirit (Ephesians 7:2). Those are my two biggest issues. I would love to hear your thoughts on them, if you have any you would like to share.
I have to admit, you make a very good argument that not only wowed but challenged my own faith. Too often do we hear from Catholics and Orthodox saying that the veneration of iconography was historical. Per your research, that is simply not the case.
I think the opposition to the veneration of icons is a Judaizing artefact rather than a mandate of the Christian faith because Christian Freedom dispensed with it. Many of the early Christians had that Jewish iconoclasm imbedded in their faith practice even though they were free of the Law. Compare that to how many early Christians were against doing away with the 4th Commandment, namely “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy" for obvious reasons. The Law said the observance was for eternity. Observing the Sabbath was even more foundational in Judaism than the issue of images. Christ never mentioned doing away with the Sabbath. He followed the Sabbath. Yet, the Church, which are the apostles and the believers, mandated that the that observance was not needed and the "new" day of worship was Sunday. What gall, what usurpation of power if they did not have the Lord's delegated authority. But the Church DID AND DOES HAVE Christ's delegated authority. The Church declaring the veneration of icons as licit makes official what Christian Freedom allowed all along. That the Church figures Gavin quoted retained certain Judaizing sentiments does not mean that Christian Freedom was no longer in operation. Church figures come and go, each shaped by their milieu and their outlooks stamped with the prevailing issues of the day but it is the Church that bears Christ's promise, eternally joined to Him, inseparable. It is the Church that moves through history and will do so in eternity.
@@AL_YZ This is a great observation. I really think there should be freedom in Christ and conscience for this. I think it may be a mistake to mandate veneration of icons, and a mistake to disallow the veneration of icons. There are a lot of issues in Romans 12-15 about freedom of conscience that sometimes gets lost in the tradition, either through unnecessary proscription or enforced prescription. If the Protestant movement can do one thing, I hope it's not the overthrowing of tradition, but the reintroduction to freedom of conscience on some of these traditions. But if freedom of conscience swings the opposite direction into condemnation of tradition, it just is repeating similar errors.
@@jonathananstett784 For a Roman Catholic, Christian Freedom prevails UNTIL the Church makes a definitive declaration of dogma after which the matter is settled. For instance, prior to the canon being finalized, there was back and forth as to which books were included, even among the fathers. But after a consensus is reached within the Church, questioning the canon was no longer an option. The working out of defined doctrines within the Church is often a contentious process over centuries sometimes - like finalizing the canon. For the RC, it is not just a pope unilaterally deciding this or that. Regarding the decree to compel veneration of icons, that was a very specific response to the intense battles - theological and political - which involved the powers of the day. It really tore through the Church of the time. It was authoritative but time-bound in practice. Like the issue of the Jewish Sabbath observance I mentioned, that was settled by the Church. So no-one has compelled anyone for the longest time ever since the iconoclastic controversies were over a thousand years ago. The Church had declared that the veneration of icons is licit and that is settled. Most RC are not even aware it was part of a recognized ecumenical council.
@@jonathananstett784 Fr oma Roman Catholic point of view, Christian Freedom prevails UNTIL the Church makes a definitive declaration of dogma after which the matter is settled. For instance, prior to the canon being finalized, there was back and forth as to which books were included, even among the fathers. But after a consensus is reached within the Church, questioning the canon was no longer an option. Same with the Sabbath. The working out of defined doctrines within the Church is often a contentious process over centuries sometimes - like finalizing the canon. Why so messy? Because Christ chose to deputize flesh and blood people to be His church and to teach His Word. He did not promise a new set of scriptures as a stand-alone guide that anyone can build their church around. The bible was written by the singular Church of Christ for the Church. He promised to abide with His church as it marches through history to the end of time. For the RC then, it is not just a pope unilaterally deciding this or that. So this present Pope with his problematic statements is a transient slice of time while the Church that Christ left behind is everlasting. Regarding the decree to compel veneration of icons, that was a very specific response to the intense battles - theological and political - which involved the powers of the day. It really tore through the Church of the time. It was authoritative but time-bound in practice. So no-one has compelled anyone for the longest time ever since the iconoclastic controversies were over a thousand years ago. The Church had declared that the veneration of icons is licit and the matter is settled. Most RC are not even aware it was part of a recognized ecumenical council.
@@AL_YZWe could use this argument for anything though, we could argue that the church politics, elders, fathers, priests, bishops, etc. are ALL against judaizers, and that christian freedom has done away with it. Why not? We can all agree a major reason for the very first politics of the church was not meant to be permanent, otherwise it would still exist as it was(it does not). The political structure of the church has changed much since the book of Acts, even since the days of the fathers, and as seen by Paul and Peter, much of what the apostles did was to stop judaizers. So who is Rome, who is Alexandria, who is Antioch to say we have freedom to overcome the prohibition on icon veneration?
I see Protestantism as a pursuit of the truth not a pursuit of one’s own private judgment. Protestants DO acquiesce to something: The leading of the Holy Spirit as found in the Word of God. (John 17:17)
Yes except that’s nonsense and just another way of saying “my opinion.” Ever noticed every single branch of Protestantism claims they have the holy spiritual leading them to truth but all claim different things? It’s because that’s a nonsensical claim people use to act like whatever they personally believe the text says, based on their opinion was from the Holy Spirit and therefore right
With all due respect, how can that statement coexist with so many divisions, and not just on "the small things" There are major divides on eternal security, baptism, whether Catholics are Christians, etc.
Hard to explain the Spirit leading into thousands of denominations. Seraphim Hamilton has 4 or 5 videos, each about an hour long directly addressing this video. I recommend watching those for a DEEP dive into why Ortlund is mistaken.
"I see Protestantism as a pursuit of the truth not a pursuit of one’s own private judgment. " Protestant is built with Sola Scriptura as its foundation, who's 16th centuries fruit was, is, and shall ever be, doctrinal chaos, confusion and division. The pursuit of truth completely elusive as it's foundation by definition is one's private, fallible and unauthoritative interpretation of scripture. Yet Christ himself made numerous promises regarding the Truth: Christ is the head of his Church (Col 1: 18) Christ''s Church is the pillar of truth (1 Tim 3: 15) Christ's Church is the bulwark of truth. (1 Tim 3: 15) Christ's Church is where the manifold wisdom of God is made known. (Eph 3: 10) *Christ PROMISED to lead it to ALL Truth.* (Jn 16: 13) Christ PROMISED that he would NEVER leave it. (Mt 28: 20) Christ PROMISED that the gates of hell would not prevail (it will not teach doctrinal error) ; (Mt 16: 18) Why not trust Christ?
This was beautiful. I believe your intellect is a gift from God. Thank you for all of your work. I will be looking into purchasing copies of your works. May God bless your soul, my brother in Christ. 🩷
Praying for you, Gavin. This has caused quite a stir and dealing with accusations, mischaracterizations, disingenuous interpretations, and lies thrown at you is hard. Especially when in online communities like UA-cam, it feels like you are outnumbered and outnumbered = you must be wrong. Be encouraged that you are doing good work, and the hasty responses that have been made to you completely mischaracterize your views and dodge the points made. Most importantly, I'm praying that you are graciously given the strength to fight off the attacks of Satan which tempt you to anger, defensiveness, and pride - may God get the glory!
As an orthodox who has had a big issue with kissing icons and praying to saints from childhood, I thank God for you and your videos. Look at their fruits. Look into how the priests actually conduct themselves in the orthodox countries. Look at their fruits. No one loves money more than an orthodox priest and his wife.
@Truth Unites ah man, my husband and I had high hopes for you as a rational Protestant. Do you venerate the Bible? If so, then you are worshipping the Bible, which, by your logic, makes an idol out of it. The Word (i.e. Jesus) has existed infinitely longer than the Bible (John 1). The Bible is a gift from God, not God Himself. Similar to demonizing kissing the Bible, your demonizing kissing icons is tantamount to demonizing other gifts from God based on YOUR imperfect wisdom. It's a form of Manichaeism - a terrible heresy that causes grief among the faithful because it misrepresents who God is to His loved ones. By you proclaiming good things as bad, you make yourself into a god, and THAT is what causes you to be an anathma. Regards, Dr. Enshala
I really don't get it - all of this veneration of various saints and supplications made to them. When you have access to boldly approach the Creator of our Universe (Christ!), then why would we ever attempt to have our burdens met by some mere mortal underling. It's as if I have some very important issue with a company over some serious mistake they've made with my account - am I going to sort it out with some powerless young clerk behind a counter, or would I not seek out the company owner that can provide both the solution AND has the authority and ability to see that it's taken care of? With Catholics, the CC even teaches that Mary is a "co-redemptrix" with Jesus - as she supposedly operates alongside Jesus to hear and address our concerns. WHAT, does Jesus somehow need HELP in getting things done? Is He not enough or is somehow lacking? It's truly inconceivable that one wouldn't first beseech Jesus!
Those are excellent reflections; we refer to the current proprietor of the universe and - the heavenly realm for - literally - Christ's sake: Jesus Christ! To the glory of His Father, to be sure. Thank you Kind regards Kim
Colossians 1:24: “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church.”
@@glennjapson6234 This is a verse I'd never considered much, but you need to squint *really* hard to connect this to icon veneration. Paul is talking about martyrdom, and to apply it to anything else would require some clear allusions or parallels at least.
I’ve always been a Protestant that wanted to convert to Catholicism with my friends or Orthodox. But every time I started to dig deeper into it I realized I just like the sincerity of the aesthetics of those churches and the quietness of heart that they invoke when you enter them. Even the discipline of the rosary seemed like a helpful tool for my wandering mind. BUT I never converted and have realized I am as Protestant as they come. When I read the Bible and gospels Catholicism and Orthodoxy just seemed so far away from the flavor of the simple purity of the New Testament. To top it off I’m an artist and I have always struggled with the purpose of my art and Christian art and afraid of creating idol like images. I’m very wary of it and continually have to ask God why he gave me this gift and its highest purpose, how to use it for him without it becoming more than that.
As a Protestant enquiring into Orthodoxy, the dogma surrounding icon veneration arising from the Seventh Ecumenical Council has been a significant barrier to entry. I've actually grown to admire the practice of icon veneration, and see how it could add value to a Christian's life. But I can't see myself agreeing that it is a necessity for sanctification/theosis, or that any Christian failing to venerate icons is anathema to the Church. I was initially drawn to EO because I thought it preserved the liturgy and worship that Christ taught the apostles, but I have found the arguments for 1st century icon veneration to be severely lacking. Thanks for all you do, looking forward to watching this!
Think hard and very carefully before you make that leap. My son and cycled through the EO church. I was excommunicated shortly after my baptism, and drove 16 hours one way to see the bishop about it. He wasn't overly concerned,. So I got my critical thinking cap back on, and soon saw EO for what it is- a remnant of the church of Constantine. Once you ask the right questions, and look for biblical answers, you will see that the EO church is a false church. Here is a simple question. How are local churches governed in the NT. By a separate priestly caste? Or by elders/ pastors? That we are adopted sons and daughters of God under the new covenant is key to understanding the differences. I have attempted to communicate with my former priests since I returned to Protestantism (I am Baptist) and have received only one response: they will only talk with me once I return to the EO church, and not otherwise. They have been good for their word. So much for the love of Christ, eh?
@@1Immanuel8 I don't think that it's a false church - the question for me is whether it alone is the "One True Church". Out of curiosity - why were you excommunicated shortly after your baptism?
@@nathanielchristian7027 I inquired into Orthodoxy for a year. The main question is if you believe it is the only One True Church, like you said. I could never believe that. I've seen the fruit of the spirit in many other churches, and claims your church is the only one is always based on very shaky epistemology at best. Just reeks of institutional propaganda to me. I'm now very happily Anglican, we take the most reasonable answer to that question.
@@ramichahin2 (Col 1,15) "HE IS THE IMAGE of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation." So.. you must be runaway from the movie titled "Dumb & Dumber".
@@johnnyd2383 What does that prove? All it is how Christ is the image of God. This is not the same as icon veneration as defined in Nicea II. Make a better case
I am pro-orthodox but this brother is dropping bombs in this video, I am very taken back by this information. I am protestant but have been swaying more and more towards Orthodoxy over the years but I can't deny that this video is very powerful in regards to the use of icons. I do not see how this can be refuted by anyone, it is very well sourced.
There is still a problem that even if you don’t have physical images, you always have mental images. I think the problem isn’t as simple as looking at the history seeing some things you don’t like, interpreting some texts in a very particular way and concluding it was wrong. I also think it is quite idealistic to believe art was ‘just for decorative and educational purpose’.
@@brambes1804I’ve thought the same thing. Since the illiteracy rate was so high in that time. Art was used to tell the story. I don’t see why having religious art back then is proof of icon veneration
Seraphim Hamilton has 4 or 5 videos, each about an hour long directly addressing this video. I recommend watching those for a DEEP dive into why Ortlund is mistaken.
@@brambes1804 One can according to EO theology not have mental images. And from personal experience it is quite a simple thing to pray without picturing the Lord or the Heavens or anything like it. It's not idealistic. It fits the best evidence of the intention of the Christian leaders. Whether some ill-informed person decided to venerate the art as a relic of his former pagan practice is not particularly relevant.
The RCC not following the 2nd commandment made me question the Roman Catholic Church. My relationship with God has become stronger and clear since I have turned to following God's word!
You demand that the RCC observe the second commandment: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above." (Actually, no one observes that. You interpret it loosely based on your own authority and even Gavin does not prohibit images as such but rather with veneration of images. Now, Muslims. THEY are really observant of that prohibition.) Yet if you are like the vast majority of protestants, you do not observe the 4th, the Sabbath. The 4th Commandment: "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy" That is supposed to be forever hence the Jews to this day. In fact, the observance of the Sabbath is even more foundational to Judaism. Jesus Christ observed the Sabbath. You know who made the day of worship the first day of the week (Sunday) instead of the Sabbath? The Church. If the Church did not have the authority to basically cross out the 4th commandment, then you are in deep trouble. Because you know that to not observe one part is to fail to observe the entirety of the law. “For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all." (James 2:10-11) What make you of Christian Freedom which frees Christians from the strictures of the Law? You and Gavin are Judaizing.- requiring observance of a Jewish prohibition.
Peace. How exactly does the "Church" not follow the Second(First) commandment? And the implication that you did not have God's Word or that you couldn't follow it while IN the Church makes one question in what "church" you were. And as an aside, Sola Scriptura is not taught in the Bible, (and no, not even in 2Tim). But, if you are interested in learning the answers to the questions that were not answered for you, I am here. Blessings.
This is probably one of your best videos. I’m a Protestant but there are so few Protestants out there making reliable content that seriously addresses the issue of Icon Veneration. Your reliance on primary sources is great and scathing to the RC/EO position (imo). I’m curious - do lutheran and Anglicans that use crucifixes and icons in worship/devotion look at this similarly to RC/EO?
Anglican here. My priest laid it out like this: "We affirm the christological definitions of the Nicea II." We do have a crucifix and most if not all the parish bows to it as a symbol of Christ the King. When I voiced my queasiness I was assured I don't have to bow and that I should not go against my conscience. After much prayer and research I now do bow. I also have a few icons gifted to me by a friend. I occasionally kiss them as a show of affection for Christ and gratitude towards the saints who are praying for us. But all this is personal devotion not mandated.
@@EloSportsTalk As a Lutheran, yes, some churches use crucifixes, but many do not. For those that use them, we see them as symbolic of what we call the Theology of the Cross. They remind us of the salvation offered to us all through the death and resurrection of Christ. But we do not venerate them. Call it an object lesson and a reminder of the reality of Christ's sacrifice for us.
Lutheran here. There is a bright red line between contemplating a crucifix/icon/religious art and bowing to, kissing, or otherwise venerating that object. Very few Lutheran churches will ever allow bowing to or kissing a crucifix.
Looking at God's command in the Decalogue, the command is not against making images per se, but against making images "to bow down to them or serve them".
This is surely one of the most intellectually challenging videos I’ve ever seen. Committed Catholic here, and that commitment’s still standing, but Boy, we’ve got some ‘splainin’ to do.
@johnlittle1993 Peace. All explaining has been done. I refer you to Nicea II for an explanation on icons. Also- veneration does not equal worship. As the Church, we venerate the Cross of Christ. In essence, it is simply wood, with no real worldly value. However, it was what happened on that cross that makes all the difference. Similarly, the author of this post would not trample upon his Bible or burn it, not because it has great value in and of itself (it's paper and ink and maybe a hard cover), but because of what it represents. The icon of the so-called "Dark Virgin" is again made of simple materials. But it is believed to have been painted by the Disciple and Evangelist, Luke. Icons are a window as such, into the life of Christendom. THAT is why they are venerated. Through those windows, the Faithful come to know our Lord in a profound way. Stay the course. Blessings.
Hey, Bro. Thanks for writing. I actually did read Nicea II. And I actually did read the Canon where those who do not venerate icons are judged with an anathema. So, at least as far as the plain meaning of those canons is concerned, icon veneration is not optional for Catholics apparently; the legislation makes it mandatory. That process of development is a hard maneuver in my opinion, and I appreciate the resistance, even though I don’t per se judge the use of icons negatively. But maybe you can give me a pointer, because I can’t find it easily myself: since Gavin here says that Nicea II was not ratified by Rome at the time its decrees were promulgated, can you perhaps help me find the later act where it received papal confirmation? I’m interested to see if the confirmation was plenary or partial. Thanks!
@@JohnLittle1993 Peace, brother. Thank you for the comment, and you are most welcome. Remember that icon veneration is a respect and recognition of what the icon represents, which are truths of the Faith. That is the reason for the veneration. That same respect has been applied to stained glass windows and statues (and Church buildings for that matter) that depict stories of Salvation History. The idea is that just as we venerate the written Word that tells the story of Salvation History, we also venerate that SAME Holy Story depicted in Sacred Art. There really isn't a difficult concept to grasp here, as some would make it to be. In the end it comes down to believing and respecting (venerating) Salvation History as it is taught in images and Word. I will have to look into the acceptance of the Universal Church with regard to the canons. I would say that because Nicea II has not been refuted by the Church as other official gatherings of bishops (the Robber Synod comes to mind), there is at least an implicit acceptance of the Council if, in fact, there isn't an official recognition. There is more to the story for sure. Blessings.
@@JD-sj1znHi. When you say "all explaining has been done", do you mean that all of the guy in the video's points have been debunked? If so, where can I find all of the debunks?
Although I respect people who prefer a Protestant path, my christian life bloomed when I joined the Orthodox Church. Icons are central in my worship. Like music and Liturgy. I worship the Father , Son and Holy Spirit-that’s it. Don’t understand the confusion.
The true church is the Bible believing church, not a church that puts their traditions above the Holy Bible, “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.”◄ Exodus 20:4
@@findev6330 The true church is the church established by Christ, beginning with Pentecost in 33 AD, which is the Orthodox. The Bible was not canonized until your 397AD..Christians existed well before that. Tradition precedes the Bible, but is not superior to it. The Bible must be interpreted within the context of tradition, that's how you avoid many heresies and liberal nonsense that non-denominational and mega churches fall for.
@@LaRevolution0 The church that hid the Bible for a thousand years and burned people alive for owning the scripture in their native language has truth, don’t make me laugh!
Dr. Ortlund, i have always loved your videos even if I'm quite a bit more liberal than you on several issues (I'm Episcopalian). But this has got to be your best presentation yet. Like a lot of people in the West I have long had this vague sense that Orthodoxy was "closer" to early Christianity than other Christian branches, and that Orthodoxy had remained essentially unchanged since ancient times. (As an Episcopalian I would add that "unchanging" is not always a good thing!) But i must thank you for exploding that ignorant assumption of mine. Icon veneration is indeed quite clearly a provable doctrinal change.
WELP! I was seriously considering Orthodoxy, but this was extremely insightful into this issue which was ONE of the big ones preventing me from changing to it. Wow... great video, Gavin
Read St. John of Damascus writings (and the story of his life) and the writings of St. Theodore the Studite on the matter of iconography. Look up events surrounding the Hawaiian icon of the Theotokos of Iveron and Kursk root icon. The lives of the Orthodox Saints are key in helping to understand these matters. (Emphasizing the importance of the lived experience of the life of the Church in the Saints throughout history. - the Gospel lived out in the lives of the Saints.) Keep going Peter, slow and steady.
That's not his point he understands they don't worship the icons but he is coming from a historical standpoint on the early church father's did not approve of this practice
It seems that a lot of protestants have to mis-represent or flat out lie about Catholicism. Then their followers dislike the church, not because of what the church is, but what they think it is. I guess it makes them feel justified for not being a part of the church?
@@craiganderson8569 I work with a devout catholic who believes this firmly. He was taught this by the clergy. Maybe you were not taught this and that's good but he didn't come to this conclusion by himself. Regardless, I consider you a brother in Christ and I have nothing against you. Let us worship our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus and his amazing sacrifice on this beautiful day. Peace be with you.
Wow I'm so happy I discovered you through your recent debate with Trent Horn. I've been watching a lot of Catholics recently and have been deeply moved by the history of the church, which is (obviously) mostly Catholic. Your defense of protestantism is refreshing in the sense that there is deep rooted love but also dissent from later Catholic practices which seems was the sentiment of the original protestants toward the Catholic Church. Excited to watch more of your videos defending protestantism!
Malgré sa bonne volonté, il amalgame les idoles païennes et les représentations du Christ, de la Vierge Marie et des Saints. Dieu sait qui ces images pieuses représentent et, dans sa grande pédagogie, parce-que Il comprend le besoin humain de pouvoir voir et toucher, nous permet de prier avec ces images qui fixent notre attention sur le divin. Dieu a permis l'utisation de signes, de symboles et de sculptures: l'Arche de l'Alliance, le serpent d'airain dans le désert (préfigurant le Christ sur la croix), la croix peintes sur les portes des croyants en Egypte pour signifier à l'ange de la mort d'épargner les habitants de cette maison (les plaies d'Égypte).
Hi, I was considering orthodoxy but was wary of the icons and Mary veneration. Thank you for putting this together and on UA-cam. I don’t know why orthodoxy is so attractive to me but now I see that I need to stand guard against the enticement of things like it. Thanks again!
This insistence on the second commandment is Judaizing The Judaizers were a faction of the Jewish Christians who regarded the Levitical laws of the Old Testament as still binding on Christians. They for instance, tried to enforce Jewish Sabbath and circumcision upon the Gentile converts. In Gavin's case, he tries to enforce the second commandment - his interpretation of it - on Christians. Of course Protestants totally ignore the fourth/Sabbath commandment. That doesn't work. "..whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." James 2:10 What make you of Christian freedom? Christ freed us from the legalistic aspects of the Law but doubled down on the internal moral law.
@Angismit Mary and icon veneration is something which troubles me also as a pro-orthodox Protestant. HOWEVER, Gavin teaches Calvinism, which means that God is a monster who condemns people to either heaven or hell for his own pleasure, and we have no ability to even alter our fate. There are ways to reconcile Mary and Icon veneration (Luke 1:48) "For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed", and I've never heard a Protestant call Mary blessed. But something which is irreconcilable is the predestination to either heaven or hell. Gavin is an incredibly charitable and humble man, but how anyone believes in that doctrine of devils is beyond me.
@@kevinjypiter6445God is holier than you think and man is more wicked than you think. God does not owe anyone mercy or grace. If He never saved a soul from the penalty of their sins, then He would still be just and perfect.
@@kevinjypiter6445 that would be a red herring: many Protestants aren’t Calvinist. We consider the Arminian Protestants brothers and sister, we don’t anathema them from the church like papists and eos do for refusing image veneration.
I'm a new-ish Christian. When I recently came across EO I became enthralled with the idea of it being the original church and its beautiful ceremonies. But as I've been researching EO over the past month or so, I paused when I became aware of the venerations of saints. The book of Judges makes it clear that mankind has a propensity for worshipping things and other people, and makes it VERY clear this does not please the LORD! Twenty minutes into this video has cleared this all up for me (I watched the whole thing though) and has ended my romance with EO. Thank you!
I’ve been on the same journey, and feel as though this video has served the same purpose for me as well. Thank you, Gavin, for quite literally doing The Lord’s work.
I did the same thing last year when I was only a few months into my walk with Christ. Now after almost 2 years, I've been regularly attending an Orthodox Parish for about a month and I love it. It's very common within the Protestant world to get hung up on the idea that since Christ is the only mediator between God and man - our spiritual lives are a individual, single-line connection between us and God. Orthodoxy sees things differently. We believe that God's grace is superabundant it flows out through the ones He has glorified - the saints, and especially through His mother, by whose obedience bore the One who would conquer death and reconcile us to God. Our worship is reserved for God alone, but we recognize that His grace pours out into those people in our lives, both those here on earth, and those who reside in the heavenly kingdom, and that we can call on them to be vessels of the grace that has it source in Him alone. Also is God not "over all, in all and through all."? (Ephesians 4)
@@ssseth9321how does one become a vessel of unmerited favor? How can unmerited favor be carried like water or cargo? We can surely supply it to others from ourselves, but how can we carry it on behalf of another? And I would suggest Christ being our only mediator is literally what the scripture teaches. One can participate in a spiritual life with others while only having one mediator.
@andyontheinternet5777 I'm too sinful and ignorant to begin to explain. St. John of Damascus wrote timeless treatises in the 8th century that eviscerated the iconoclasts of his time and do the same to the iconoclasts of today. I suggest you read his works and judge for yourself and don't let PhD's with an agenda tell you what and how to think. Just google "St John Damascene on Holy Images and Project Gutenberg"
@andyontheinternet5777 I'm too sinful and ignorant to explain with precision. St. John of Damascus wrote timeless treatises in the 8th century that refuted the iconoclasts of his day and does the same to the iconoclasts of today. I suggest that you read them and judge for yourself and don't let PhD's with an agenda tell you how and what to think. Search "St John Damascene on Holy Images and Project Gutenberg" and click the top result.
Thank-you Gavin as a Protestant considering Orthodoxy for a while now. I've recently started looking more deeper into this subject it makes 0 sense when regarding scripture. Godbless you and your family ❤
Seraphim Hamilton has 4 or 5 videos, each about an hour long directly addressing this video. I recommend watching those for a DEEP dive into why Ortlund is mistaken.
I was a Protestant who became Orthodox back in 2010. After your vidoes and teachings, and my own very long study of ecclesiastical history, I have decided to leave Orthodoxy, and follow Christ according to Sacred Scripture. I am so glad that Christ used your ministry to challenge me to ask more questions and do more research...I am now what my former Church would call a heretic. Amen.
The best part of Protestantism is that you can still affirm that your Orthodox friends are a part of Christ’s church! You can still believe they are saved! The Church of Christ just got much bigger for you - it now contains Orthodox, Protestant, and Catholic followers of Jesus :) And you are free to keep all of the practices, traditions, and elements of your Orthodox church that you found to be Christ-honoring and reflecting God’s goodness. Hopefully you can teach us, the rest of your Protestant brethren, some of the good things you learned in the Orthodox church that are worth sharing!
@@scopeguy you don't have to agree on every piece of doctrine to be saved, or even to be in the same church. Within the Catholic or Orthodox churches there are massive disagreements over doctrine.
@@repentantrevenant9776 sorry differences inside and between Catholic and EO are miniscule compared to the differences just between different Protestants. Catholics specifically have a magisterium that can settle disputes. Some Protestants say homosexuality is fine, or divorce is fine, or numerous other things that are pretty clearly laid out as prohibited if you're not reading the text with a bias. Also, Protestants differ on soteriology, justification, as well as ecclesiology in ways that would have been foreign to early Christians. If you can just go to another church that agrees with your beliefs, that's not a religion, that's just a social club.
Thank you for putting this together. May I request one thing? Could you put this into the format of an article with full quotes of these church fathers and citations? An hour-long video is a big ask for those I want to show this to, but this video is one of the best resources on this topic I've come across. Please turn this into an article. This need to be seen far and wide. I myself am a former Catholic, and I am deeply concerned that there seems to be a trend of Protestants who have been converted to Orthodoxy or to Catholicism. Catholics and Orthodox are far better at attacking iconoclasm/aniconism than Protestants are at defending it.
@@TruthUnites Excellent video, great content with historic references, looking forward to your forthcoming book on this subhect. I am a exRoman catholic, now Born Again Christian, though family is still RC, praying for them to move away from this idolatry and legalism of RC. God bless you for imparting the truth. From: Mumbai, India.
Yes Berkana totally agree. That would be a great help to Catholics like me who would wish to point out some things the good pastor may wish to change. Thanks. Thanks for the suggestion!
Even when I was a catholic, my family who were generational Irish Catholics would correct me when I would call myself a Christian. They would say "we are Catholics, not Christians" Even the priest at the Canoga Park Perish corrected me the same. When I was 16 I converted and was born again by faith, and my eyes have been so opened to truth. I now totally agree with my parents, relatives and "Father" Larry in Canoga Park. Catholics are not Christians. I have now been a Pastor of a Baptist Church for almost 30 years and have been able to reach many of my family with the Gospel of Christ. My Father became a deacon of another Baptist church, my mother who tried to remain in the Catholic church after conversion eventually was removed from her membership of the church (Simi Valley) for asking to many questions, mainly about Baptismal regeneration and assurance of salvation.
The most shocking thing about the Church after the conversion of Constantine is the barbaric practices used to enforce church teaching, i.e. the gouging of eyes, cutting off noses, etc. In attempting to enforce correct theology they forgot correct morality.
Much of the violence was used by the effort to stamp out icons. Some historians think more Christians were killed by a “Christian“ emperor to stamp out icons.
I am now a practicing Catholic. Born Catholic, became a Baptist then searching Jesus more deeply I read and moved to Pentecostal then The Lord les me to the Catholic Church in 1998. I love the Mass and Eucharist. I however still love the Bible, I do not worship idols and deeply object to all the statues and recited prayer. I enjoy and love you talks. Agree in many ways. Thank you, Pastor Gavin
Why do you object to the statues and recited prayer, esp. the statues? I'm not Catholic, but I do love Catholic art. The stained glass, the statues and pictures are beautiful and serene depictions. I don't enjoy the style of Orthodox art though. They aren't serene and there is something austere about their style of artwork that I always found a bit depressing. The Catholic depictions are uplifting though.
@@evanspencer3632 I'm almost sure one of the councils would be anathematising her. Though from what I can tell by all the anathemas, a huge number of practicing Catholics would fall under this curse. It's really a terrible thing that the RCC declared these so much over too many of its sanctioned doctrines.
I feel like I see this kind of thing a lot. I could be misreading what you're saying, but I frequently see those who with Protestant background who have gravitated to Catholicism do so because they crave the structure of liturgy. I can admit to often being underwhelmed by the form of worship practiced in contemporary church environments, but I can't see how this would ever lead me toward stepping into a church environment that teaches such obviously false doctrines that are antithetical to core doctrines as outlined in scripture. To me, simply craving structure is an insufficient basis for embracing a church that not only promotes such doctrines, but anathematizes those who don't. Having spent substantial time in Latin America, I've observed firsthand how pervasive the veneration of images is as an aspect of Catholic practice, with shrines of Mary at the peak of countless mountains. I'm glad you appreciate Dr. Ortlund's analysis of the issue, but to me, from what I've seen, and what we see him saying, this is something that's central, not peripheral, when it comes to Catholic perception of what it means to be devoted in one's religious practice.
@@johnnythegringo8855 You can still get a structured, or high church liturgy on the protestant side too though. Anglicans, Lutherans and Presbyterians all have it. I wonder if it's the claim of apostolic succession and having infallible central doctrine?
Everyone is telling me come watch this video. Hmm. There are many funny things and approaches here. The scholarly approach is surprising, because I have heard so many scholars tell us that the divinity of Christ, homoousion, that the Trinity is a similar form of accretion. In the same way, we are told that this or that book is a "late addition" to the Bible, etc. So much of this is irrelevant in my estimation, the question is the story of revelation itself. Why is the image not available to being a place of the revelation of God? What is the reason for the 2nd commandment? That is the question that should be asked. Then, the proposition that there is no scriptural distinction between strict worship, and lower kind of veneration is difficult to stomach. Are we to believe that the Hebrews were worshiping the name of God at the same level as God himself? The praising of the name is important because God revealed his name to us, and so the praising of the image becomes important for the same reason. This is not just "something that happened" but the form of revelation itself, moving in ever increasing power from heaven to earth. Whether this truth became clear to Christian in year 1 or year 700 is irrelevant.
Hi Jonathan! Nice to hear from you. Hope to interact further some time. Briefly, I would disagree that the divinity of Christ, Trinity, etc. are comparable to icon veneration in their development. The divinity of Christ is a theme or motif of the New Testament. He is frequently worshiped, explicitly declared God in the epistles, crucified for blasphemy in the gospels, acts with divine authority, etc. The development in understanding of both Christology and Trinity stems from this foundation. This is in contrast to icon veneration, which I showed not merely from the scholarship but also from historical evidence is opposed by the early Christians. Also, to clarify, I did not deny the distinction between worship and veneration as such. See 1:01:11. Thanks for commenting and perhaps we can talk on another occasion about some of your other points and the larger differences.
If later Christians can come up with new ideas, which you seem to be suggesting of the Trinity, then why are Baptists and Pentecostals incorrect? Beyond being outside of the "apostolic succession"?
Hi PermaFrost77 - I really like your “name”, as I grew up in The North…but…even more so - the thumbnail of your “puppy” is precious! I have been blessed to have a Husky, Malamute, Akita, even a half wolf/husky, as well as, some precious smaller breeds like a Silky Yorkshire Terrier, Shi-Tsu, and many other pups, along with rescuing wildlife when need be! There is a special place in my heart for all glorious creatures! Have a great week!🇨🇦☺🇨🇦
@@theodosios2615 You were probably never rooted and grounded in the Orthodox spiritual tradition. The deified saints trump modern critics and academics who limit theology to a purely academic thing, but have too much of the world and devil in them.
@@dustindustindontworry-jz8dh Their purpose was to get the Gospel message out. Orthodoxy has a different metaphysics than the western heterodox systems. I don't accept your assumption that iconography has to be explicit in the apostles. But we do know that St. Luke painted the first icon.
Wow, after this I am seriously considering taking the Protestant reformation seriously, currently an Orthodox catechumen, I realized lately that I didn't give Protestantism an honest enough consideration so I watched this video. I had a large misconception that Protestantism had no patristic backing, thank you for this video!
St. Basil the Great (AD 329-379): “I acknowledge also the holy apostles, prophets, and martyrs; and I invoke them to supplication to God, that through them, that is, through their mediation, the merciful God may be propitious to me, and that a ransom may be made and given me for my sins. Wherefore also I honour and kiss the features of their images, inasmuch as they have been handed down from the holy apostles, and are not forbidden, but are in all our churches” (Letter 360)
I know fruits of the spirit is patience. But I don't know why for the life of me I can't stand the waffling on this issue for people that were never compelled to worship these images. A wicked and adulterous generation demands a sign. Why does one have to convince oneself that they are in true worship with the aide of art and images, smells and ancient relics? That is a pagan inclination.
@@Vanpotheosisyes. I do not approve of nativity scenes and crucifixes (and I mean crucifixes specifically, not crosses. Crucifixes being a cross with a depiction of Christ on it. I say this for those who might not know the difference).
I'm still a Protestant, and have been researching Orthodox and Roman Catholicism. But this morning, I was getting ready for the day, and my puppy came into the room, so I gave my puppy a hug and kiss out of affection when he came over to me. I wonder if whether an icon is an idol or not just comes down to what is going on in the heart. But when the Orthodox Christians tell me sincerely they are showing reverence and honor to the icons which represent the saints, not worshipping the icons, I think I might be okay to take their word for it, just like how I would tell them I hugged and kissed my puppy out of affection and they believe that I'm not worshipping my puppy. I recognize this video is more scholarly than my example, but it's where my heart is at on the issue.
That doesn't matter though. They may say they are not worshipping the icon. But the problem is they claim that if you do not show affection the icon then you are not in line with apostolic Christianity. And since both Orthodox and Catholic church claim infallibility. If therefore they are wrong about this issue being apostolic then they are wrong entirely.
@@Lotterywinnerify Peace. It DOES matter. Church teaching is clear on this subject. Nicea II makes it clear. The Council of Trent makes it clear. The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes it clear. Go to the source if you want to know what the source teaches. I wish you well in your journey. Blessings.
Nahh just take their word for it, they aren't pelagian necromancers either, if you point these issues out they'll say "you just don't understand". They can work for it all they want and pile up filthy rags or whatever but I just believe the gospel and they hate that a sinner like me can be given the gift of eternal life and I don't have to jump thru wacky hoops or kiss idols for it. Just faith given to me by God that the gospel is true saves me and they can't stand it.
@@levigarrett5614 Peace. They're not idols, they're icons. And some sinners receive the gift of salvation as they contemplate the beauty of what lies through and beyond the icon. You can put that "filthy rag" in the proverbial pipe and smoke it. Blessings.
Thanks so much for addressing this with so much documentation. I was once led astray by arguments in favor of icon veneration but I have to admit I could never fully embrace it at the heart or conscience level. Although I know that many who are in favor of icon veneration will have a comeback for everything you’ve presented and that they will ultimately appeal to the “consensus of the fathers” and to their ecclesiology, I am convinced they have erred on this subject. Thanks for speaking the truth in love.
Gavin ortlund, thank you for the video! Should I destroy icons or statues of Jesus? I am confused of the proper Biblical stance. Should I keep a picture of Christ? I do not venerate them but it is decorative/a reminder of Christ.
@@michaelwhitman9937 If you believe they’re a 2 commandment violation, you could. If they lead you astray to worship them, destroy them as Hezekiah destroyed the Bronze Serpent (2 Kings 18:4).
@@michaelwhitman9937at's between you and God. If it starts affecting you then put them away. I grew up near a Catholic lady's house that had giant crosses everywhere and crowds would gather on Friday 13th because visions of Mary would appear to her. That's the context I have with icons and saints. To me, crosses and pictures should be considered like a flag or logo. You wouldn't set fire to your country's flag but you're not gonna build an altar to it. I personally don't want a cross in my room but on a Bible or Christian phone app, or in church is fine.
I see an interesting psychological parallel here to the doctrine of the Trinity. I talk to many Muslims, usually amicably, and no amount of effort explaining to them that our belief in the Trinity does not violate monotheism can alleviate their horror at what to them is plain and obvious polytheism - as well as idolatry in the worship of the man Jesus. They are unimpressed with subtle distinctions and terms like ousia, hypostasis, incarnation, etc. All that rationalizing, in their deeply intuitive estimation, just papers over pseudo-paganism, a denial of the unity of God and his exclusive right to worship. Many Protestants seem to have the same kind of experience with Christian iconography. No amount of explaining to them that our veneration of icons does not violate the right worship due to God can alleviate their horror at what to them is plain and obvious idolatry. They are unimpressed with our subtle theological distinctions or our pointing out how the Incarnation is itself an icon and changes the nature of our knowledge of God from natural reason and the O.T., etc. All that rationalizing, in their deeply intuitive estimation, just papers over pseudo-paganism and God‘s exclusive right to worship.
@Tennis Brah Theological and philosophical elaboration is precisely what happened in the case of sacred images. This is because the Christ Icon is not ultimately rooted in art or imagination, but in Incarnation. In the Old Testament, the rationale for the prohibition against images of a particular sort was that God had not shown himself to the Israelites. “You saw no form.” (Deuteronomy) In the New Covenant, God shows himself to the Church in the face of Christ. “If you’ve seen me you’ve seen the Father.” The Bride sees the face of the Bride Groom. She sees the form. This isn’t just a Christological matter. The telos of salvation is the vision of God himself. The Christ Icon points to the fact that God is ultimately drawing men, not just to a profound conceptualization of the truth in the abstract, as in religions like Islam or Maimonidian Judaism, but to the joy of looking at Him as he knows himself. “Then we will see face-to-face.”
@Tennis Brah I’m in complete agreement that there are biblical foundations for the ecclesial doctrine of the Trinity. But I don’t think that would impress a Muslim. He would just say that there is categorically no legitimate foundation for denying monotheism. So the Christian has to explain to the Muslim that however much trinitarian distinctions may seem to contradict monotheism, ultimately they don’t stand opposed to one another. And maybe even more pointedly, he would have to explain how, despite all the prohibitions against worshiping creatures in the Law, Christians can justify worshiping the man Jesus. To the Muslim this appears, and you have to grant its superficial appearance, a plain contradiction. I think this is very similar on a psychological level to the Catholic experience or the Orthodox experience of having to defend iconography to Protestants. To them the prohibition against making images of God for the purpose of worship is plainly contradicted by the Catholic/Orthodox practice of making images of God for the purpose of worship. But we would say the same thing to the Protestant that we would say to the Muslim, and frankly that the Protestant would say to the Muslim as well, which is that the Incarnation has radically changed things. We now worship a man from Nazareth. Prior to the Incarnation, that would have been idolatry. We now make images of the Holy One (because he has shown us his form) and venerate Him through them. Prior to the Incarnation, that would have been a violation of the commandment.
Early Church Fathers On The Veneration of Icons Excerpt from “The Martyrdom of Polycarp” (69-155AD) (worship vs. veneration) 1 But the jealous and envious evil one who resists the family of the righteous, when he saw the greatness of his martyrdom, and his blameless career from the beginning, and that he was crowned with the crown of immortality, and had carried off the unspeakable prize, took care that not even his poor body should be taken away by us, though many desired to do so, and to have fellowship with his holy flesh. 2 Therefore he put forward Niketas, the father of Herod, and the brother of Alce, to ask the Governor not to give his body, “Lest,” he said, “they leave the crucified one and begin to worship this man.” And they said this owing to the suggestions and pressure of the Jews, who also watched when we were going to take it from the fire, for they do not know that we shall not ever be able either to abandon Christ, who suffered for the salvation of those who are being saved in the whole world, the innocent for sinners, or to worship any other. 3 For him we worship as the Son of God, but the martyrs we love as disciples and imitators of the Lord; and rightly, because of their unsurpassable affection toward their own King and Teacher. God grant that we too may be their companions and fellow-disciples. When therefore the centurion saw the contentiousness caused by the Jews, he put the body in the midst, as was their custom, and burnt it. 2 Thus we, at last, took up his bones, more precious than precious stones, and finer than gold, and put them where it was meet. 3 There the Lord will permit us to come together according to our power in gladness and joy, and celebrate the birthday of his martyrdom, both in memory of those who have already contested, and for the practice and training of those whose fate it shall be. (Kirsopp Lake translation;17:1 - 18:3). Eusebius Pamphili (of Ceasarea) (263-339AD): “Even now the inhabitants of those regions near where Abraham worshipped those who appeared to him honor it as a holy place. Indeed, the oak tree is still to be seen there, and there is a picture of those whom Abraham entertained reclining at table.”[8] St. Athanasius the Great of Alexandria (296-373AD): “We the faithful do not worship images as gods, as did the heathen Greeks-God forbid!-but our only purpose and desire is to see in the image a reflection of the facial form of the beloved. Therefore if the image should be obliterated, we would throw it into the fire as so much scrap lumber. Just as when Jacob was about to die, he bowed down before the point of Joseph’s staff, not honoring the staff but its owner, so also the faithful do not embrace images for their own sake, but kiss them as we often embrace our children or our parents, to show the affection in our hearts.”[9] St. Basil the Great (330-379AD) “Now arise, you renowned painters of the champions’ [martyrs] brave deeds, who by your exalted art make images of the General [Christ]. My praise for the crowned champion is dull compared with the wisdom which inspires your brush with its radiant colors….As I look at the detail in your painting of his struggle, I see his hand among the flames; your image has made his victory even more brilliant for me”[10] * * * “The image of the emperor is also called the emperor, yet there are not two emperors…for the honor given to the image is transferred to the prototype. Therefore, the One [Christ] whom the image materially represents is He who is Son by nature.”[11] * * * “Both painters of words and painters of pictures illustrate valor in battle; the former by the art of rhetoric; the latter by clever use of the brush, and both encourage everyone to be brave. A spoken account edifies the ear, while a silent picture induces imitation.”[12] St. Gregory of Nyssa (335-395AD): “Then the father [Abraham] proceeds to bind his son [Isaac]. I have often seen paintings of this touching scene, and could not refrain from shedding tears, so vivid was the scene reproduced by the artist.”[13] St. Ambrose of Milan (330-397AD): “…but I was caught up into ecstasy during which a face was revealed to me, which resembled the blessed apostle Paul, the same face which was painted on the icon which showed him teaching so wisely….”[14] St. John Chrysostom (347-407AD): “And I love this image molded in wax, of him [David] who was full of righteousness. For I see the angel in the icon fighting the barbarian horde….Not only do you long to call fervently upon his [Christ’s] holy name; but also to look upon the image of his bodily form. What you do with his name you also accomplish with his image. For everyone rejoices to put his image everywhere, on rings, goblets, dishes, and on bedroom walls….”[15] * * * “For an image, inasmuch as it is an image, ought to be treated by us in the same fashion as the likeness it represents.”[16]
Fantastic. Literally no responses from these over-zealous Protestants who think they've found their champion in a bunch of emotional fallacious argumentation from Dr. Ortlund. He hasn't debated a single notable apologist from either side of the world.
@@user12jshf245, Horn is a Roman Catholic. Roman Catholics, while their church recognizes the 7th Ecumenical Council, really have no personal place for icons in their piety. So, that Ortlund debated Horn is not all that significant regarding this issue.
Father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Lazarus, so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame. That’s a prayer to a saint. No other to look at it. It’s in the Bible
@@EmptyDisc1 Not really my point. yes it is a parable not didactic teaching. My point is that the protestant sensitivity to calling on other than God for succour or help doesnt seem to be shared by Jesus or his disciples or the jewish opponents listening to Jesus. Jesus included a detail in the story which would make a protestant cringe or have to somehow explain away as you have attempted to. Jesus didnt have to teach prayers to the saints, it was already something his audience was well familiar with hence the detail is included in His story, which is continued by the Orthodox Church. It is the protestant position that is a novelty. Honestly answer this question is there any circumstance in this life or the next (in the presence of God) in your paradigm, when I can say "Mother Mary, have mercy on me, send gabriel to assist me in my hour of suffering"? Your answer, in your paradigm would be that that is idolatry because no pleas or intercession can be directed to other than God. Well, looks like jesus and his audience dont share your sensitivities.
@@EmptyDisc1 again that’s not my point. I don’t believe Jesus is teaching prayers to the saints there. That would be absurd, it’s absurd because everyone just accepted it was a thing they did. The reason we can conclude that is no one is protesting idolatry there. But a Protestant would definitely protest and say that the story is an example of idolatry.
@@EmptyDisc1 if your point is that Jesus taught a blatantly false story. Then you’re delusional. A parable, a story communicates truth. Your position is that Jesus is incorporating idolatry into his story! Really? That’s where you want to go? Jesus incorporates elements that his audience is familiar with. Hence they are familiar with the idea of appealing to saints and patriarchs for succour. Something that you would categorize as idolatry. Basically the Protestant position would be that appealing for succour to other than God is idolatry. Again not a position Jesus and his followers shared. My point to put it succinctly is that the Protestant objects to appealing to Patriarchs and Saints for succour. That position is a novelty and contradicts Christs teachings.
@@EmptyDisc1 and this is the problem with sola scriptura. You assume that there is no context that Jesus lived in, no culture and no basic assumptions and traditions. But we can glean this from the parable easily. They didn’t react with shock and wonder at a person appealing to a patriarch for succour. That’s because it wasn’t a shock to them. However, we know it would be a shock to a Protestant to appeal to a saint or patriarch for succour and so we can see that the Protestant position is the novelty.
This is exactly the reason why my mom converted from Catholic to Protestan before I was even born! she didn´t have all these knowledge of course, but she had the holly spirit to make her extremely uncomfortable with icon veneration. Thank you mom!
There was nothing Holy about that spirit. Just a demon pushing her to worship herself. Of course she was already infested by a lot of other demons in the "catholic" church. The Holy Spirit would never push anyone to reject the relics of the Saints before you. Your protest Christ and reject the Right Worship.
All I see from Protestants... is the fact that they can't admit they are wrong... and thats from a Protestant who's now Catholic. Anyone who truly searches the truth and can get over themselves and open their heart to the Holy Ghost- can not remain Protestant. There were bigger Catholic bashers than Dr Ortlund who are now Catholic.
@TruthUnites In Orthodox theology, icons are not just a window from image to prototype, a window to the divine, and a reflection of the divine in our world, but they are actually a grace-filled presence of God in matter, in this case, the icon. Because if we only reduce the icon to a window, without emphasizing the special presence of God by His grace, the same dilemma would arise as in the Eucharist. I will make an analogy: just as wine and bread are gifts that people bring, but which truly become the Body and Blood of Christ while retaining their qualities of wine and bread; similarly, the icon is initially a painted wooden panel by an iconographer, and the painting is in this sense a form of prayer offered to God, a gift offered to God that first attracts the grace of God by virtue of the "prayer" (pious painting) of the iconographer, and then by virtue of each believer who prays before the icon. An icon is made in the style of painting without perspective, it is not three-dimensional or a statue because it does not reduce the image to something from this world and it is not interpreted in a pagan way, such as that God is in the statue or that the statue is actually a god. The intention here is to make a distinction between something with a three-dimensional form and something "formless" (two-dimensional, without perspective) that leads to something of another order, divine. There is a contrast between perspective/three-dimensional and without perspective which actually wants to show the difference between human and divine, between visible and invisible. Specifically, the choice of the style without perspective unites the visible with the invisible, the human with the divine. He mentions that he separates the didactic purpose from the prayer purpose through the icon and that the didactic purpose is only about presenting the Gospel in a painted form, but here he overlooks that the didactic purpose and the window to the other world interweave, because the icon has a didactic role in terms of prayer. The image leads you to think about the prototype, but being also a grace-filled presence, it transforms God's presence from transcendent to immanent, it brings God closer to the soul of man, then being without perspective, it does not allow you to be "enchanted" by forms, the "worldly" of the painting, it does not "steal" your mind towards the transient, but it's the perfect "dose" of image that directs your mind from the visible to the invisible. The historical development that he presents is not entirely impartial, in my opinion. He does not present the historical context of the development of the cult of icons very accurately. Initially, I present some stages/aspects (as I see them): 1) opposition between paganism and Christianity, 2) opposition between the plebeians and the elite, 3) opposition between Platonism and incarnate Christianity, 4) natural development towards the cult of icons vs stagnation in puritanism. It should be understood that in the initial phase, the Church Fathers opposed images because in the pagan world, images and statues were objects of worship in the sense that the statue was considered a god, and that people worshiped creatures, idols that were not God and that all these statues attempted to represent an invisible God. Pagans anthropomorphized the God of the ages (unincarnate), but He is invisible and not a creature. In this sense, the Church Fathers opposed images, so that the converts would not fall/return to paganism, so it was also a didactic purpose of opposing images. In the examples given by some fathers, they went to exaggerated arguments against images, or in the Old Testament itself, the temple was full of symbols, there were cherubims on the Ark of the Covenant. On the other hand, the people, the plebeians, used images. It is clear that the representation of some biblical scenes such as the Good Shepherd and the lamb, etc. were an expression of devotion of the believers, usually the simple and the converts from paganism. These images are found in catacombs rather than in churches. And the question is why? Because in churches, power was usually held by the elite, theologians, scholars who opposed images; and in catacombs it was the plebeians who used images. And even though the theologians opposed images, especially in the way they were understood by the pagans, as an anthropomorphization of an invisible God, what they did not understand was the transformed baggage of the converts. The converts transferred the cult of images from paganism to Christianity, but it should be understood that not all of them transferred it foolishly in the sense of anthropomorphizing God, the cult was adapted to Christian understanding, which the theologians could not necessarily understand. Theologians did not appreciate or understand the metamorphosed approach of the converted pagans. And even though he says about the empress who sought an image, this implies that icons were rare, which was probably the case, at least in the higher circles, this does not necessarily exclude the spread of images in certain areas. Let's take the example of catacombs, or synagogues and 2nd-3rd century church in Dura Europos, they abound with images. So it seems that in some places Christian painting was quite widespread. He also mentions the legend of King Abgar, the letter between Christ and Abgar seems quite true, but even if the legend of the icon is not true and is not mentioned by Eusebius, already at the end of the 4th century - beginning of the 5th century, the interpolation of painting/icon appears in "The Doctrine of Addai". It is clear that as the opposition to paganism disappears because it is no longer relevant, there are fewer and fewer pagans, the opposition to the use of images in worship gradually disappears and the use of images becomes more widespread, no longer being the pagan danger so relevant. Another point is that the doctrine of icons could only be established after the disappearance of pagan religions, the spread of Christianity, and the clarification of the two natures, wills and works in Christ. Until the Iconodulie, Christology was clarified. In this sense, the doctrine of icons could only be definitively clarified after the Christological disputes, that's why I say that it is a natural development of theology. In Protestant theology, there is not much room for a distinction between veneration and honor and that these are not the same as the worship of God, or the distinction is clear in the mind of an Orthodox Christian.
@TruthUnites Now let's move on to biblical exegesis: The bronze serpent destroyed by Hezekiah. It is very clear why the bronze serpent was destroyed, namely because the people worshiped the bronze serpent, worship that is due only to God. In the Old Testament, burning incense was part of the worship of God and was burned on the golden altar in the Tabernacle, so burning incense represented worship, which is due only to God. So instead of honoring it as an object through which God showed his mercy, they brought the bronze serpent burning incense (a cultic act of worship of God), which was not appropriate. It should be noted that they kept the bronze serpent as a special object and no one had a problem until it was considered a kind of god (and given a name), it was not destroyed until then, they had some honor for the object itself yet. The prostration in Joshua 3:15, he reduces it to a specific context, such as war or something and that in fact it was towards God himself the prostration. Nobody denies that it was towards God, it is obvious that you don't actually worship the Ark, but the Ark was considered the throne of God and where the glory of God was shown, that's why they prostrated there. Let's take the context of the Old Testament, God is present everywhere and is invisible, theoretically you can prostrate anywhere, however it is very logical that you usually worship Him where He is has a special presence, that is in front of the Ark. The same is true in the New Testament, it is more appropriate to bow to the ground in certain contexts, in the church, at home within your intimacy, in front of an icon that represents the Savior. Because if we reduce it to the fact that God is invisible, then we should not prostrate anywhere, it is fitting to prostrate in the presence of objects that remind us of God and especially if it is as the Orthodox see it that the icon is a special presence of God's grace. In Deuteronomy 4:15-19 and Exodus 20, to understand the problem of the prohibition of idols and the representation of God in the Old Testament, we must establish the reasons for the prohibition: - not to have other gods - prohibition that God is one and only He must be worshipped - not to make any carved image or any likeness of what is in heaven above, or on the earth beneath, or in the water under the earth, or to bow down to them or serve them, because God does not resemble creatures, He is altogether different, God is uncreated, spirit and invisible, and nothing in this world can truly represent Him, if we would have represented him, we would have anthropomorphized him and reduced him to a creature, plus that we would have been able to replace him with this idol. However, it was permissible to represent something from heaven such as the cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant or the temple as a projection of the world from heaven only at the indication and revelation of God. In the New Testament, all these reasons are no longer valid: - God is One but revealed in 3 Persons - God incarnates and becomes man and thus already has a human appearance - God reveals himself in this world through Jesus Christ, the image of the Father, we see the Father through Christ, whoever has seen me has seen the Father Taking into account the reasons for the prohibition, not only the prohibition itself, we observe that these reasons no longer have a purpose in the New Testament, God remains invisible and one, but is revealed as visible and triune. Then about the parallel of name/icon. In Exodus, there is a prohibition against taking the name of God in van and praising His Name is advised. The name of God is a revelation of God about Himself and is a conceptual/rational/verbal/(meta)linguistic icon about Him and His qualities, then His Name spoken is a call/attraction/blessing of His Essence. In Jewish theology and antiquity, there was the idea that the name encompasses the person it denotes and the power of that person. Similarly, God reveals himself in the world through the Person of His Son, who is the image and revelation of the Father in the world, then the icon is the artistic representation of the Son on wood. Similarly, as the Name is a kind of energy that unites the one who calls the Name with the One who is called, so the icon is a haric presence of the One represented on it, it uniting the one who prays with the One on the icon to which he prays. Interestingly, it did not mention at all about the worship of the Cross. Let's appeal to a parallel, 1. the revelation of God in the OT at the burning bush where the ground on which one walks is considered holy by virtue of the special presence of God there, and 2. the supreme act of self-sacrificial love that reveals God's character. 1. I am who I am and 2. I am the one who saves. Just as the ground becomes holy even if the discovery of God at the burning bush is not as "great" as that on the cross, so the cross is sanctified by the fact that God sacrificed himself for us on it, the supreme act (eternal nature) of Christ raises the cross from object of ridicule and torture to object of worship. Specifically, by the nature of the supreme act, it becomes worthy of worship. And finally if we praise God in literature and music, why could we not praise him in picture?
@@melroycorrea7720 It's not only well written; it is profound theologically because it is Orthodox. Gavin is NOT an Orthodox Christian. He does NOT believe in the same God we do. I don't know what god Protestants and Catholics believe in but it's certainly not the same as ours. By definition they are NOT Christian no matter how much they think they are. Therefore, Gavin should not be analyzing and explaining Icon veneration.
To me, the very fact that the earliest church fathers placed no expectations on themselves or their flock to venerate icons tells me that it's a later development that would have been absolutely foreign to the apostles, and even Christ himself. That tells me all I need to know. It's an accretion and should not be used to anathematize anyone. If someone else wants to venerate icons, I say sure, do what you want. I personally think it does little for you, and if anything, it gets in the way from true communion with the Spirit of God. But I won't fight anyone over it. I will, however, argue with someone who wants to claim that icon veneration goes back to the apostolic deposit. It's so clearly and unequivocally NOT an apostolic deposit.
I am going to recommend these books, which influenced me in my conversion to Orthodoxy: 1. Scripture and Tradition, by Archbishop Chrysostomos; 2. Bible, Church and Tradition, by Fr. Georges Florovsky; 3. A Man is His Faith, by Fr. Alexey Young; 4. The Great Divide, by Fr. Alexey Young; 6. Christianity or the Church?, by Ilarian Troitsky; 7. Sola Scriptura - In the Vanity of Their Minds, by Fr. John Whiteford; 8.The Spirit of Eastern Christendom, by Jaroslv Pelikan. (He was a great Lutheran Church historian who converted to Orthodoxy before he died).
@@matthew7491 I'm not going to spend hours refuting the broader message in the video. Others have done that work adnausem. Something Gavin continues to dodge btw. I doubt even if I did spend the hours to collect all relevant information you'd even bother reading it.
Gavin! Tremendous work on putting this video together. You have challenged and given me (an orthodox Inquirer) much to think about. I would be very interested in listening in on a conversation between you and Jonathan Pageau about the symbolism and use of Iconography. From watching him speak on the matter, I feel that I have learned that the reason for appealing to the saints for forgiveness and other matters, as opposed to directly receiving from the hands of God is because of the participatory nature of God's Kingdom. It is not that we need their mediation but that Saints are welcomed to participate in "the divine council" and other roles as an act of God's love. In this way, love ascends up and back down the hierarchy in a beautiful harmonious fashion that unites Heaven and Earth. Veneration of the Icon allows us to enter this reality and one that is more truly understood through experience. I have found this idea of "participation" most powerfully expressed in the theme of the Son of Man, Genesis, and the biblical narrative as a whole. To be honest the info presented here is causing much cognitive dissonance and doubt. I have many experiences that tell me that venerating icons is a beautiful thing but cannot deny the alarming info presented here. In moments like this I find the only thing I can turn to is Christ in prayer. Should I set my home icon of Christ and the saints aside despite it helping orient my life around Him? I don't know the answer to that. I have been telling myself that the fruits of the spirit would be my litmus test for truth. In other words, has God made me more like him or less through communing with the saints? I am still waiting to see. Perhaps Idolatry has more to do with the heart then the action. I pray for discernment and ask that you would pray for me too. Thank you for your faithfulness.
You don’t need to remove the icons in your home, religious art can Be greatly edifying. The difference is whether we use art for devotion or for actual worship and for the liturgy
Hi Matthew! If I may add to the conversation. Even God Himself commanded images to be made - the statues of cherubim that go on either side of the tabernacle and the bronze serpent (which when people looked at it, they were healed from their snake bites) to name a couple. God made us to be body AND spirit, not just spirit. As such, the LORD comes to us in both spiritual and physical ways. Think of Jesus - He healed by His Word, and by mixing His saliva with dirt and putting it on a man's eyes. He gave large crowds bread and fish to keep them sustained. A woman was healed through touching the tassel of His cloak. He physically died on the Cross for us. He instituted the Eucharist - we get to actually receive the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus, truly Present in the Eucharist, into our bodies. Wow! What an amazing gift. God made us with bodies, and He declared it very good. Our bodies are not bad. Images are not banned - graven images are. Looking at/having an image of Jesus is not only not harmful, it's powerful and beautiful! I encourage you to look into the Catholic Faith - good resources can be found on Ascension Presents (UA-cam, the Ascension App) and Catholic Answers (website and UA-cam). God bless! - A Catholic Christian
Yes, this is really important because the Church argued against icons up till the 9th or 10th century. Today When I read Exodus 20 :4 "You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below" I don't see how any Christian cant understand this its clear .
As a current catechumen in the EO, this helps A LOT! I havent started venerating yet, and deep down it feels 'off.' My priest said there is no hurry but I will eventually need to get there. I also question their exclusivism. Ill never be able to accept that. I think you gave me the solid reason why I wont crismate now. Thank you!!
@@MrWesford Gavin is bringing back the early Christians thought! You can go and bow to graven images, however, you don't have a defence for it. Go after the flesh!
That's a fallacy because it doesn't feel "off" for others. I can turn that around and say "It feels 'off' because Satan is trying to keep you away from the truth (Orthodox)"@@alishavogel7926
@@MrWesfordman what a sad response. The word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us. Died for us, was ressurrected and left us with Commandments. But confessing with your mouth that he is Lord and believing in your heart that God raised him and following his way is not enough! Nope! Cause if you dont kiss and honor these picture you will be kept away from Christ. I am fond of the EOC but man comments like yours are foul
The canon he quotes are from catholic post schism and not Orthodox. He’s giving a bias perspective not even from the original council. Ask yourself how many countries were invaded by Protestants and Catholics and how many cultures were decimated then ask yourself how many times the Orthodox committed such acts. You will know them by their fruits.
@@PatronSaintSpyridon Peace. Your history is a bit skewed to say the least. The Orthodox were part of the Crusades, and were responsible for the Massacre of the Latins prior to the Sack of Constantinople. The Orthodox also murdered the wife of Manuel I Komnenos, their own empress. Please... AND the Canon was set at the Council of Hippo in 393. That same canon the Catholic Church uses today. It is the Orthodox who are in schism since they are NOT in union with Peter (see Mt 16:16), and establish their own Apostolic missions and juristictions apart from Peter. I pray that one day we can be one, as Christ is One.
@@JD-sj1zn The Orthodox, as Pope John Paul II stated clearly, have most dutifully kept to the authentic traditions of the Apostles - we have never been in Schism as your excommunication in 1054 was invalid, but since then your See has clearly walked away from the rest of the Church and has caused so much trouble with innovation that Protestantism is squarely your responsibility. Do not throw stones in your own glass house.
@@dankmartin6510 Not being in union with Peter is schism. Setting up Apostolic missions and jurisdictions apart from Peter is schism. Teaching a doctrine apart from 1000 yrs of Tradition with regard to the Keys is schismatic- the very definition of schism. Study your revered Saints who all were in union with Peter BEFORE you throw your stones, sir.
@@user98344 Amen. I love the rich and blessed worship of Orthodoxy, but many former Pagan traditions of early Christian converts have in many ways diluted the eternal purpose of faith. Wearing black as an outward expression of being deceased to one’s sins is appealing to the human eye (flesh), not the soul (Holy Spirit). And being clothed in flowing robes, forbidding to marry and abstaining from meats are Biblically forewarned to us as the commandments of man, not God. Man is fallible, but only God is perfect. Thus, I take the writings of the early Church Fathers with a grain of salt-as complimentary to God’s Word (the Holy Bible). Lastly, as for apostate icon-veneration, refer to Jesus: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” - 1 Timothy 2:5
@@ApostolicStormicon were used in the Old Testament as well when the arm of the covenant was made it was to have two cherubim angles one on each side GOD told mosses is that idolatry? Especially when idolatry means to create and worship a false god veneration to icons is not idolatry there are a cloud of saints Hebrews 12.1 When our physical body dies doesn’t mean that we aren’t still connected spiritually with people on earth.
Inquirer here into EO. I think the more important question is: does grace allow Christians to intercede to God for one another? And are our relationships in Christ severed by death? If you ask for your pastor to pray to Jesus for you, then why can’t I ask St. Paul, keeping in mind that the Holy Spirit is the one conveying the request to him?
So, I'm someone who grew up with an evangelical Protestant background, but I'm currently inquiring into the Orthodox Church. I'm being very careful to exercise due diligence, though, since I don't want to make any rash decisions, and I don't want to have to deal with the embarrassment of converting to Orthodoxy only to realize later on that there's some irreconcilable conflict that I should have seen in advance. To that end, I've found your channel to be an important "brake", helping me to exercise caution and preventing me from having too much unhealthy zeal. In particular, I'm wrestling with the history of icon veneration and iconoclasm in the church, and given the things you said in the first half of this video, I'll definitely need to investigate this further. However, I must admit that I found the second half of this video rather troubling. It seemed like you were going all over the place, and I couldn't tell what point you were trying to make. It seemed like you kept flip flopping on the definition of veneration purely based on convenience, making all sorts of contradictory arguments in the process. Here's my central question for you: In your mind, what exactly constitutes venerating an icon? Is it veneration if you kiss an icon? But I distinctly remember you saying at one point that kissing the Bible is *not* veneration. How do you make sense of that? Is it veneration (and therefore worship) if you bow before an icon? But I remember you bringing up examples of bowing that don't constitute worship (such as bowing before a king). So why is it not worship if I bow before a person purely with the intent of showing respect but definitely worship if I do the same thing to an image of a respectable person? Does it only count as veneration if it's done ritualistically in a codified manner, such as during a worship service? That seems like a rather strange qualification to make, but even setting that aside, wouldn't your arguments that venerating icons in church constitutes iconolatry also imply that liturgical Scripture readings constitute Bibliolatry? After all, if all it takes to be an idolator is to ritually respect something that isn't God himself, then I guess we'll have to radically diminish our view of the Bible if we want to ensure that our worship is directed to God alone. Is it simply a matter of the language of "windows to heaven" (in reference to icons) striking you as weird? If so, I think you just have to get over that feeling, since "weird" does not mean "idolatrous." But also, I would like to again bring up the Bible. Is not the Bible a kind of "window to heaven", revealing magnificent truths about God and therefore worthy of great respect? If you can believe that without idolizing the Bible, why is it any different with icons? After all of that, the only conclusion I'm left with is that you seem to have a weird paranoia that people can accidentally commit iconolatry. But that's not how idolatry works. Idolatry is always intentional, and it always involves taking our attention away from God. If Catholic and Orthodox Christians everywhere can calmly tell you (with no hint of panic in their voice) that their worship is directed to God alone and that veneration does not rise to the level of worship, why can't you just take them at their word and believe them? Why can't you just trust that they see a difference between worship and veneration, especially when you yourself are aware of the possibility of showing people and objects great respect without worshipping them? Why the suspicion? Every time I've heard you talk about icon veneration, you seem to have an unhealthy suspicion that people are insincere when they tell you that veneration is not worship, and that suspicion seems to be the real core of your argument, despite whatever good points you might make along the way. Again, you made some good points in the first half, and I'll definitely need to investigate church history on icons further. But the second half felt needlessly suspicious, and I can't seem to get past that. And I say that as someone who grew up evangelical and wrestles with this very controversy myself.
I relate greatly, both to your comments and to your journey. Iconography was an issue for me for a while as well, and I found Dr Ortland a good brake on myself to make sure I did my due diligence and gave proper, careful consideration before becoming Orthodox. I am glad I discovered both him and Trent Horn before my chrismation, the pushback from the Protestants and Catholics, respectively. Regarding his suspicion of Iconography, I suspect this mostly stems from its strong Incarnational nature, which clashes with the Protestant paradigm. That is to say, I don't think he's being uncharitable; I think this issue is not something that can fit into his paradigm of Christianity, and he thus treats this incompatibility with extreme suspicion. One thing I have realized about Orthodoxy is just how important the Incarnation is. The visible Church, the role of priests and bishops, baptismal regeneration, the real presence of the Eucharist, and iconography, among other things, are all aspects of this strong Incarnational Theology. It is precisely this Incarnational Theology that Protestants have an issue with. Note that Dr. Ortland denies every one of these. I struggle to think of any Incarnational aspect to his theology that I've seen aside from Christ's Incarnation. The closest I can think of is the Bible, but I suspect he would say that the actual material aspect of the Bible (the paper, ink, etc) is necessary only because it is needed to carry and transmit the knowledge within, which is the only really important aspect. This is the source of the Bible as an exception. To Dr. Ortland's credit, I think his theology is more consistent than, say, a Lutheran, who tries to affirm some Incarnational aspects while denying others. But it's all ultimately rooted in an issue with Incarnational Theology. For Orthodox, Christ's Incarnation would have been necessary even if Adam and Eve had never sinned. I don't think this is so in Dr. Ortland's theology. Granted, these are assumptions based on my understanding of his paradigm, and I would be happy to be corrected if I am wrong, as well as by what he actually believes.
Excellent points, Tyler. Thank you for sharing them. As a convert to Orthodoxy, here is my take: Veneration of icons is just the outward expression of the inward veneration of God’s work in the life of the Saints. If it isn’t an act of idolatry for Asians to bow to each other, or Europeans to kiss each other, or for a grieving wife to kiss a picture of her husband, why would it be in the case of those who became radiant vessels of the Holy Spirit? I think your point about unnecessary suspicion is spot on in this regard. Also, I believe that the ultimate logic of why the 7th Ecumenical Council and the Orthodox Church today have for considering this practice necessary, is the same logic Protestants use to explain the Biblical verses that clearly state the necessity of works for salvation. It’s not that the act in itself saves you, but there is no way to explain how a person could have repented without the fruits of repentance, there’s no way someone truly loves God without expressing that love in actions, and there’s no way they can truly love God and fail to express love to those people through whom His presence most shined in the world.
@@sharplikecheddar2 If what you love more than anything else and owe your whole life to is being misrepresented or treated unfairly, it brings that out of you
Thank you so much for making this and doing all this research. I was very interested in Eastern Orthodoxy, but when I questioned their use of icons, they called me "protestant" and "Hitler" - apparently my questioning icons makes me equivalent to some supposed crimes committed over a thousand years ago. It was at that point that I realized icons really are idols, because otherwise they wouldn't have reacted that way. Now, I still haven't learned enough about Protestantism to choose it yet... another dispute I have with the Orthodox cultists is the "ever virgin Mary" - they teach that Mary and Joseph, despite being married, never got down to business. The problem is, in at least two Gospels, it is mentioned that Jesus had brothers. So... add that up, lol. Does Protestantism solve this problem, or what is Protestantism's stance on Mary? And does it creep you guys out that people have obsessed over her sex life for 2000 years? Cuz that's frikkin creepy, imo.
Oh come one, dude. Don't make up stories. No one called you "Hitler". And if they called you a protestant, how is that insulting? This comment is ridiculous.
@@fusion9619 well if they did then it makes no sense and is not what other Orthodox Christians would think. I don't think you should only focus on negative comments. There will always be some rude people, but that isn't the majority.
@@alexandrusipos7738 yeah, I've met several very kind Orthodox people and they helped me understand some things I was asking about. It is wrong to only focus on the negatives, and I might have been doing that.
The issue of the “ever virgin” Mary is a big one as in the gospels, Acts, and even the non Christian source Josephus, are the siblings of Jesus mentioned. The simplest reading of those texts are that these are the siblings of Jesus and since they are always with Mary, these are her children. It also fits the context since Catholic-orthos tend to ignore the Jewish context of the Bible in establishing their beliefs. Though in the beginning, Protestantism accepted the perpetual virginity, most Protestants today just reject and accept the simpler interpretation that Jesus had siblings who were the rest of the Joseph and Mary’s children. This is also the standard reading of scholarship and historians. So, I argue, that when someone accepts the “ever virginity” of Mary, it’s literally an argument of faith with no evidence vs history. The direct evidence of the position is non existent, only existing in the minds and writings of later Christian thinkers, which is of little value historically in this case.
Excellent as always. I can’t wait for Michael Lofton’s response video. This is timely, as he recently put out a video defending Pope Francis for the Pachamama statue veneration. He shows a video of a woman referring to it as “our lady of the Amazon” in Spanish, and basically says that means it’s a depiction of Mary. I asked him in the comments if the statue was made with the intent of being Mary or if it was made as Pachamama and repurposed into Mary. I didn’t get into this, but I was trying to parse out what makes something a statue or icon worthy of veneration-is it intent of the person venerating, is it what it was made as, is it consecrated, etc. He replied that that is irrelevant to the accusation of idolatry, and that Catholics have long appropriated pagan elements into Christianity. I can’t see how venerating a representation of an Amazonian pagan goddess isn’t idolatry, but I’m sure he would respond that I’m incorrectly assuming something and that I should be more charitable.
I go back to this video a lot. Its amazing how well your arguments stand against the massive amount of attempted refutations. I'm currently going through Suan's video and, while I really appreciate his charitable demeanor, I definitely don't find it too convincing.
The early Church had to fight against constant gnostic/neoplatonic influence. This is why you get a mix of historic testimony regarding icons in the early patristic text. What is indisputable is the veneration of the relics of Saints from the first centuries (see martyrdom of Polycarp). Just as the king of babylon venerated Daniel after he interpreted his dream because the king recognized the Spirit of the true God in Daniel, Christians have always recognized the special presence of God's Spirit and glory in the Saint of His Church. The veneration of icons operates on the exact same principle that early Christians have always practiced in their veneration of relics. A picture of a Saint's body is basically just an extension of their relics. Pictures of Christ's physical and visible body operates on the same principle. God has indwelt His creation. The Son of God has united human and divine nature in His one person and has deified humanity in himself and is in the continued process of deifying humanity ("until I make your enemies your footstool") through His body, the Church. This really happened and is happening. It's real, we are not gnostics. And the Saints of the Old Testament were not gnostic either. God's people in the OT era used physical objects that represented God's presence in a special way in their worship. The same holds true in the post incarnation New Covenant. The details have changed but the principle is the same. Nicaea II's proscription of icon veneration was to try to put an end once and for all to the encroachment of these gnostic tendencies. Unfortunately, most secular people and many Christians in the modern world have become so gnostic in their thinking that they don't even realize how gnostic they are.
I was recently blessed as a Catechumen and immediately afterwards I had a meeting with the Priest. He told me I'd be leaving the church that day with a handful of Icons and that I had to venerate them as I prayed. When I told him I wasn't comfortable doing that he got quite prickly and told me it wasn't optional. Prior to this he'd said the only requirement for becoming a Catechumen was a desire to be part of Christ's Church ( which I have ) It doesn't seem like there just paint and wood to me. I obviously have a deep interest in Orthodoxy but the icon thing really puts me off. The compulsory element is so obviously an innovation and political response by the Byzantine state, that it negates the idea that they are the original "one true Church" I suspect your video, which was extremely timely for me, will have raised a few hackles because I doubt many Orthodoxy have ever thought about it or if they have, are guilty of such an enormous feat of rationalisation and denial, that they will respond harshly to this threat
Did you ask him if this is common practice for all priests to do this? It could be something he does but it could also be commonplace. Honestly either situation really creeps me out. I’m sorry. I hope the Lord guides you. Don’t feel guilt or ashamed by anyone
Hey brother. I spent countless hours studying the early church fathers/doctrines and the EOC. I have taken 5 catechumen classes online and was very close myself. I attended Antiochian, Greek, and Coptic Orthodox churches. Please prayerfully consider reading Disillusioned: Why I Left the Eastern Orthodox Priesthood and Church by recently former EO priest Josua Schooping. You puts the truth out there. You need to know what you are really signing up for. It is not the apostolic deposit of faith. I would be happy to chat with you any time.
@woozyjoe4703 Thank you for sharing this. Can you imagine Peter's follow up statement to " repent and be baptized" being, "and here are some icons you must venerate"?
To be clear, the Priest wasn't being unpleasant and he is a genuinely loving and kind man, but he was pretty immovable on the icon issue. I also spoke with another Priest who was much more relaxed about it and was advising me to take my time with everything and pray for God's guidance, which I am doing. I find so many loving people in Orthodoxy, I love the Liturgy, I love the incense, I love a lot of the rituals, and I love the depth of so much of their theology it attracts me enormously, but the icons, as well as a lot of the Theotokos ideas, are the things I find really hard to ignore. Honestly, I was trying to put them to the back of my mind and telling myself that they were just details I could leave alone but this video has really put it into perspective. I need to wait for what comes. So grateful for the work Gavin does on here.
@@woozyjoe4703 The things that you love about the Orthodox church are found in a "high" Anglican church ACNA (Anglican Church North America) without the innovations and idolatry that have been added over the centuries. They are a "reformed" and "purified" catholic and apostolic church. There is a reason that you are uncomfortable with certain things in the EO churches, as I was as well. The believe that check you feel in your gut is the Holy Spirit. Please slow down, pray, research and reach out if you'd like to discuss.
@TruthUnites I'm going to go through the video point by point, section by section. First of all, the term Icon as understood by the church is derived from the Greek Ekon, which yes means image but a more precise translation of what is meant by it in this context would actually be Likeness. Icons don't always depict one figure, nor is the figure necessarily the focus of the Icon, many depict multiple people and still many others depict events from scripture or from church history. Mary, for example, at least in Orthodox Iconography is almost never depicted by herself, she's almost always with Christ, holding Christ, pregnant with Christ with it painted so that Christ is visible in her womb etc. This is very much by design, there's a point that the Iconographers are communicated by doing that and it's the fact that Mary, while of paramount importance both for the example of her life and for her pivotal role in the gospel, is only important because she leads us straight to her Son. It is also important to understand that Icons are not mere images nor are they limited to paintings, mosaics, and Statues. All who worship Christ should be constantly striving to be living Icons of Christ showing His likeness to the rest of the world by the way we live and the way we treat those around us. To call an Icon an image and limit them to wood, paint, or stone presents a limited understanding and a misleading picture of how Icons are understood in the church. To be honest, researching enough to respond to the timing of when Icons came on the scene is really above my capabilities right at this moment but I will just point 1 thing out regarding the ancient examples of Icons dating back to the Ante Nicene period. The ones we have, are those that survived 2,000 years. That does not mean they were the earliest to be created or used, there may have been Icons earlier than we think that were either destroyed or rendered unrecognizable as such by the ravages of time or by the iconoclasts who did destroy Icons. One of the reasons many of the oldest we have are in western territories is because the controversy that led up to Nicaea II was so prevalent in the east. Icons were actually banned in Constantinople for decades during that period and many Icons of unknown age were destroyed during that time. My point isn't that Icons were absolutely being used all the way back to the beginning or were being used in the same way that they are now, my point is that we would do well to remember the limitations and incomplete nature of the evidence we have. As for the distinction between bowing down to images to worship them or to venerate them, of course this would not be seen in the Old Testament, because at the time, there aren't any actually Holy things that man could correctly make an image of, there are no "Icons" as we understand them in a religious context now. during the Old Testament period. The verse you referenced even makes note of this fact, saying that they didn't see an image when God spoke to them in the fire. they don't have the first clue how to make an actual Icon of God because they don't have any idea what one would even look like. The only images that exist at that time are idols, the difference is that an Icon is a likeness or image of that which is true. An idol is an imagined representation of that which is (at best unseen and at worst completely false). If followers of the God of Israel in the Old Testament period were forbidden from making and using all religious art, why does God follow that commandment up a little bit later by commanding them to adorn the Ark of the Covenant, the tabernacle, and later the Temple itself, with so much imagery? The connection between Icons and the incarnation is this, Jesus, being both fully human and fully divine, is Himself in a way, a living Likeness of God the Father, one that, at least for a while, mankind could see, hear, touch, and converse with. This, in effect, meant that God was no-longer unseen and therefore an Icon, not an Idol, but a true Likeness of God could at last be made. As for the concern about when the line gets crossed in the human heart, I won't deny that it's a fine line and that is exactly why a correct understanding of the line between veneration and worship, the line between Holy created beings (God vs angels, saints etc), and the theology of what it means to venerate and who and what is being venerated, must be a thorough and repeated part of catechesis for all those who venerate the Saints, Angels, Prophets, and indeed Christ Himself through the use of Icons. That said, to say that just because the practice can become warped and dangerous when incorrectly understood that no one should engage in what can actually be a fruitful and humbling part of devotional practice would be like saying the Eucharistic wine should be replaced with water just in case someone in attendance is so easily tempted to alcohol abuse that the spoonful offered from the chalice to each worthy recipient would be enough to set them off. Sincerely, your Friendly Neighborhood Orthodox layperson
I agree with you, except for the Hebrews bowing down before Icons in the OT. They bowed down before the Ark of the Covenant, a typology of the Theotokos (Mother Mary). They even created images of Divine things, the Cherubims on the Ark of the Covenant. In I Samuel 5, we see that even the statue of the Philistine god Dagon falls down before the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark of the Covenant is to have the Presence of God inside, just as Mary has God in her womb, and now all of the Saints have God inside by Grace (theosis). Thus, the icons are like arks of the Covenant. Thus, iconoclasts not only go against the Ancient Church, but against the Faith handed down to us through the Jews.
The main issue is what Gavin addressed in the video - that the veneration of icons is considered a theological necessity, despite the fact that it was universally opposed just a few centuries earlier. It’s the prime example of the Church claiming authority and tradition when in fact what they are introducing as doctrine is a novelty and an accretion.
@@repentantrevenant9776 No, it wasn't brand new doctrine. The idea of a physical space/thing representing the holiness of a departed saint was not a novelty in the early church. Rather than gathering in temples, which were illegal for Christians to have at the time, they gathered around the graves and tombs of the early martyrs and held their liturgies there. Even during the lifetime of the apostles Christians had already recognized that was something unique and special about the bones of a man or woman who had been martyred for Christ as opposed to gathering and holding liturgy in a field or forest or something like that. Also you have to understand the audience that early church fathers like Clement of Alexandria were writing to. They lived in a pagan world and shared their faith with pagans. In other words, people who only understood religious imagery in the sense of an icon of a pagan god that you DID offer full worship/adoration to. This is why you see the strong language against the worship of images. It is not because they didn't yet have a theological difference between worship and veneration at that point. They had the old testament after all.
In the second giving of the Law in Deut, God explicitly says that you are to make no image of him since when you looked into the fire (at Mt. Sinai), you saw no image. This, of course, now means that since we have an image, the prohibition is removed. The other thing, worship has numerous levels of meaning in English (in the Anglican wedding service: "with my body I thee worship", and judges in England for years have been known as "your worship".
@@repentantrevenant9776 Veneration of icons is just the outward expression of the inward veneration of God’s work in the life of the Saints. If it isn’t an act of idolatry for Asians to bow to each other, or Europeans to kiss each other, or for a grieving wife to kiss a picture of her husband, why would it be in the case of those who became radiant vessels of the Holy Spirit? The ultimate logic of why the 7th Ecumenical Council and the Orthodox Church today have for considering this practice necessary, is the same logic Protestants use to explain the Biblical verses that clearly state the necessity of works for salvation. It’s not that the act in itself saves you, but there is no way to explain how a person could have repented without the fruits of repentance, there’s no way someone truly loves God without expressing that love in actions, and there’s no way they can truly love God and fail to express love to those people through whom His presence most shined in the world.
Reading was for the few: Historically, this is why religious art, icons, sculptures, and oral traditions have been so powerful. They communicate ideas and stories that transcend the written word, allowing people to feel a sense of presence and meaning. A painting or statue of a saint, for example, can convey a sense of reverence and inspiration without needing any words at all.
1:00:20 this is a really good analogy, because it is obvious that when the wife doesn't want her husband kissing other women, even if they live in a cultural where it is a form of cultural greeting, the wife obviously didn't allow her husband to kiss for that reason. Likewise, when God commanded Israel not to create images & bow down to them, obviously that included creating & bowing down to images of even Himself not just pagan images. Bravo! 👍
Back then the ancient Israel didn't know what God looked like and there were many images and statues made by the Israel (and others too) that they worshipped as God. Now as the Bible says we know that Jesus Christ is the image of the invisible God (Col 1:15). So it's different. God forbid worshiping *other* God, not forbidding making images or statues. God bless...
@@For3nity those who believe this combine the first & second commandments, when in reality, the first commandment is about not having other gods, and the second commandment is about not making graven images OR likenesses of him, which the Israelites did when they created the golden calf, which they were condemned for. The apostle Paul also supports this second commandment about not creating images - even of God Himself - in his epistle to the Romans.
@@BornAgainRN We have to read scriptures in totality and in context. Idolatry is about worshipping other God..not about making images or statues. How you worship statues as other God if you don't have statues. Back then so many statues and images worshipped as God by the Israelit and others...that's why it's prohibited to make statues so as not to be worshipped as God because the image of the unseen God...Jesus...was not there yet. Now if you still worry about statues it looks to me you don't believe in Jesus :) Anyway, God asked Moses to make statues...it's in the Bible. God bless...
Yes, everyone is commenting on it because it is astonishing that in this day and age, there are still iconoclasts. Unbelievable. Why are you so excited about this? Is this your way of living boldly for Christ?
I think the story of Micah in Judges 17 plays a role in the pagan vs. Christian idol discussion. Seemingly, Micah was trying to please God by making the silver idol. He even got a Levite to be his priest so that the Lord would do right to him. I think an argument can be made that Micah had actually made an idol representing Jehovah; which was still considered sinful. So, the attempt to separate pagan and Christian idols seem to fall apart.
accretion noun ac·cre·tion ə-ˈkrē-shən Synonyms of accretion 1 : the process of growth or enlargement by a gradual buildup: such as a : increase by external addition or accumulation (as by adhesion of external parts or particles) b : the increase of land by the action of natural forces 2 : a product of accretion
I don't think this video will make a person protestant. A person that does not think the Bible is infallible or even correct, will not suddenly think: Oh, icon veneration is an accretion, I should be a protestant Christian. I agree with Trent Horn on that point. For protestantism to be true Protestant claims need to be proven, disproving catholic/orthodox claims does not do that.
@@georgwagner937Protestantism doesn’t have to be proven true, all it does is rely on the Bible. All we care about is that the Bible is true. And yeah, that can definitely cause differences in belief and practice, but not in orthodox beliefs - those are not “Christian.” But if we disprove Catholicism / Orthodoxy, that is, any of the “infallible” portions, the whole point of authority falls. Therefore, the church is not the only authority. And those who disagree with the authority are… drum roll… protesters. Or, Protestants. So if you want to be a Christian, but reject the Catholic / Orthodox views, you can easily be a Protestant. Anyways, I am not against Catholic / Orthodox Christians. But I don’t think their authority as the only church (not necessarily “true,” - I think all three branches are true) is accurate.
@@Tornadospeed10Asserting that if orthodoxy is false means that Christianity is false is just that - an assertion. Anyways, I never said orthodoxy or the Orthodox Church wasn’t true. I think it is. I don’t think it is infallible in every aspect though. For example, the assumption of Mary could have never happened, and the Orthodox Church would still be true. Fallible men stating that something is true when it isn’t doesn’t stop the scripture from remaining true. I’m not saying all traditions outside the Bible are false, but I think some are false.
I am a Protestant believer who makes pictures of Christ and the saints. I have often been told throughout my life that it’s wrong of me to make pictures like these mainly because of how Catholics and other “traditional” Christians treat such images. I never felt the temptation to bow down to my work or worship it. I know my pictures aren’t the real Jesus or saints, but representations of my interpretation of what I learn in the Bible. These pictures often help me remember important truths in Scripture. I have filled a shelf in my room with paper cutouts showing the life of Jesus Christ. They’re one of the first things I see every morning. I have seen guests’ jaws drop when they see the cutouts. It’s honestly amazing what God’s gifts can do. I can appreciate artwork as artwork, but if someone asks me to bow down to an icon of any biblical character, I would leave the place. That’s not for Christians to do. If people make artwork of Jesus and the saints for the purpose of veneration, I think they should stop, repent and never make such things again. I do acknowledge how frequent the temptation to idolatry is, but from my personal experience, it seems to me that most people’s idols are *themselves* . They idolise their own tastes, things that make them happy. This is why the command is given to deny the self, stay away from idols (after talking a lot about how friendship with the world is enmity with God), &c. I understand that idolatry in the NT has a broader scope than simply making portraits of funny characters and performing rituals/showing respect to them. Unfortunately, many who claim to be Christians do not seem to see the flaw in their logic about the distinction between bowing down to God and bowing down to pictures of who is supposed to be God or one of His servants. I think it’s okay to have pictures of Jesus in your home as decoration (like during Christmas when we make a Nativity scene) or reminders of Scripture, but it’s definitely wrong to do what our Catholic and Orthodox friends are doing with pictures.
I’m sure your art is beautiful. I agree with you 100% about the worshipping of oneself. I don’t know anyone that worships statues, but I sure know a lot who worship themselves.
This is a great discussion and good points made Dr. Ortlund. I have read the counsel in question as well (Nicea II) and still come away with a different conclusion which I would relate to this: When I see a picture of my now deceased grandfather I’m filled with emotion and respect for the man, sometimes even to the point of tears or talking out loud in the hopes that the words might be heard by him somehow (his faith was in question). To me, this is pure respect and love for the man and what he meant to my life. Is this not even more appropriate for those who have finished the race well and serve as examples for us in this life? A very personal example of this is when I first came across a depiction of the martyrdom of St. Laurence - it was deeply impactful and in that moment I felt challenged to walk in greater boldness in my faith. My conclusion is that the counsel actually left room for this to take place within the heart of individual believers without making the choice for them, that idolatry is absolutely possible before venerable images but that abuse would be a fault made by individuals going too far and treating them in place of the Almighty who they serve and not of the nature of the images themselves… Sorry for the long winded response but I was thinking of all of this while watching your video. Thank you for your work!
Even God Himself commanded images to be made - the statues of cherubim that go on either side of the tabernacle and the bronze serpent (which when people looked at it, they were healed from their snake bites) to name a couple. God made us to be body AND spirit, not just spirit. As such, the LORD comes to us in both spiritual and physical ways. Think of Jesus - He healed by His Word, and by mixing His saliva with dirt and putting it on a man's eyes. He gave large crowds bread and fish to keep them sustained. A woman was healed through touching the tassel of His cloak. He died on the Cross for us. He instituted the Eucharist! We get to actually receive the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus! God made us with bodies, and He declared it very good. Our bodies are not bad. Images are not banned - graven images are. Looking at/having an image of Jesus is not only not harmful, it's and ! I encourage you to look into the Catholic Faith - good resources can be found on Ascension Presents (UA-cam, the Ascension App) and Catholic Answers (website and UA-cam). God bless! - A Catholic Christian
Yes, I recall reading how the Fathers married same-sex couples, condoned abortion, ordained women and homosexuals, etc. Anglicanism and Lutheranism, yup. Just like the Fathers. You're daft.
I wanna put a comment on this particular video just to put an emphasis on that which Gavin said explaining the viewpoint of Clement (of Alexandria) … “ Familiarity with the sight disparages reverence for what is divine. “ This statement perfectly sums up the conflict I once presented to a Catholic friend of mine concerning the relation of faith and sight in our christian walk (including worship). What I presented to my friend was that case mentioned in 2 Corinthians 5:7 (we live by “faith” not by “sight”), it certainly has it’s proper immediate context but applies very easily to a broader context of religious walk and practices within Christianity. So, a specific question (which my friend said would require him to inquire about it) was: Doesn’t that phrase in that verse (2 Corinthians 5:7) contradicts the ritual practices performed in relation to icons in a christian walk (including worship)? Because it states how we (christians) ought to live (by faith) and how we ought not (by sight). I think this is one of those simple issues that can be addressed logically and reasonably yet has become so complex. And thanks to this particular video I can see that that complexity is ancient… “Because images are associated with the material world - which you can see - works of art cannot be sacred or divine.” I would definitely use that mentioned answer now: “Because God is invisible.” To Dr. Ortlund: Thanks Gavin for your great insights which I consider filled with honesty on this particular video… (not like that in the ones concerning baptism in the early churches of Christ…) I really appreciate all your work, and it has been definitely a blessing to me, in knowledge and grace. So, may God continue to bless you according to His will.
"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)" So I guess St. John and St. Peter and all the other Apostles really didn't need to see Christ risen from the dead, and that seeing him made him less of a means of faith? You might want to rethink what "walking by faith and not by sight" actually means. Why not just have a non-physical Christ? What need have we of a circumscribed God? Is there anything you wrote above that Valentinus or Basilides would not have said? What of Simon Magus?
I do not worship matter; I worship the Creator of matter who became matter for my sake, who willed to take his abode in matter; who worked out my salvation through matter. Never will I cease honoring the matter which wrought my salvation!- St John of Damascus
I know there’s much discussion on this topic about the difference between worship and veneration, but this will be my guide: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything ... You shall not bow down to them or serve them ...” (Exo. 20:4-5, ESV). “When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. But Peter lifted him up, saying, "Stand up; I too am a man" (Act. 10:25-26, ESV). “I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me, but he said to me, ‘You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God’” (Rev. 22:8-9, ESV).
"Moses went out to meet his father-in-law and bowed down and kissed him."--Exodus 18:7 "When Abigail saw David, she hurried and got down from the donkey and fell before David on her face and bowed to the ground."--1 Samuel 25:23 "And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the LORD your God. And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king."--1 Chronicles 19:20
@@antoninoskomnenos1022 Like I said, “I know there’s much discussion on this topic about the difference between worship and veneration.” For some, they’re merely venerating icons; but for others, the practice looks too much like idol worship. Therefore, as the apostle Paul said about a similarly disputable matter: “Each one should be fully convinced in their own mind” (Rom. 14:5).
As a catholic, I love how everything is sacramental. We experience God in the physical world that He made for us. I can pray by watching a sunset, watching the trees, or enjoying an icon painting. God wants us to Love Him, and while He gives us some rules to do so properly, He also gives us a creative spirit and an attraction to beauty that is absolutely theologically relevant.
I have never seen a more even-handed and objective report on the questions surrounding icon veneration. I enter this as part of my research into Orthodox understandings and practices because I have Orthodox friends I love and want to understand. I watch their Orthodox videos done by some well-educated and clear-teaching priests. I've seen those priests use the language Dr. Ortlund attributes to them, which elevates my confidence in Dr. Ortlund as he does not mock or mischaracterize them. Thank you, Dr. Ortlund, for being gracious and sharing these scholarly videos with those of us who are seeking the truth.
whatever perceive benefits icons may have had in the past, people can read and pray for themselves today and hence not needed. icons have never sat right especially with the cultural heritage of the old testament where such things always tended to deteriorate into some form of idolatry
Icons have been used since the foundations of the Orthodox Church in 33 AD and have persisted for 2000 years now without falling into idolatry. They are a useful means of worship of God the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is no idolatry in asking the Mother of God, for example, to pray before her Son for our salvation when she clearly interceded on behalf of the people at the Wedding of Cana. She's alive in heaven with all of God's saints and therefore can pray for us. All of the saints pray ceaselessly before God... read Revelation.
I respect this man, he is humble a respectful kn presenting his arguments, unlike most people intuese comments. Im not educated well enough to argue or try to prove any points in these comments. I was brought up with exposure to both Catholicism and protestantism, one aide of family was one, themother side the other. I just want to say my favorite olace to worship is churches usually in downtown, more run dinw area churches with the huge vaulted ceilings, staine x glass windows, the statues. The beautiful art on those ceiling, and yes, statues. I feel so close to God in those beautiful old Catholic churches I dont worship the statues. I dont think many peope have actually visited the places they speak out against so much. Just my opinion
From the part of Nigeria I come from, the younger generation are returning to animism and idolatry. One of their reasons is that there's no difference between what is practiced in Roman catholicism from the practices of African traditional religion. They say that the images are used in both religions, and saints are venerated in Roman catholicism, while in ATR, the dead ancestors are venerated and prayed to. They don't see any difference and they see no reason to be venerate the ancestors of the Caucasians and then demonize their own ancestors. I can't wait for Jesus Christ to return and settle this issue in judgment once and for all
@@Qwerty-jy9mj what the difference? I think Roman catholicism is simply Christianity with all the baggages of human natural religion that it accumulated over the centuries. Anything that is left entirely in the hands of man will definitely go the way of naturalness. Man's view of religion consists in use of images, articles, relics and a high almost a deified regard for dead people. That's the characteristics of any religion of human origin. Catholicism is Christianity taken out of the hands of God and into the hands of man... hence the whole baggages.
Incredible work sir, thank you and my the LORD continue to bless. I have been interacting with Catholic friends and acquaintances more on these issues and appreciate your thoughtful approach to these very deep doctrinal divides. This and the Marian dogmas are the primary issues that prevented me from converting, these practices are clearly later additions unto the Faith.
There is one thing about this video I take very seriously, and that is the thumbnail. Question my scholarship all you want, but you cannot deny that my thumbnail carries scholarly gravitas.
ALSO: I respond to some criticism here: ua-cam.com/users/postUgkx1VMlzlE9wnLYdZpeuifApMjlrJmEVUsZ
This thumbnail is as close to a non-Scriptural infallible rule of faith we Protestants can muster up!
Here here. Seeing the thumbnail made me quiet myself and steel my nerves before clicking the video, seeing how deeply weighty the matter would be.
(In all reality though, so excited to see your scholarly work! Watching right now!)
The thumbnail makes you look shockingly like William Lane Craig lol
You missed your calling in comedy! 😂
Are we allowed to venerate this thumbnail? 🤔🤣
Great work, Dr. Ortlund!
As a Catholic considering Protestantism for several years now, this video was very important for me. Thank you Gavin. I've been doing my best building a defensive case for my Catholic beliefs, but more and more I feel like some of Catholic doctrines are impossible to properly defend, it boils down to appeal to authority of Pope in so many issues... Veneration of images was ALWAYS a hard pill to swallow for me too. I remember being on a Retreat Mass where all participants were asked to venerate an Icon of Mary. Not even Mary herself, but very specifically, her icon, and the prayer that followed was also, very specifically, addressing and asking THE HOLY ICON to answer the prayers. I can not describe how haunting and disturbing was this event for me. I wasn't educated enough to know why what was going on was wrong, but I knew it, I felt it in my heart, in my very soul. I was watching lots of both Catholic and Protestant Apologists on this and other topics that were concerning to me for years, and your channel has been, hands down, the best content for this purpose I've ever seen. Please keep answering these hard questions Gavin. You have no idea how hard it is for us Catholics to find a way out, even if we feel in our gut that we should. These videos are very helpful.
I converted years ago😊
May the Holy Spirit guide you!!
@@theknight8524 from what to what? Also, how did your family react?
I very nearly decided to become Catholic not long ago. I'm massively drawn towards the emphasis on tradition, high-church liturgy, and having a simple way to settle disputes of doctrine. What stopped me was that I couldn't get the idea out of my head, feelings, conscience, whatever one wants to call it, that Christ almost certainly would not want people anathematized and, so, removed from the Church for merely being unable to believe in, say, Mary's perpetual virginity, her assumption, or even her being immaculately conceived. There were a few other issues, but this, I think, was the biggest. How can it be Christ's Church, His body, if man can remove members from it erroneously, especially if such tradition is as authoritative as scripture?
@@Real_LiamOBryan have you ever considered other high church contexts with a structure of authority for setting disputes, but more inclusive and open? Like Anglicans or high Methodist or others? As a Catholic, by far the most powerful asset of protestantism is the freedom of choice. Catholics have no say about anything as far as their fate is concerned. We have to do and believe everything the magisterium teaches. I'm technically not even Catholic anymore for even having the doubts that I have. It's strict to the point of absurdity. It's not the "freedom in Christ" that Jesus promised us for sure.
@@mitromney Yes, I have. My doctrinal beliefs align very closely with conservative sorts of Methodism, and even fairly closely with conservative sorts of Anglicanism. I'm definitely not Lutheran in my beliefs. Still, being relatively close to Catholicism on some doctrines I don't feel 100% Protestant, and definitely not 100% Catholic. I believe that prayer to the saints is acceptable, that the Bishop of Rome should have a primacy of honor, that Sola Scriptura is either false or incomplete, that the dulia/latria distinction is true and useful and, therefore, that worshipping others (such as saints) is acceptable, that there is great importance--necessity even--in unity, that tradition is really important, etc. This is mostly academic for me, unless I choose Catholicism (which seems unlikely to me) or Methodism, because I only have two churches within reasonable travel distance from me, Catholic and low-church Wesleyan (which is a type of Methodist).
By the way, what are your thoughts on whether Jesus would want disbelievers in Marian dogmas removed from the Church?
I suppose another large issue I had is that it seems that the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which is formal dogma (as far as I know), seems--in part--to directly contradict the writings of Ignatius, not have biblical support (which isn't massively important to me), be influenced by Greek philosophy, and ontologically subordinates The Son to The Father by removing His aseity, making His existence ab alio instead. It says that Christ is eternally (πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων/before all of the ages) begotten, but Ignatius says that The Son is begotten in the flesh and, explicitly, unbegotten in the spirit (Ephesians 7:2).
Those are my two biggest issues. I would love to hear your thoughts on them, if you have any you would like to share.
I have to admit, you make a very good argument that not only wowed but challenged my own faith. Too often do we hear from Catholics and Orthodox saying that the veneration of iconography was historical. Per your research, that is simply not the case.
I think the opposition to the veneration of icons is a Judaizing artefact rather than a mandate of the Christian faith because Christian Freedom dispensed with it.
Many of the early Christians had that Jewish iconoclasm imbedded in their faith practice even though they were free of the Law.
Compare that to how many early Christians were against doing away with the 4th Commandment, namely “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy" for obvious reasons. The Law said the observance was for eternity.
Observing the Sabbath was even more foundational in Judaism than the issue of images.
Christ never mentioned doing away with the Sabbath. He followed the Sabbath.
Yet, the Church, which are the apostles and the believers, mandated that the that observance was not needed and the "new" day of worship was Sunday.
What gall, what usurpation of power if they did not have the Lord's delegated authority.
But the Church DID AND DOES HAVE Christ's delegated authority.
The Church declaring the veneration of icons as licit makes official what Christian Freedom allowed all along.
That the Church figures Gavin quoted retained certain Judaizing sentiments does not mean that Christian Freedom was no longer in operation.
Church figures come and go, each shaped by their milieu and their outlooks stamped with the prevailing issues of the day but it is the Church that bears Christ's promise, eternally joined to Him, inseparable.
It is the Church that moves through history and will do so in eternity.
@@AL_YZ This is a great observation. I really think there should be freedom in Christ and conscience for this. I think it may be a mistake to mandate veneration of icons, and a mistake to disallow the veneration of icons. There are a lot of issues in Romans 12-15 about freedom of conscience that sometimes gets lost in the tradition, either through unnecessary proscription or enforced prescription. If the Protestant movement can do one thing, I hope it's not the overthrowing of tradition, but the reintroduction to freedom of conscience on some of these traditions. But if freedom of conscience swings the opposite direction into condemnation of tradition, it just is repeating similar errors.
@@jonathananstett784 For a Roman Catholic, Christian Freedom prevails UNTIL the Church makes a definitive declaration of dogma after which the matter is settled.
For instance, prior to the canon being finalized, there was back and forth as to which books were included, even among the fathers. But after a consensus is reached within the Church, questioning the canon was no longer an option.
The working out of defined doctrines within the Church is often a contentious process over centuries sometimes - like finalizing the canon. For the RC, it is not just a pope unilaterally deciding this or that.
Regarding the decree to compel veneration of icons, that was a very specific response to the intense battles - theological and political - which involved the powers of the day. It really tore through the Church of the time. It was authoritative but time-bound in practice. Like the issue of the Jewish Sabbath observance I mentioned, that was settled by the Church.
So no-one has compelled anyone for the longest time ever since the iconoclastic controversies were over a thousand years ago. The Church had declared that the veneration of icons is licit and that is settled. Most RC are not even aware it was part of a recognized ecumenical council.
@@jonathananstett784
Fr oma Roman Catholic point of view, Christian Freedom prevails UNTIL the Church makes a definitive declaration of dogma after which the matter is settled.
For instance, prior to the canon being finalized, there was back and forth as to which books were included, even among the fathers. But after a consensus is reached within the Church, questioning the canon was no longer an option. Same with the Sabbath.
The working out of defined doctrines within the Church is often a contentious process over centuries sometimes - like finalizing the canon. Why so messy? Because Christ chose to deputize flesh and blood people to be His church and to teach His Word. He did not promise a new set of scriptures as a stand-alone guide that anyone can build their church around.
The bible was written by the singular Church of Christ for the Church.
He promised to abide with His church as it marches through history to the end of time.
For the RC then, it is not just a pope unilaterally deciding this or that. So this present Pope with his problematic statements is a transient slice of time while the Church that Christ left behind is everlasting.
Regarding the decree to compel veneration of icons, that was a very specific response to the intense battles - theological and political - which involved the powers of the day. It really tore through the Church of the time.
It was authoritative but time-bound in practice.
So no-one has compelled anyone for the longest time ever since the iconoclastic controversies were over a thousand years ago. The Church had declared that the veneration of icons is licit and the matter is settled. Most RC are not even aware it was part of a recognized ecumenical council.
@@AL_YZWe could use this argument for anything though, we could argue that the church politics, elders, fathers, priests, bishops, etc. are ALL against judaizers, and that christian freedom has done away with it.
Why not? We can all agree a major reason for the very first politics of the church was not meant to be permanent, otherwise it would still exist as it was(it does not).
The political structure of the church has changed much since the book of Acts, even since the days of the fathers, and as seen by Paul and Peter, much of what the apostles did was to stop judaizers. So who is Rome, who is Alexandria, who is Antioch to say we have freedom to overcome the prohibition on icon veneration?
I see Protestantism as a pursuit of the truth not a pursuit of one’s own private judgment. Protestants DO acquiesce to something: The leading of the Holy Spirit as found in the Word of God. (John 17:17)
Protestantism, the pursuit of truth that leads to 40,000 different conclusions...
Yes except that’s nonsense and just another way of saying “my opinion.” Ever noticed every single branch of Protestantism claims they have the holy spiritual leading them to truth but all claim different things? It’s because that’s a nonsensical claim people use to act like whatever they personally believe the text says, based on their opinion was from the Holy Spirit and therefore right
With all due respect, how can that statement coexist with so many divisions, and not just on "the small things"
There are major divides on eternal security, baptism, whether Catholics are Christians, etc.
Hard to explain the Spirit leading into thousands of denominations. Seraphim Hamilton has 4 or 5 videos, each about an hour long directly addressing this video. I recommend watching those for a DEEP dive into why Ortlund is mistaken.
"I see Protestantism as a pursuit of the truth not a pursuit of one’s own private judgment. "
Protestant is built with Sola Scriptura as its foundation, who's 16th centuries fruit was, is, and shall ever be, doctrinal chaos, confusion and division. The pursuit of truth completely elusive as it's foundation by definition is one's private, fallible and unauthoritative interpretation of scripture. Yet Christ himself made numerous promises regarding the Truth:
Christ is the head of his Church (Col 1: 18)
Christ''s Church is the pillar of truth (1 Tim 3: 15)
Christ's Church is the bulwark of truth. (1 Tim 3: 15)
Christ's Church is where the manifold wisdom of God is made known. (Eph 3: 10)
*Christ PROMISED to lead it to ALL Truth.* (Jn 16: 13)
Christ PROMISED that he would NEVER leave it. (Mt 28: 20)
Christ PROMISED that the gates of hell would not prevail (it will not teach doctrinal error) ; (Mt 16: 18)
Why not trust Christ?
This was beautiful. I believe your intellect is a gift from God. Thank you for all of your work. I will be looking into purchasing copies of your works. May God bless your soul, my brother in Christ. 🩷
Praying for you, Gavin. This has caused quite a stir and dealing with accusations, mischaracterizations, disingenuous interpretations, and lies thrown at you is hard. Especially when in online communities like UA-cam, it feels like you are outnumbered and outnumbered = you must be wrong. Be encouraged that you are doing good work, and the hasty responses that have been made to you completely mischaracterize your views and dodge the points made. Most importantly, I'm praying that you are graciously given the strength to fight off the attacks of Satan which tempt you to anger, defensiveness, and pride - may God get the glory!
what a wonderful prayer, thanks. Keep praying, it means a lot!
As an orthodox who has had a big issue with kissing icons and praying to saints from childhood, I thank God for you and your videos. Look at their fruits. Look into how the priests actually conduct themselves in the orthodox countries. Look at their fruits. No one loves money more than an orthodox priest and his wife.
@@mangispangi Is like that in Orthodox countries ? Are you still orthodox ?
@@mangispangi there are greedy people among all sects of christianity. That’s not an argument against veneration of icons.
@Truth Unites ah man, my husband and I had high hopes for you as a rational Protestant. Do you venerate the Bible? If so, then you are worshipping the Bible, which, by your logic, makes an idol out of it. The Word (i.e. Jesus) has existed infinitely longer than the Bible (John 1). The Bible is a gift from God, not God Himself. Similar to demonizing kissing the Bible, your demonizing kissing icons is tantamount to demonizing other gifts from God based on YOUR imperfect wisdom. It's a form of Manichaeism - a terrible heresy that causes grief among the faithful because it misrepresents who God is to His loved ones. By you proclaiming good things as bad, you make yourself into a god, and THAT is what causes you to be an anathma.
Regards,
Dr. Enshala
I really don't get it - all of this veneration of various saints and supplications made to them. When you have access to boldly approach the Creator of our Universe (Christ!), then why would we ever attempt to have our burdens met by some mere mortal underling. It's as if I have some very important issue with a company over some serious mistake they've made with my account - am I going to sort it out with some powerless young clerk behind a counter, or would I not seek out the company owner that can provide both the solution AND has the authority and ability to see that it's taken care of? With Catholics, the CC even teaches that Mary is a "co-redemptrix" with Jesus - as she supposedly operates alongside Jesus to hear and address our concerns. WHAT, does Jesus somehow need HELP in getting things done? Is He not enough or is somehow lacking? It's truly inconceivable that one wouldn't first beseech Jesus!
Those are excellent reflections; we refer to the current proprietor of the universe and - the heavenly realm for - literally - Christ's sake: Jesus Christ! To the glory of His Father, to be sure.
Thank you
Kind regards Kim
“The prayers of a righteous man avail with much.”
Colossians 1:24: “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church.”
Yet you don’t even receive your Lord in the Eucharist, curious?
@@glennjapson6234 This is a verse I'd never considered much, but you need to squint *really* hard to connect this to icon veneration. Paul is talking about martyrdom, and to apply it to anything else would require some clear allusions or parallels at least.
I’ve always been a Protestant that wanted to convert to Catholicism with my friends or Orthodox. But every time I started to dig deeper into it I realized I just like the sincerity of the aesthetics of those churches and the quietness of heart that they invoke when you enter them. Even the discipline of the rosary seemed like a helpful tool for my wandering mind. BUT I never converted and have realized I am as Protestant as they come. When I read the Bible and gospels Catholicism and Orthodoxy just seemed so far away from the flavor of the simple purity of the New Testament. To top it off I’m an artist and I have always struggled with the purpose of my art and Christian art and afraid of creating idol like images. I’m very wary of it and continually have to ask God why he gave me this gift and its highest purpose, how to use it for him without it becoming more than that.
As a Protestant enquiring into Orthodoxy, the dogma surrounding icon veneration arising from the Seventh Ecumenical Council has been a significant barrier to entry. I've actually grown to admire the practice of icon veneration, and see how it could add value to a Christian's life. But I can't see myself agreeing that it is a necessity for sanctification/theosis, or that any Christian failing to venerate icons is anathema to the Church. I was initially drawn to EO because I thought it preserved the liturgy and worship that Christ taught the apostles, but I have found the arguments for 1st century icon veneration to be severely lacking. Thanks for all you do, looking forward to watching this!
Thank for sharing, hope the video is useful!
Think hard and very carefully before you make that leap. My son and cycled through the EO church. I was excommunicated shortly after my baptism, and drove 16 hours one way to see the bishop about it. He wasn't overly concerned,. So I got my critical thinking cap back on, and soon saw EO for what it is- a remnant of the church of Constantine. Once you ask the right questions, and look for biblical answers, you will see that the EO church is a false church. Here is a simple question. How are local churches governed in the NT. By a separate priestly caste? Or by elders/ pastors? That we are adopted sons and daughters of God under the new covenant is key to understanding the differences. I have attempted to communicate with my former priests since I returned to Protestantism (I am Baptist) and have received only one response: they will only talk with me once I return to the EO church, and not otherwise. They have been good for their word. So much for the love of Christ, eh?
@@1Immanuel8 I don't think that it's a false church - the question for me is whether it alone is the "One True Church". Out of curiosity - why were you excommunicated shortly after your baptism?
@@nathanielchristian7027 I inquired into Orthodoxy for a year. The main question is if you believe it is the only One True Church, like you said. I could never believe that. I've seen the fruit of the spirit in many other churches, and claims your church is the only one is always based on very shaky epistemology at best. Just reeks of institutional propaganda to me. I'm now very happily Anglican, we take the most reasonable answer to that question.
You should study the history of liturgy and look at the scholarly works on Reformed worship. Then you won't be fooled by EO claims.
Easily one of the best Protestant video on youtube
Yet.. .it does not make Protestantism right. It serves purpose of deceiving people into Protestant heresies.
@@johnnyd2383kkkkk kkkk the truth hurts
@@johnnyd2383 image veneration isn’t The Truth bro. It’s paganism.
@@ramichahin2 (Col 1,15) "HE IS THE IMAGE of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation." So.. you must be runaway from the movie titled "Dumb & Dumber".
@@johnnyd2383 What does that prove? All it is how Christ is the image of God. This is not the same as icon veneration as defined in Nicea II. Make a better case
I am pro-orthodox but this brother is dropping bombs in this video, I am very taken back by this information. I am protestant but have been swaying more and more towards Orthodoxy over the years but I can't deny that this video is very powerful in regards to the use of icons. I do not see how this can be refuted by anyone, it is very well sourced.
There is still a problem that even if you don’t have physical images, you always have mental images. I think the problem isn’t as simple as looking at the history seeing some things you don’t like, interpreting some texts in a very particular way and concluding it was wrong. I also think it is quite idealistic to believe art was ‘just for decorative and educational purpose’.
@@brambes1804I’ve thought the same thing. Since the illiteracy rate was so high in that time. Art was used to tell the story. I don’t see why having religious art back then is proof of icon veneration
Seraphim Hamilton has 4 or 5 videos, each about an hour long directly addressing this video. I recommend watching those for a DEEP dive into why Ortlund is mistaken.
@@culpepper7665 Gavin just reponded.
@@brambes1804 One can according to EO theology not have mental images. And from personal experience it is quite a simple thing to pray without picturing the Lord or the Heavens or anything like it. It's not idealistic. It fits the best evidence of the intention of the Christian leaders. Whether some ill-informed person decided to venerate the art as a relic of his former pagan practice is not particularly relevant.
The RCC not following the 2nd commandment made me question the Roman Catholic Church. My relationship with God has become stronger and clear since I have turned to following God's word!
You demand that the RCC observe the second commandment:
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above."
(Actually, no one observes that.
You interpret it loosely based on your own authority and even Gavin does not prohibit images as such but rather with veneration of images.
Now, Muslims. THEY are really observant of that prohibition.)
Yet if you are like the vast majority of protestants, you do not observe the 4th, the Sabbath.
The 4th Commandment: "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy"
That is supposed to be forever hence the Jews to this day.
In fact, the observance of the Sabbath is even more foundational to Judaism.
Jesus Christ observed the Sabbath.
You know who made the day of worship the first day of the week (Sunday) instead of the Sabbath?
The Church.
If the Church did not have the authority to basically cross out the 4th commandment, then you are in deep trouble.
Because you know that to not observe one part is to fail to observe the entirety of the law.
“For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all." (James 2:10-11)
What make you of Christian Freedom which frees Christians from the strictures of the Law?
You and Gavin are Judaizing.- requiring observance of a Jewish prohibition.
Amen!!! Me too
@@heather602 Do you observe the 3rd/4th commandment?
The 4th Commandment: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy."
Not Sunday. The Sabbath.
@@AL_YZ I follow Jesus
Peace.
How exactly does the "Church" not follow the Second(First) commandment? And the implication that you did not have God's Word or that you couldn't follow it while IN the Church makes one question in what "church" you were.
And as an aside, Sola Scriptura is not taught in the Bible, (and no, not even in 2Tim). But, if you are interested in learning the answers to the questions that were not answered for you, I am here.
Blessings.
This is probably one of your best videos. I’m a Protestant but there are so few Protestants out there making reliable content that seriously addresses the issue of Icon Veneration. Your reliance on primary sources is great and scathing to the RC/EO position (imo). I’m curious - do lutheran and Anglicans that use crucifixes and icons in worship/devotion look at this similarly to RC/EO?
Anglican here. My priest laid it out like this: "We affirm the christological definitions of the Nicea II." We do have a crucifix and most if not all the parish bows to it as a symbol of Christ the King. When I voiced my queasiness I was assured I don't have to bow and that I should not go against my conscience. After much prayer and research I now do bow. I also have a few icons gifted to me by a friend. I occasionally kiss them as a show of affection for Christ and gratitude towards the saints who are praying for us. But all this is personal devotion not mandated.
@@EloSportsTalkAt the very least, I think that’s an answer that I and many other reasonable Protestants would accept.
@@EloSportsTalk As a Lutheran, yes, some churches use crucifixes, but many do not. For those that use them, we see them as symbolic of what we call the Theology of the Cross. They remind us of the salvation offered to us all through the death and resurrection of Christ. But we do not venerate them. Call it an object lesson and a reminder of the reality of Christ's sacrifice for us.
Lutheran here. There is a bright red line between contemplating a crucifix/icon/religious art and bowing to, kissing, or otherwise venerating that object. Very few Lutheran churches will ever allow bowing to or kissing a crucifix.
Looking at God's command in the Decalogue, the command is not against making images per se, but against making images "to bow down to them or serve them".
This is surely one of the most intellectually challenging videos I’ve ever seen. Committed Catholic here, and that commitment’s still standing, but Boy, we’ve got some ‘splainin’ to do.
@johnlittle1993
Peace.
All explaining has been done. I refer you to Nicea II for an explanation on icons. Also- veneration does not equal worship. As the Church, we venerate the Cross of Christ. In essence, it is simply wood, with no real worldly value. However, it was what happened on that cross that makes all the difference. Similarly, the author of this post would not trample upon his Bible or burn it, not because it has great value in and of itself (it's paper and ink and maybe a hard cover), but because of what it represents.
The icon of the so-called "Dark Virgin" is again made of simple materials. But it is believed to have been painted by the Disciple and Evangelist, Luke.
Icons are a window as such, into the life of Christendom. THAT is why they are venerated. Through those windows, the Faithful come to know our Lord in a profound way. Stay the course.
Blessings.
Hey, Bro. Thanks for writing.
I actually did read Nicea II. And I actually did read the Canon where those who do not venerate icons are judged with an anathema. So, at least as far as the plain meaning of those canons is concerned, icon veneration is not optional for Catholics apparently; the legislation makes it mandatory. That process of development is a hard maneuver in my opinion, and I appreciate the resistance, even though I don’t per se judge the use of icons negatively. But maybe you can give me a pointer, because I can’t find it easily myself: since Gavin here says that Nicea II was not ratified by Rome at the time its decrees were promulgated, can you perhaps help me find the later act where it received papal confirmation? I’m interested to see if the confirmation was plenary or partial. Thanks!
@@JohnLittle1993
Peace, brother.
Thank you for the comment, and you are most welcome.
Remember that icon veneration is a respect and recognition of what the icon represents, which are truths of the Faith. That is the reason for the veneration. That same respect has been applied to stained glass windows and statues (and Church buildings for that matter) that depict stories of Salvation History. The idea is that just as we venerate the written Word that tells the story of Salvation History, we also venerate that SAME Holy Story depicted in Sacred Art.
There really isn't a difficult concept to grasp here, as some would make it to be. In the end it comes down to believing and respecting (venerating) Salvation History as it is taught in images and Word.
I will have to look into the acceptance of the Universal Church with regard to the canons. I would say that because Nicea II has not been refuted by the Church as other official gatherings of bishops (the Robber Synod comes to mind), there is at least an implicit acceptance of the Council if, in fact, there isn't an official recognition.
There is more to the story for sure.
Blessings.
@@JD-sj1znHi.
When you say "all explaining has been done", do you mean that all of the guy in the video's points have been debunked? If so, where can I find all of the debunks?
@@IntimidatingSnailTrent horn has debunked this a couple of times
Although I respect people who prefer a Protestant path, my christian life bloomed when I joined the Orthodox Church. Icons are central in my worship. Like music and Liturgy. I worship the Father , Son and Holy Spirit-that’s it. Don’t understand the confusion.
adopted pagan practice. welp
The true church is the Bible believing church, not a church that puts their traditions above the Holy Bible, “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.”◄ Exodus 20:4
@@findev6330 And then God commands that images of Cherubim be made on the ark a few verses later...
@@findev6330 The true church is the church established by Christ, beginning with Pentecost in 33 AD, which is the Orthodox. The Bible was not canonized until your 397AD..Christians existed well before that. Tradition precedes the Bible, but is not superior to it. The Bible must be interpreted within the context of tradition, that's how you avoid many heresies and liberal nonsense that non-denominational and mega churches fall for.
@@LaRevolution0 The church that hid the Bible for a thousand years and burned people alive for owning the scripture in their native language has truth, don’t make me laugh!
Dr. Ortlund, i have always loved your videos even if I'm quite a bit more liberal than you on several issues (I'm Episcopalian). But this has got to be your best presentation yet.
Like a lot of people in the West I have long had this vague sense that Orthodoxy was "closer" to early Christianity than other Christian branches, and that Orthodoxy had remained essentially unchanged since ancient times. (As an Episcopalian I would add that "unchanging" is not always a good thing!) But i must thank you for exploding that ignorant assumption of mine. Icon veneration is indeed quite clearly a provable doctrinal change.
WELP! I was seriously considering Orthodoxy, but this was extremely insightful into this issue which was ONE of the big ones preventing me from changing to it. Wow... great video, Gavin
Keep considering. I was baptized Orthodox in October after 6 years of reading and praying. It is the Church. God bless you.
@@kevinfernandez9999 and Gavin’s response to it
Read St. John of Damascus writings (and the story of his life) and the writings of St. Theodore the Studite on the matter of iconography.
Look up events surrounding the Hawaiian icon of the Theotokos of Iveron and Kursk root icon.
The lives of the Orthodox Saints are key in helping to understand these matters. (Emphasizing the importance of the lived experience of the life of the Church in the Saints throughout history. - the Gospel lived out in the lives of the Saints.)
Keep going Peter, slow and steady.
Well, I hope you get to receive Jesus' Body and Blood one day. There really isn't anything like it. The Sacramental life is really an amazing one.
@@kevinfernandez9999Trent is a joke when it comes to being a catholic apologist and being anti protestant
I am a devout Catholic and attend daily Mass. I have never worshipped a statue.
I know! Me either! I have never been taught to do this.
That's not his point he understands they don't worship the icons but he is coming from a historical standpoint on the early church father's did not approve of this practice
It seems that a lot of protestants have to mis-represent or flat out lie about Catholicism. Then their followers dislike the church, not because of what the church is, but what they think it is. I guess it makes them feel justified for not being a part of the church?
They teach Mary was sinless. But the truth is that Jesus was the only sinless person ever and even Mary needed him for salvation.
@@craiganderson8569 I work with a devout catholic who believes this firmly. He was taught this by the clergy. Maybe you were not taught this and that's good but he didn't come to this conclusion by himself. Regardless, I consider you a brother in Christ and I have nothing against you. Let us worship our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus and his amazing sacrifice on this beautiful day. Peace be with you.
Outstanding and informative video. Thank you for taking the time to create this content. God bless
Wow I'm so happy I discovered you through your recent debate with Trent Horn. I've been watching a lot of Catholics recently and have been deeply moved by the history of the church, which is (obviously) mostly Catholic. Your defense of protestantism is refreshing in the sense that there is deep rooted love but also dissent from later Catholic practices which seems was the sentiment of the original protestants toward the Catholic Church. Excited to watch more of your videos defending protestantism!
glad to be connected!
Malgré sa bonne volonté, il amalgame les idoles païennes et les représentations du Christ, de la Vierge Marie et des Saints. Dieu sait qui ces images pieuses représentent et, dans sa grande pédagogie, parce-que Il comprend le besoin humain de pouvoir voir et toucher, nous permet de prier avec ces images qui fixent notre attention sur le divin. Dieu a permis l'utisation de signes, de symboles et de sculptures: l'Arche de l'Alliance, le serpent d'airain dans le désert (préfigurant le Christ sur la croix), la croix peintes sur les portes des croyants en Egypte pour signifier à l'ange de la mort d'épargner les habitants de cette maison (les plaies d'Égypte).
Hi, I was considering orthodoxy but was wary of the icons and Mary veneration. Thank you for putting this together and on UA-cam. I don’t know why orthodoxy is so attractive to me but now I see that I need to stand guard against the enticement of things like it. Thanks again!
This insistence on the second commandment is Judaizing
The Judaizers were a faction of the Jewish Christians who regarded the Levitical laws of the Old Testament as still binding on Christians.
They for instance, tried to enforce Jewish Sabbath and circumcision upon the Gentile converts.
In Gavin's case, he tries to enforce the second commandment - his interpretation of it - on Christians.
Of course Protestants totally ignore the fourth/Sabbath commandment.
That doesn't work.
"..whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it."
James 2:10
What make you of Christian freedom?
Christ freed us from the legalistic aspects of the Law but doubled down on the internal moral law.
@Angismit Mary and icon veneration is something which troubles me also as a pro-orthodox Protestant. HOWEVER, Gavin teaches Calvinism, which means that God is a monster who condemns people to either heaven or hell for his own pleasure, and we have no ability to even alter our fate.
There are ways to reconcile Mary and Icon veneration (Luke 1:48) "For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed", and I've never heard a Protestant call Mary blessed.
But something which is irreconcilable is the predestination to either heaven or hell. Gavin is an incredibly charitable and humble man, but how anyone believes in that doctrine of devils is beyond me.
@@kevinjypiter6445God is holier than you think and man is more wicked than you think. God does not owe anyone mercy or grace. If He never saved a soul from the penalty of their sins, then He would still be just and perfect.
@@kevinjypiter6445 that would be a red herring: many Protestants aren’t Calvinist. We consider the Arminian Protestants brothers and sister, we don’t anathema them from the church like papists and eos do for refusing image veneration.
I'm a new-ish Christian. When I recently came across EO I became enthralled with the idea of it being the original church and its beautiful ceremonies. But as I've been researching EO over the past month or so, I paused when I became aware of the venerations of saints. The book of Judges makes it clear that mankind has a propensity for worshipping things and other people, and makes it VERY clear this does not please the LORD! Twenty minutes into this video has cleared this all up for me (I watched the whole thing though) and has ended my romance with EO. Thank you!
I’ve been on the same journey, and feel as though this video has served the same purpose for me as well. Thank you, Gavin, for quite literally doing The Lord’s work.
I did the same thing last year when I was only a few months into my walk with Christ. Now after almost 2 years, I've been regularly attending an Orthodox Parish for about a month and I love it. It's very common within the Protestant world to get hung up on the idea that since Christ is the only mediator between God and man - our spiritual lives are a individual, single-line connection between us and God. Orthodoxy sees things differently. We believe that God's grace is superabundant it flows out through the ones He has glorified - the saints, and especially through His mother, by whose obedience bore the One who would conquer death and reconcile us to God. Our worship is reserved for God alone, but we recognize that His grace pours out into those people in our lives, both those here on earth, and those who reside in the heavenly kingdom, and that we can call on them to be vessels of the grace that has it source in Him alone. Also is God not "over all, in all and through all."? (Ephesians 4)
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
it is not warshipping, it is veneration. You have to do more research, your understanding is lacking
@@ssseth9321how does one become a vessel of unmerited favor? How can unmerited favor be carried like water or cargo? We can surely supply it to others from ourselves, but how can we carry it on behalf of another?
And I would suggest Christ being our only mediator is literally what the scripture teaches. One can participate in a spiritual life with others while only having one mediator.
Ex Orthodox here, thanks for your insightful information 👍 👏 👌
Thorough Indeed. And deep in history. Loved this episode!
Patient, gentle, thorough and clear.
…and incorrect.
@@aquiladavid5681 iconic retort.
@@aquiladavid5681 What was he incorrect about?
@andyontheinternet5777 I'm too sinful and ignorant to begin to explain. St. John of Damascus wrote timeless treatises in the 8th century that eviscerated the iconoclasts of his time and do the same to the iconoclasts of today. I suggest you read his works and judge for yourself and don't let PhD's with an agenda tell you what and how to think. Just google "St John Damascene on Holy Images and Project Gutenberg"
@andyontheinternet5777 I'm too sinful and ignorant to explain with precision. St. John of Damascus wrote timeless treatises in the 8th century that refuted the iconoclasts of his day and does the same to the iconoclasts of today. I suggest that you read them and judge for yourself and don't let PhD's with an agenda tell you how and what to think.
Search "St John Damascene on Holy Images and Project Gutenberg" and click the top result.
Thank-you Gavin as a Protestant considering Orthodoxy for a while now. I've recently started looking more deeper into this subject it makes 0 sense when regarding scripture. Godbless you and your family ❤
What do you mean?
@@πατριχορ read what I put
same. honestly, I could never imagine paul ever kissing a painting of moses
Make sure you give John of Damascus’s letters on iconography a read before just dismissing the biblical basis thereof.
Fascinating and clearly presented! Thanks
Appreciate all you do Gavin! 👍
Superb historical and biblical overview and analysis. Thank you.
Thank you! That was certainly a thorough job.
Just came across this video. Thank you for making it. It is very helpful.
Seraphim Hamilton has 4 or 5 videos, each about an hour long directly addressing this video. I recommend watching those for a DEEP dive into why Ortlund is mistaken.
THIS WAS AMAZING and answers so many of my questions about my greek orthodox friends practice! I appreciate it!!!
I was a Protestant who became Orthodox back in 2010. After your vidoes and teachings, and my own very long study of ecclesiastical history, I have decided to leave Orthodoxy, and follow Christ according to Sacred Scripture. I am so glad that Christ used your ministry to challenge me to ask more questions and do more research...I am now what my former Church would call a heretic. Amen.
Christanity is not hop step & jump
The best part of Protestantism is that you can still affirm that your Orthodox friends are a part of Christ’s church! You can still believe they are saved!
The Church of Christ just got much bigger for you - it now contains Orthodox, Protestant, and Catholic followers of Jesus :)
And you are free to keep all of the practices, traditions, and elements of your Orthodox church that you found to be Christ-honoring and reflecting God’s goodness. Hopefully you can teach us, the rest of your Protestant brethren, some of the good things you learned in the Orthodox church that are worth sharing!
@@repentantrevenant9776that's incoherent when those three groups all have different and contradictory beliefs.
@@scopeguy you don't have to agree on every piece of doctrine to be saved, or even to be in the same church. Within the Catholic or Orthodox churches there are massive disagreements over doctrine.
@@repentantrevenant9776 sorry differences inside and between Catholic and EO are miniscule compared to the differences just between different Protestants. Catholics specifically have a magisterium that can settle disputes. Some Protestants say homosexuality is fine, or divorce is fine, or numerous other things that are pretty clearly laid out as prohibited if you're not reading the text with a bias. Also, Protestants differ on soteriology, justification, as well as ecclesiology in ways that would have been foreign to early Christians.
If you can just go to another church that agrees with your beliefs, that's not a religion, that's just a social club.
All of this. I’ve had the same feelings and thoughts but did not organize or research as well as you. Thank you.
Thank you for putting this together. May I request one thing? Could you put this into the format of an article with full quotes of these church fathers and citations? An hour-long video is a big ask for those I want to show this to, but this video is one of the best resources on this topic I've come across. Please turn this into an article. This need to be seen far and wide.
I myself am a former Catholic, and I am deeply concerned that there seems to be a trend of Protestants who have been converted to Orthodoxy or to Catholicism. Catholics and Orthodox are far better at attacking iconoclasm/aniconism than Protestants are at defending it.
This will be a chapter in my forthcoming book, What It Means to be Protestant
@@TruthUnites Great video. When will your book be available for purchase?
@@choppy1356 summer 2024
@@TruthUnites Excellent video, great content with historic references, looking forward to your forthcoming book on this subhect. I am a exRoman catholic, now Born Again Christian, though family is still RC, praying for them to move away from this idolatry and legalism of RC.
God bless you for imparting the truth.
From: Mumbai, India.
Yes Berkana totally agree. That would be a great help to Catholics like me who would wish to point out some things the good pastor may wish to change.
Thanks.
Thanks for the suggestion!
Even when I was a catholic, my family who were generational Irish Catholics would correct me when I would call myself a Christian. They would say "we are Catholics, not Christians" Even the priest at the Canoga Park Perish corrected me the same. When I was 16 I converted and was born again by faith, and my eyes have been so opened to truth. I now totally agree with my parents, relatives and "Father" Larry in Canoga Park. Catholics are not Christians. I have now been a Pastor of a Baptist Church for almost 30 years and have been able to reach many of my family with the Gospel of Christ. My Father became a deacon of another Baptist church, my mother who tried to remain in the Catholic church after conversion eventually was removed from her membership of the church (Simi Valley) for asking to many questions, mainly about Baptismal regeneration and assurance of salvation.
The most shocking thing about the Church after the conversion of Constantine is the barbaric practices used to enforce church teaching, i.e. the gouging of eyes, cutting off noses, etc. In attempting to enforce correct theology they forgot correct morality.
Nicely said.
That wasn't to correct theology it was to protect heresy.
Much of the violence was used by the effort to stamp out icons. Some historians think more Christians were killed by a “Christian“ emperor to stamp out icons.
That’s a poor misrepresentation of what was going on.
I am now a practicing Catholic. Born Catholic, became a Baptist then searching Jesus more deeply I read and moved to Pentecostal then The Lord les me to the Catholic Church in 1998. I love the Mass and Eucharist. I however still love the Bible, I do not worship idols and deeply object to all the statues and recited prayer. I enjoy and love you talks. Agree in many ways. Thank you, Pastor Gavin
Why do you object to the statues and recited prayer, esp. the statues? I'm not Catholic, but I do love Catholic art. The stained glass, the statues and pictures are beautiful and serene depictions. I don't enjoy the style of Orthodox art though. They aren't serene and there is something austere about their style of artwork that I always found a bit depressing. The Catholic depictions are uplifting though.
Doesn't Nicaea II anathematise you then?
@@evanspencer3632 I'm almost sure one of the councils would be anathematising her. Though from what I can tell by all the anathemas, a huge number of practicing Catholics would fall under this curse. It's really a terrible thing that the RCC declared these so much over too many of its sanctioned doctrines.
I feel like I see this kind of thing a lot. I could be misreading what you're saying, but I frequently see those who with Protestant background who have gravitated to Catholicism do so because they crave the structure of liturgy. I can admit to often being underwhelmed by the form of worship practiced in contemporary church environments, but I can't see how this would ever lead me toward stepping into a church environment that teaches such obviously false doctrines that are antithetical to core doctrines as outlined in scripture. To me, simply craving structure is an insufficient basis for embracing a church that not only promotes such doctrines, but anathematizes those who don't. Having spent substantial time in Latin America, I've observed firsthand how pervasive the veneration of images is as an aspect of Catholic practice, with shrines of Mary at the peak of countless mountains. I'm glad you appreciate Dr. Ortlund's analysis of the issue, but to me, from what I've seen, and what we see him saying, this is something that's central, not peripheral, when it comes to Catholic perception of what it means to be devoted in one's religious practice.
@@johnnythegringo8855 You can still get a structured, or high church liturgy on the protestant side too though. Anglicans, Lutherans and Presbyterians all have it. I wonder if it's the claim of apostolic succession and having infallible central doctrine?
You and Dr. Steven Nemes are what really helped me move from Catholicism back to Protestantism. Thank you.
Steven Nemes, who denies the personhood of the Holy Spirit?
@@timee3221 I don't agree with him on the Trinity but he does make great arguments for Protestantism.
@David Avery hahaha
@@1984SheepDog ?
Nemes isn't even a Christian anymore, it's quite regrettable.
Thank you for the thorough historical and scholarly explanations. Very informative and respectful.
Spot on and AMEN! 🎯🏆Excellently documented and gracefully delivered! Thanks for all of your hard work!🙏📖
Everyone is telling me come watch this video. Hmm. There are many funny things and approaches here. The scholarly approach is surprising, because I have heard so many scholars tell us that the divinity of Christ, homoousion, that the Trinity is a similar form of accretion. In the same way, we are told that this or that book is a "late addition" to the Bible, etc. So much of this is irrelevant in my estimation, the question is the story of revelation itself. Why is the image not available to being a place of the revelation of God? What is the reason for the 2nd commandment? That is the question that should be asked. Then, the proposition that there is no scriptural distinction between strict worship, and lower kind of veneration is difficult to stomach. Are we to believe that the Hebrews were worshiping the name of God at the same level as God himself? The praising of the name is important because God revealed his name to us, and so the praising of the image becomes important for the same reason. This is not just "something that happened" but the form of revelation itself, moving in ever increasing power from heaven to earth. Whether this truth became clear to Christian in year 1 or year 700 is irrelevant.
Hi Jonathan! Nice to hear from you. Hope to interact further some time. Briefly, I would disagree that the divinity of Christ, Trinity, etc. are comparable to icon veneration in their development. The divinity of Christ is a theme or motif of the New Testament. He is frequently worshiped, explicitly declared God in the epistles, crucified for blasphemy in the gospels, acts with divine authority, etc. The development in understanding of both Christology and Trinity stems from this foundation. This is in contrast to icon veneration, which I showed not merely from the scholarship but also from historical evidence is opposed by the early Christians. Also, to clarify, I did not deny the distinction between worship and veneration as such. See 1:01:11. Thanks for commenting and perhaps we can talk on another occasion about some of your other points and the larger differences.
Would LOVE to see you guys have a conversation!!!
If later Christians can come up with new ideas, which you seem to be suggesting of the Trinity, then why are Baptists and Pentecostals incorrect? Beyond being outside of the "apostolic succession"?
As an ex Greek Orthodoxx Christian turned Baptist Christian, all I can say is ALL GLORY TO GOD ALMIGHTY for this video. Thank you.
Hi PermaFrost77 - I really like your “name”, as I grew up in The North…but…even more so - the thumbnail of your “puppy” is precious! I have been blessed to have a Husky, Malamute, Akita, even a half wolf/husky, as well as, some precious smaller breeds like a Silky Yorkshire Terrier, Shi-Tsu, and many other pups, along with rescuing wildlife when need be! There is a special place in my heart for all glorious creatures!
Have a great week!🇨🇦☺🇨🇦
You were never properly rooted or grounded in the Orthodox spiritual tradition.
@@theodosios2615 You were probably never rooted and grounded in the Orthodox spiritual tradition. The deified saints trump modern critics and academics who limit theology to a purely academic thing, but have too much of the world and devil in them.
@@TruthBeTold7 The apostles nor Jesus practiced or taught icon "veneration". It's not an apostolic tradition.
@@dustindustindontworry-jz8dh Their purpose was to get the Gospel message out. Orthodoxy has a different metaphysics than the western heterodox systems. I don't accept your assumption that iconography has to be explicit in the apostles. But we do know that St. Luke painted the first icon.
Wow, after this I am seriously considering taking the Protestant reformation seriously, currently an Orthodox catechumen, I realized lately that I didn't give Protestantism an honest enough consideration so I watched this video. I had a large misconception that Protestantism had no patristic backing, thank you for this video!
may the Lord guide you and direct you
St. Basil the Great (AD 329-379):
“I acknowledge also the holy apostles, prophets, and martyrs; and I invoke them to supplication to God, that through them, that is, through their mediation, the merciful God may be propitious to me, and that a ransom may be made and given me for my sins. Wherefore also I honour and kiss the features of their images, inasmuch as they have been handed down from the holy apostles, and are not forbidden, but are in all our churches” (Letter 360)
He addresses this at 1:11:10 and claims that it is a forgery.
@@AshtonSWilson Of course. How convenient.
@@catkat740 Just giving the time stamp for your study.
Stop venerating images
This is how you know that didn’t watch the video before commenting.
As a Presbyterian thinking through my traditions beliefs on icons this was incredibly helpful thank you!
Glad it was helpful!
I know fruits of the spirit is patience. But I don't know why for the life of me I can't stand the waffling on this issue for people that were never compelled to worship these images. A wicked and adulterous generation demands a sign. Why does one have to convince oneself that they are in true worship with the aide of art and images, smells and ancient relics? That is a pagan inclination.
If you're against icons I assume you're also against having crucifixes exist. Or nativity scenes at Christmas.
@medotaku9360 other than being used as a sign or a symbol, what does a crucifix get its power from ans why should u pray to it?
@@Vanpotheosisyes. I do not approve of nativity scenes and crucifixes (and I mean crucifixes specifically, not crosses. Crucifixes being a cross with a depiction of Christ on it. I say this for those who might not know the difference).
I'm still a Protestant, and have been researching Orthodox and Roman Catholicism. But this morning, I was getting ready for the day, and my puppy came into the room, so I gave my puppy a hug and kiss out of affection when he came over to me. I wonder if whether an icon is an idol or not just comes down to what is going on in the heart. But when the Orthodox Christians tell me sincerely they are showing reverence and honor to the icons which represent the saints, not worshipping the icons, I think I might be okay to take their word for it, just like how I would tell them I hugged and kissed my puppy out of affection and they believe that I'm not worshipping my puppy. I recognize this video is more scholarly than my example, but it's where my heart is at on the issue.
That doesn't matter though. They may say they are not worshipping the icon. But the problem is they claim that if you do not show affection the icon then you are not in line with apostolic Christianity. And since both Orthodox and Catholic church claim infallibility. If therefore they are wrong about this issue being apostolic then they are wrong entirely.
@@Lotterywinnerify I can understand that. As a Protestant it is definitely concerning if I'd be anathematized for not kissing an icon.
@@Lotterywinnerify
Peace.
It DOES matter. Church teaching is clear on this subject.
Nicea II makes it clear. The Council of Trent makes it clear. The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes it clear. Go to the source if you want to know what the source teaches. I wish you well in your journey.
Blessings.
Nahh just take their word for it, they aren't pelagian necromancers either, if you point these issues out they'll say "you just don't understand". They can work for it all they want and pile up filthy rags or whatever but I just believe the gospel and they hate that a sinner like me can be given the gift of eternal life and I don't have to jump thru wacky hoops or kiss idols for it. Just faith given to me by God that the gospel is true saves me and they can't stand it.
@@levigarrett5614
Peace. They're not idols, they're icons.
And some sinners receive the gift of salvation as they contemplate the beauty of what lies through and beyond the icon. You can put that "filthy rag" in the proverbial pipe and smoke it.
Blessings.
Brilliant Gavin ! Your biblical standpoint makes all things clear .
Thanks so much for addressing this with so much documentation. I was once led astray by arguments in favor of icon veneration but I have to admit I could never fully embrace it at the heart or conscience level. Although I know that many who are in favor of icon veneration will have a comeback for everything you’ve presented and that they will ultimately appeal to the “consensus of the fathers” and to their ecclesiology, I am convinced they have erred on this subject. Thanks for speaking the truth in love.
Thanks Will, glad you found this useful!
@@TruthUnites ua-cam.com/video/7EH_CoysXW8/v-deo.html
....you don't understand what you attack.
Gavin ortlund, thank you for the video! Should I destroy icons or statues of Jesus? I am confused of the proper Biblical stance. Should I keep a picture of Christ? I do not venerate them but it is decorative/a reminder of Christ.
@@michaelwhitman9937
If you believe they’re a 2 commandment violation, you could. If they lead you astray to worship them, destroy them as Hezekiah destroyed the Bronze Serpent (2 Kings 18:4).
@@michaelwhitman9937at's between you and God. If it starts affecting you then put them away. I grew up near a Catholic lady's house that had giant crosses everywhere and crowds would gather on Friday 13th because visions of Mary would appear to her. That's the context I have with icons and saints. To me, crosses and pictures should be considered like a flag or logo. You wouldn't set fire to your country's flag but you're not gonna build an altar to it. I personally don't want a cross in my room but on a Bible or Christian phone app, or in church is fine.
You are making me think. Thank you for that.
I see an interesting psychological parallel here to the doctrine of the Trinity. I talk to many Muslims, usually amicably, and no amount of effort explaining to them that our belief in the Trinity does not violate monotheism can alleviate their horror at what to them is plain and obvious polytheism - as well as idolatry in the worship of the man Jesus. They are unimpressed with subtle distinctions and terms like ousia, hypostasis, incarnation, etc. All that rationalizing, in their deeply intuitive estimation, just papers over pseudo-paganism, a denial of the unity of God and his exclusive right to worship.
Many Protestants seem to have the same kind of experience with Christian iconography. No amount of explaining to them that our veneration of icons does not violate the right worship due to God can alleviate their horror at what to them is plain and obvious idolatry. They are unimpressed with our subtle theological distinctions or our pointing out how the Incarnation is itself an icon and changes the nature of our knowledge of God from natural reason and the O.T., etc. All that rationalizing, in their deeply intuitive estimation, just papers over pseudo-paganism and God‘s exclusive right to worship.
@Tennis Brah Theological and philosophical elaboration is precisely what happened in the case of sacred images. This is because the Christ Icon is not ultimately rooted in art or imagination, but in Incarnation. In the Old Testament, the rationale for the prohibition against images of a particular sort was that God had not shown himself to the Israelites. “You saw no form.” (Deuteronomy)
In the New Covenant, God shows himself to the Church in the face of Christ. “If you’ve seen me you’ve seen the Father.” The Bride sees the face of the Bride Groom. She sees the form.
This isn’t just a Christological matter. The telos of salvation is the vision of God himself. The Christ Icon points to the fact that God is ultimately drawing men, not just to a profound conceptualization of the truth in the abstract, as in religions like Islam or Maimonidian Judaism, but to the joy of looking at Him as he knows himself. “Then we will see face-to-face.”
@Tennis Brah I’m in complete agreement that there are biblical foundations for the ecclesial doctrine of the Trinity. But I don’t think that would impress a Muslim. He would just say that there is categorically no legitimate foundation for denying monotheism. So the Christian has to explain to the Muslim that however much trinitarian distinctions may seem to contradict monotheism, ultimately they don’t stand opposed to one another. And maybe even more pointedly, he would have to explain how, despite all the prohibitions against worshiping creatures in the Law, Christians can justify worshiping the man Jesus. To the Muslim this appears, and you have to grant its superficial appearance, a plain contradiction.
I think this is very similar on a psychological level to the Catholic experience or the Orthodox experience of having to defend iconography to Protestants. To them the prohibition against making images of God for the purpose of worship is plainly contradicted by the Catholic/Orthodox practice of making images of God for the purpose of worship. But we would say the same thing to the Protestant that we would say to the Muslim, and frankly that the Protestant would say to the Muslim as well, which is that the Incarnation has radically changed things. We now worship a man from Nazareth. Prior to the Incarnation, that would have been idolatry. We now make images of the Holy One (because he has shown us his form) and venerate Him through them. Prior to the Incarnation, that would have been a violation of the commandment.
Super helpful, especially by giving us specific texts from ante-Nicean fathers. THAT's the tradition I wish to follow.
Early Church Fathers On The Veneration of Icons
Excerpt from “The Martyrdom of Polycarp” (69-155AD) (worship vs. veneration)
1 But the jealous and envious evil one who resists the family of the righteous, when he saw the greatness of his martyrdom, and his blameless career from the beginning, and that he was crowned with the crown of immortality, and had carried off the unspeakable prize, took care that not even his poor body should be taken away by us, though many desired to do so, and to have fellowship with his holy flesh. 2 Therefore he put forward Niketas, the father of Herod, and the brother of Alce, to ask the Governor not to give his body, “Lest,” he said, “they leave the crucified one and begin to worship this man.” And they said this owing to the suggestions and pressure of the Jews, who also watched when we were going to take it from the fire, for they do not know that we shall not ever be able either to abandon Christ, who suffered for the salvation of those who are being saved in the whole world, the innocent for sinners, or to worship any other. 3 For him we worship as the Son of God, but the martyrs we love as disciples and imitators of the Lord; and rightly, because of their unsurpassable affection toward their own King and Teacher. God grant that we too may be their companions and fellow-disciples. When therefore the centurion saw the contentiousness caused by the Jews, he put the body in the midst, as was their custom, and burnt it. 2 Thus we, at last, took up his bones, more precious than precious stones, and finer than gold, and put them where it was meet. 3 There the Lord will permit us to come together according to our power in gladness and joy, and celebrate the birthday of his martyrdom, both in memory of those who have already contested, and for the practice and training of those whose fate it shall be. (Kirsopp Lake translation;17:1 - 18:3).
Eusebius Pamphili (of Ceasarea) (263-339AD):
“Even now the inhabitants of those regions near where Abraham worshipped those who appeared to him honor it as a holy place. Indeed, the oak tree is still to be seen there, and there is a picture of those whom Abraham entertained reclining at table.”[8]
St. Athanasius the Great of Alexandria (296-373AD):
“We the faithful do not worship images as gods, as did the heathen Greeks-God forbid!-but our only purpose and desire is to see in the image a reflection of the facial form of the beloved. Therefore if the image should be obliterated, we would throw it into the fire as so much scrap lumber. Just as when Jacob was about to die, he bowed down before the point of Joseph’s staff, not honoring the staff but its owner, so also the faithful do not embrace images for their own sake, but kiss them as we often embrace our children or our parents, to show the affection in our hearts.”[9]
St. Basil the Great (330-379AD)
“Now arise, you renowned painters of the champions’ [martyrs] brave deeds, who by your exalted art make images of the General [Christ]. My praise for the crowned champion is dull compared with the wisdom which inspires your brush with its radiant colors….As I look at the detail in your painting of his struggle, I see his hand among the flames; your image has made his victory even more brilliant for me”[10]
* * *
“The image of the emperor is also called the emperor, yet there are not two emperors…for the honor given to the image is transferred to the prototype. Therefore, the One [Christ] whom the image materially represents is He who is Son by nature.”[11]
* * *
“Both painters of words and painters of pictures illustrate valor in battle; the former by the art of rhetoric; the latter by clever use of the brush, and both encourage everyone to be brave. A spoken account edifies the ear, while a silent picture induces imitation.”[12]
St. Gregory of Nyssa (335-395AD):
“Then the father [Abraham] proceeds to bind his son [Isaac]. I have often seen paintings of this touching scene, and could not refrain from shedding tears, so vivid was the scene reproduced by the artist.”[13]
St. Ambrose of Milan (330-397AD):
“…but I was caught up into ecstasy during which a face was revealed to me, which resembled the blessed apostle Paul, the same face which was painted on the icon which showed him teaching so wisely….”[14]
St. John Chrysostom (347-407AD):
“And I love this image molded in wax, of him [David] who was full of righteousness. For I see the angel in the icon fighting the barbarian horde….Not only do you long to call fervently upon his [Christ’s] holy name; but also to look upon the image of his bodily form. What you do with his name you also accomplish with his image. For everyone rejoices to put his image everywhere, on rings, goblets, dishes, and on bedroom walls….”[15]
* * *
“For an image, inasmuch as it is an image, ought to be treated by us in the same fashion as the likeness it represents.”[16]
Fantastic. Literally no responses from these over-zealous Protestants who think they've found their champion in a bunch of emotional fallacious argumentation from Dr. Ortlund. He hasn't debated a single notable apologist from either side of the world.
He’s had several debates with Trent Horn
@@user12jshf245, Horn is a Roman Catholic. Roman Catholics, while their church recognizes the 7th Ecumenical Council, really have no personal place for icons in their piety. So, that Ortlund debated Horn is not all that significant regarding this issue.
Father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Lazarus, so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.
That’s a prayer to a saint.
No other to look at it. It’s in the Bible
@@EmptyDisc1 Not really my point. yes it is a parable not didactic teaching.
My point is that the protestant sensitivity to calling on other than God for succour or help doesnt seem to be shared by Jesus or his disciples or the jewish opponents listening to Jesus.
Jesus included a detail in the story which would make a protestant cringe or have to somehow explain away as you have attempted to.
Jesus didnt have to teach prayers to the saints, it was already something his audience was well familiar with hence the detail is included in His story, which is continued by the Orthodox Church.
It is the protestant position that is a novelty.
Honestly answer this question is there any circumstance in this life or the next (in the presence of God) in your paradigm, when I can say "Mother Mary, have mercy on me, send gabriel to assist me in my hour of suffering"?
Your answer, in your paradigm would be that that is idolatry because no pleas or intercession can be directed to other than God.
Well, looks like jesus and his audience dont share your sensitivities.
@@EmptyDisc1 again that’s not my point. I don’t believe Jesus is teaching prayers to the saints there. That would be absurd, it’s absurd because everyone just accepted it was a thing they did.
The reason we can conclude that is no one is protesting idolatry there.
But a Protestant would definitely protest and say that the story is an example of idolatry.
@@EmptyDisc1 if your point is that Jesus taught a blatantly false story. Then you’re delusional.
A parable, a story communicates truth.
Your position is that Jesus is incorporating idolatry into his story! Really? That’s where you want to go?
Jesus incorporates elements that his audience is familiar with.
Hence they are familiar with the idea of appealing to saints and patriarchs for succour.
Something that you would categorize as idolatry.
Basically the Protestant position would be that appealing for succour to other than God is idolatry.
Again not a position Jesus and his followers shared.
My point to put it succinctly is that the Protestant objects to appealing to Patriarchs and Saints for succour.
That position is a novelty and contradicts Christs teachings.
@@EmptyDisc1 and this is the problem with sola scriptura. You assume that there is no context that Jesus lived in, no culture and no basic assumptions and traditions.
But we can glean this from the parable easily.
They didn’t react with shock and wonder at a person appealing to a patriarch for succour.
That’s because it wasn’t a shock to them.
However, we know it would be a shock to a Protestant to appeal to a saint or patriarch for succour and so we can see that the Protestant position is the novelty.
I've never thought of this, but wow, what a good point, thank you, from your catholic cousin lol, God bless ❤
This is exactly the reason why my mom converted from Catholic to Protestan before I was even born! she didn´t have all these knowledge of course, but she had the holly spirit to make her extremely uncomfortable with icon veneration. Thank you mom!
There was nothing Holy about that spirit. Just a demon pushing her to worship herself. Of course she was already infested by a lot of other demons in the "catholic" church.
The Holy Spirit would never push anyone to reject the relics of the Saints before you. Your protest Christ and reject the Right Worship.
Schism is sin.
Icons aren’t a requirement to be a Catholic. I’m sorry your mom was probably horribly catechized.
@@gnomeresearch1666 This is why the Catholic church should review its doctrines, rather than excommunicated those who question them.
All I see from Protestants... is the fact that they can't admit they are wrong... and thats from a Protestant who's now Catholic.
Anyone who truly searches the truth and can get over themselves and open their heart to the Holy Ghost- can not remain Protestant. There were bigger Catholic bashers than Dr Ortlund who are now Catholic.
@TruthUnites In Orthodox theology, icons are not just a window from image to prototype, a window to the divine, and a reflection of the divine in our world, but they are actually a grace-filled presence of God in matter, in this case, the icon. Because if we only reduce the icon to a window, without emphasizing the special presence of God by His grace, the same dilemma would arise as in the Eucharist. I will make an analogy: just as wine and bread are gifts that people bring, but which truly become the Body and Blood of Christ while retaining their qualities of wine and bread; similarly, the icon is initially a painted wooden panel by an iconographer, and the painting is in this sense a form of prayer offered to God, a gift offered to God that first attracts the grace of God by virtue of the "prayer" (pious painting) of the iconographer, and then by virtue of each believer who prays before the icon.
An icon is made in the style of painting without perspective, it is not three-dimensional or a statue because it does not reduce the image to something from this world and it is not interpreted in a pagan way, such as that God is in the statue or that the statue is actually a god. The intention here is to make a distinction between something with a three-dimensional form and something "formless" (two-dimensional, without perspective) that leads to something of another order, divine. There is a contrast between perspective/three-dimensional and without perspective which actually wants to show the difference between human and divine, between visible and invisible. Specifically, the choice of the style without perspective unites the visible with the invisible, the human with the divine.
He mentions that he separates the didactic purpose from the prayer purpose through the icon and that the didactic purpose is only about presenting the Gospel in a painted form, but here he overlooks that the didactic purpose and the window to the other world interweave, because the icon has a didactic role in terms of prayer. The image leads you to think about the prototype, but being also a grace-filled presence, it transforms God's presence from transcendent to immanent, it brings God closer to the soul of man, then being without perspective, it does not allow you to be "enchanted" by forms, the "worldly" of the painting, it does not "steal" your mind towards the transient, but it's the perfect "dose" of image that directs your mind from the visible to the invisible.
The historical development that he presents is not entirely impartial, in my opinion. He does not present the historical context of the development of the cult of icons very accurately. Initially, I present some stages/aspects (as I see them): 1) opposition between paganism and Christianity, 2) opposition between the plebeians and the elite, 3) opposition between Platonism and incarnate Christianity, 4) natural development towards the cult of icons vs stagnation in puritanism.
It should be understood that in the initial phase, the Church Fathers opposed images because in the pagan world, images and statues were objects of worship in the sense that the statue was considered a god, and that people worshiped creatures, idols that were not God and that all these statues attempted to represent an invisible God. Pagans anthropomorphized the God of the ages (unincarnate), but He is invisible and not a creature. In this sense, the Church Fathers opposed images, so that the converts would not fall/return to paganism, so it was also a didactic purpose of opposing images. In the examples given by some fathers, they went to exaggerated arguments against images, or in the Old Testament itself, the temple was full of symbols, there were cherubims on the Ark of the Covenant.
On the other hand, the people, the plebeians, used images. It is clear that the representation of some biblical scenes such as the Good Shepherd and the lamb, etc. were an expression of devotion of the believers, usually the simple and the converts from paganism. These images are found in catacombs rather than in churches. And the question is why? Because in churches, power was usually held by the elite, theologians, scholars who opposed images; and in catacombs it was the plebeians who used images. And even though the theologians opposed images, especially in the way they were understood by the pagans, as an anthropomorphization of an invisible God, what they did not understand was the transformed baggage of the converts. The converts transferred the cult of images from paganism to Christianity, but it should be understood that not all of them transferred it foolishly in the sense of anthropomorphizing God, the cult was adapted to Christian understanding, which the theologians could not necessarily understand. Theologians did not appreciate or understand the metamorphosed approach of the converted pagans.
And even though he says about the empress who sought an image, this implies that icons were rare, which was probably the case, at least in the higher circles, this does not necessarily exclude the spread of images in certain areas. Let's take the example of catacombs, or synagogues and 2nd-3rd century church in Dura Europos, they abound with images. So it seems that in some places Christian painting was quite widespread. He also mentions the legend of King Abgar, the letter between Christ and Abgar seems quite true, but even if the legend of the icon is not true and is not mentioned by Eusebius, already at the end of the 4th century - beginning of the 5th century, the interpolation of painting/icon appears in "The Doctrine of Addai". It is clear that as the opposition to paganism disappears because it is no longer relevant, there are fewer and fewer pagans, the opposition to the use of images in worship gradually disappears and the use of images becomes more widespread, no longer being the pagan danger so relevant.
Another point is that the doctrine of icons could only be established after the disappearance of pagan religions, the spread of Christianity, and the clarification of the two natures, wills and works in Christ. Until the Iconodulie, Christology was clarified. In this sense, the doctrine of icons could only be definitively clarified after the Christological disputes, that's why I say that it is a natural development of theology.
In Protestant theology, there is not much room for a distinction between veneration and honor and that these are not the same as the worship of God, or the distinction is clear in the mind of an Orthodox Christian.
@TruthUnites Now let's move on to biblical exegesis:
The bronze serpent destroyed by Hezekiah. It is very clear why the bronze serpent was destroyed, namely because the people worshiped the bronze serpent, worship that is due only to God. In the Old Testament, burning incense was part of the worship of God and was burned on the golden altar in the Tabernacle, so burning incense represented worship, which is due only to God. So instead of honoring it as an object through which God showed his mercy, they brought the bronze serpent burning incense (a cultic act of worship of God), which was not appropriate. It should be noted that they kept the bronze serpent as a special object and no one had a problem until it was considered a kind of god (and given a name), it was not destroyed until then, they had some honor for the object itself yet.
The prostration in Joshua 3:15, he reduces it to a specific context, such as war or something and that in fact it was towards God himself the prostration. Nobody denies that it was towards God, it is obvious that you don't actually worship the Ark, but the Ark was considered the throne of God and where the glory of God was shown, that's why they prostrated there. Let's take the context of the Old Testament, God is present everywhere and is invisible, theoretically you can prostrate anywhere, however it is very logical that you usually worship Him where He is has a special presence, that is in front of the Ark. The same is true in the New Testament, it is more appropriate to bow to the ground in certain contexts, in the church, at home within your intimacy, in front of an icon that represents the Savior. Because if we reduce it to the fact that God is invisible, then we should not prostrate anywhere, it is fitting to prostrate in the presence of objects that remind us of God and especially if it is as the Orthodox see it that the icon is a special presence of God's grace.
In Deuteronomy 4:15-19 and Exodus 20, to understand the problem of the prohibition of idols and the representation of God in the Old Testament, we must establish the reasons for the prohibition:
- not to have other gods - prohibition that God is one and only He must be worshipped
- not to make any carved image or any likeness of what is in heaven above, or on the earth beneath, or in the water under the earth, or to bow down to them or serve them, because God does not resemble creatures, He is altogether different, God is uncreated, spirit and invisible, and nothing in this world can truly represent Him, if we would have represented him, we would have anthropomorphized him and reduced him to a creature, plus that we would have been able to replace him with this idol. However, it was permissible to represent something from heaven such as the cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant or the temple as a projection of the world from heaven only at the indication and revelation of God.
In the New Testament, all these reasons are no longer valid:
- God is One but revealed in 3 Persons
- God incarnates and becomes man and thus already has a human appearance
- God reveals himself in this world through Jesus Christ, the image of the Father, we see the Father through Christ, whoever has seen me has seen the Father
Taking into account the reasons for the prohibition, not only the prohibition itself, we observe that these reasons no longer have a purpose in the New Testament, God remains invisible and one, but is revealed as visible and triune.
Then about the parallel of name/icon. In Exodus, there is a prohibition against taking the name of God in van and praising His Name is advised. The name of God is a revelation of God about Himself and is a conceptual/rational/verbal/(meta)linguistic icon about Him and His qualities, then His Name spoken is a call/attraction/blessing of His Essence. In Jewish theology and antiquity, there was the idea that the name encompasses the person it denotes and the power of that person.
Similarly, God reveals himself in the world through the Person of His Son, who is the image and revelation of the Father in the world, then the icon is the artistic representation of the Son on wood. Similarly, as the Name is a kind of energy that unites the one who calls the Name with the One who is called, so the icon is a haric presence of the One represented on it, it uniting the one who prays with the One on the icon to which he prays.
Interestingly, it did not mention at all about the worship of the Cross. Let's appeal to a parallel, 1. the revelation of God in the OT at the burning bush where the ground on which one walks is considered holy by virtue of the special presence of God there, and 2. the supreme act of self-sacrificial love that reveals God's character. 1. I am who I am and 2. I am the one who saves. Just as the ground becomes holy even if the discovery of God at the burning bush is not as "great" as that on the cross, so the cross is sanctified by the fact that God sacrificed himself for us on it, the supreme act (eternal nature) of Christ raises the cross from object of ridicule and torture to object of worship. Specifically, by the nature of the supreme act, it becomes worthy of worship.
And finally if we praise God in literature and music, why could we not praise him in picture?
Well written and profoundly theological👍I hope Gavin gets to read your post.
@@melroycorrea7720 It's not only well written; it is profound theologically because it is Orthodox. Gavin is NOT an Orthodox Christian. He does NOT believe in the same God we do. I don't know what god Protestants and Catholics believe in but it's certainly not the same as ours. By definition they are NOT Christian no matter how much they think they are. Therefore, Gavin should not be analyzing and explaining Icon veneration.
To me, the very fact that the earliest church fathers placed no expectations on themselves or their flock to venerate icons tells me that it's a later development that would have been absolutely foreign to the apostles, and even Christ himself. That tells me all I need to know. It's an accretion and should not be used to anathematize anyone. If someone else wants to venerate icons, I say sure, do what you want. I personally think it does little for you, and if anything, it gets in the way from true communion with the Spirit of God. But I won't fight anyone over it. I will, however, argue with someone who wants to claim that icon veneration goes back to the apostolic deposit. It's so clearly and unequivocally NOT an apostolic deposit.
@@Forerunner42...You make some excellent, common sense points.
I am going to recommend these books, which influenced me in my conversion to Orthodoxy:
1. Scripture and Tradition, by Archbishop Chrysostomos;
2. Bible, Church and Tradition, by Fr. Georges Florovsky;
3. A Man is His Faith, by Fr. Alexey Young;
4. The Great Divide, by Fr. Alexey Young;
6. Christianity or the Church?, by Ilarian Troitsky;
7. Sola Scriptura - In the Vanity of Their Minds, by Fr. John Whiteford;
8.The Spirit of Eastern Christendom, by Jaroslv Pelikan. (He was a great Lutheran Church historian who converted to Orthodoxy before he died).
If I may, I would also add:
“Rock and Sand” by Archbishop Josiah Trenham
“The Truth of Our Faith” Volumes 1&2 by Elder Cleopa of Romania.
Wow. What a well compiled and well organized presentation. Excellent work!
Thanks for watching!
What good is organized presentation if he is wrong?
@@joseonwalking8666 This is not a response. Just saying "wrong" is not an argument of any substance.
@@matthew7491 I'm not going to spend hours refuting the broader message in the video. Others have done that work adnausem. Something Gavin continues to dodge btw.
I doubt even if I did spend the hours to collect all relevant information you'd even bother reading it.
@@joseonwalking8666 His research is very extensive. What is he dodging? I do as in honest Christian curiosity, because i don't see it
Gavin! Tremendous work on putting this video together. You have challenged and given me (an orthodox Inquirer) much to think about.
I would be very interested in listening in on a conversation between you and Jonathan Pageau about the symbolism and use of Iconography. From watching him speak on the matter, I feel that I have learned that the reason for appealing to the saints for forgiveness and other matters, as opposed to directly receiving from the hands of God is because of the participatory nature of God's Kingdom. It is not that we need their mediation but that Saints are welcomed to participate in "the divine council" and other roles as an act of God's love. In this way, love ascends up and back down the hierarchy in a beautiful harmonious fashion that unites Heaven and Earth. Veneration of the Icon allows us to enter this reality and one that is more truly understood through experience. I have found this idea of "participation" most powerfully expressed in the theme of the Son of Man, Genesis, and the biblical narrative as a whole.
To be honest the info presented here is causing much cognitive dissonance and doubt. I have many experiences that tell me that venerating icons is a beautiful thing but cannot deny the alarming info presented here. In moments like this I find the only thing I can turn to is Christ in prayer. Should I set my home icon of Christ and the saints aside despite it helping orient my life around Him? I don't know the answer to that. I have been telling myself that the fruits of the spirit would be my litmus test for truth. In other words, has God made me more like him or less through communing with the saints? I am still waiting to see. Perhaps Idolatry has more to do with the heart then the action. I pray for discernment and ask that you would pray for me too.
Thank you for your faithfulness.
Thanks Matthew, may the Lord guide you and direct you!
Yes, I too would love to see a discussion between Ortland and Pageau!
You don’t need to remove the icons in your home, religious art can Be greatly edifying. The difference is whether we use art for devotion or for actual worship and for the liturgy
Hi Matthew! If I may add to the conversation. Even God Himself commanded images to be made - the statues of cherubim that go on either side of the tabernacle and the bronze serpent (which when people looked at it, they were healed from their snake bites) to name a couple.
God made us to be body AND spirit, not just spirit. As such, the LORD comes to us in both spiritual and physical ways. Think of Jesus - He healed by His Word, and by mixing His saliva with dirt and putting it on a man's eyes. He gave large crowds bread and fish to keep them sustained. A woman was healed through touching the tassel of His cloak. He physically died on the Cross for us. He instituted the Eucharist - we get to actually receive the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus, truly Present in the Eucharist, into our bodies. Wow! What an amazing gift.
God made us with bodies, and He declared it very good. Our bodies are not bad. Images are not banned - graven images are. Looking at/having an image of Jesus is not only not harmful, it's powerful and beautiful! I encourage you to look into the Catholic Faith - good resources can be found on Ascension Presents (UA-cam, the Ascension App) and Catholic Answers (website and UA-cam). God bless!
- A Catholic Christian
You forgot to mention that once people started praying to the bronze serpent the king destroyed it and God praised it....
Yes, this is really important because the Church argued against icons up till the 9th or 10th century. Today When I read Exodus 20 :4 "You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below" I don't see how any Christian cant understand this its clear .
As a current catechumen in the EO, this helps A LOT! I havent started venerating yet, and deep down it feels 'off.' My priest said there is no hurry but I will eventually need to get there. I also question their exclusivism. Ill never be able to accept that. I think you gave me the solid reason why I wont crismate now. Thank you!!
If you feel "off" that's the Holy Spirit talking to you. Listen to Him.
Your conscience is not formed yet, that’s why it feels off. It’s proper to venerate icons. Don’t let Gavin keep you from Christ.
@@MrWesford Gavin is bringing back the early Christians thought! You can go and bow to graven images, however, you don't have a defence for it. Go after the flesh!
That's a fallacy because it doesn't feel "off" for others. I can turn that around and say "It feels 'off' because Satan is trying to keep you away from the truth (Orthodox)"@@alishavogel7926
@@MrWesfordman what a sad response. The word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us. Died for us, was ressurrected and left us with Commandments. But confessing with your mouth that he is Lord and believing in your heart that God raised him and following his way is not enough! Nope! Cause if you dont kiss and honor these picture you will be kept away from Christ. I am fond of the EOC but man comments like yours are foul
Woah, this is beautiful Spirit led biblical based discussion... This is what I'm looking for!
This was incredibly educational and worth every minute. Thank you, Sir!
Thank you Dr Ortlund, a remarkable and useful video!
How is this free?! So well done. I am very impressed. Thank you for laying it all out for us. Blessings, brother.
The canon he quotes are from catholic post schism and not Orthodox. He’s giving a bias perspective not even from the original council. Ask yourself how many countries were invaded by Protestants and Catholics and how many cultures were decimated then ask yourself how many times the Orthodox committed such acts. You will know them by their fruits.
@@PatronSaintSpyridon
Peace.
Your history is a bit skewed to say the least. The Orthodox were part of the Crusades, and were responsible for the Massacre of the Latins prior to the Sack of Constantinople. The Orthodox also murdered the wife of Manuel I Komnenos, their own empress. Please...
AND the Canon was set at the Council of Hippo in 393. That same canon the Catholic Church uses today. It is the Orthodox who are in schism since they are NOT in union with Peter (see Mt 16:16), and establish their own Apostolic missions and juristictions apart from Peter.
I pray that one day we can be one, as Christ is One.
@@JD-sj1zn The Orthodox, as Pope John Paul II stated clearly, have most dutifully kept to the authentic traditions of the Apostles - we have never been in Schism as your excommunication in 1054 was invalid, but since then your See has clearly walked away from the rest of the Church and has caused so much trouble with innovation that Protestantism is squarely your responsibility. Do not throw stones in your own glass house.
@@dankmartin6510
?.
@@dankmartin6510
Not being in union with Peter is schism. Setting up Apostolic missions and jurisdictions apart from Peter is schism. Teaching a doctrine apart from 1000 yrs of Tradition with regard to the Keys is schismatic- the very definition of schism. Study your revered Saints who all were in union with Peter BEFORE you throw your stones, sir.
Yes, icon veneration is idolatry. Only Jesus is Lord. Amen.
As someone that lives in an Orthodox country you are more right than you may have thought.
@@user98344 Amen. I love the rich and blessed worship of Orthodoxy, but many former Pagan traditions of early Christian converts have in many ways diluted the eternal purpose of faith. Wearing black as an outward expression of being deceased to one’s sins is appealing to the human eye (flesh), not the soul (Holy Spirit). And being clothed in flowing robes, forbidding to marry and abstaining from meats are Biblically forewarned to us as the commandments of man, not God. Man is fallible, but only God is perfect. Thus, I take the writings of the early Church Fathers with a grain of salt-as complimentary to God’s Word (the Holy Bible). Lastly, as for apostate icon-veneration, refer to Jesus:
“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
- 1 Timothy 2:5
@@ApostolicStormicon were used in the Old Testament as well when the arm of the covenant was made it was to have two cherubim angles one on each side GOD told mosses is that idolatry? Especially when idolatry means to create and worship a false god veneration to icons is not idolatry there are a cloud of saints Hebrews 12.1 When our physical body dies doesn’t mean that we aren’t still connected spiritually with people on earth.
Inquirer here into EO. I think the more important question is: does grace allow Christians to intercede to God for one another? And are our relationships in Christ severed by death?
If you ask for your pastor to pray to Jesus for you, then why can’t I ask St. Paul, keeping in mind that the Holy Spirit is the one conveying the request to him?
So, I'm someone who grew up with an evangelical Protestant background, but I'm currently inquiring into the Orthodox Church. I'm being very careful to exercise due diligence, though, since I don't want to make any rash decisions, and I don't want to have to deal with the embarrassment of converting to Orthodoxy only to realize later on that there's some irreconcilable conflict that I should have seen in advance. To that end, I've found your channel to be an important "brake", helping me to exercise caution and preventing me from having too much unhealthy zeal. In particular, I'm wrestling with the history of icon veneration and iconoclasm in the church, and given the things you said in the first half of this video, I'll definitely need to investigate this further.
However, I must admit that I found the second half of this video rather troubling. It seemed like you were going all over the place, and I couldn't tell what point you were trying to make. It seemed like you kept flip flopping on the definition of veneration purely based on convenience, making all sorts of contradictory arguments in the process.
Here's my central question for you: In your mind, what exactly constitutes venerating an icon?
Is it veneration if you kiss an icon? But I distinctly remember you saying at one point that kissing the Bible is *not* veneration. How do you make sense of that?
Is it veneration (and therefore worship) if you bow before an icon? But I remember you bringing up examples of bowing that don't constitute worship (such as bowing before a king). So why is it not worship if I bow before a person purely with the intent of showing respect but definitely worship if I do the same thing to an image of a respectable person?
Does it only count as veneration if it's done ritualistically in a codified manner, such as during a worship service? That seems like a rather strange qualification to make, but even setting that aside, wouldn't your arguments that venerating icons in church constitutes iconolatry also imply that liturgical Scripture readings constitute Bibliolatry? After all, if all it takes to be an idolator is to ritually respect something that isn't God himself, then I guess we'll have to radically diminish our view of the Bible if we want to ensure that our worship is directed to God alone.
Is it simply a matter of the language of "windows to heaven" (in reference to icons) striking you as weird? If so, I think you just have to get over that feeling, since "weird" does not mean "idolatrous." But also, I would like to again bring up the Bible. Is not the Bible a kind of "window to heaven", revealing magnificent truths about God and therefore worthy of great respect? If you can believe that without idolizing the Bible, why is it any different with icons?
After all of that, the only conclusion I'm left with is that you seem to have a weird paranoia that people can accidentally commit iconolatry. But that's not how idolatry works. Idolatry is always intentional, and it always involves taking our attention away from God. If Catholic and Orthodox Christians everywhere can calmly tell you (with no hint of panic in their voice) that their worship is directed to God alone and that veneration does not rise to the level of worship, why can't you just take them at their word and believe them? Why can't you just trust that they see a difference between worship and veneration, especially when you yourself are aware of the possibility of showing people and objects great respect without worshipping them? Why the suspicion? Every time I've heard you talk about icon veneration, you seem to have an unhealthy suspicion that people are insincere when they tell you that veneration is not worship, and that suspicion seems to be the real core of your argument, despite whatever good points you might make along the way.
Again, you made some good points in the first half, and I'll definitely need to investigate church history on icons further. But the second half felt needlessly suspicious, and I can't seem to get past that. And I say that as someone who grew up evangelical and wrestles with this very controversy myself.
I relate greatly, both to your comments and to your journey. Iconography was an issue for me for a while as well, and I found Dr Ortland a good brake on myself to make sure I did my due diligence and gave proper, careful consideration before becoming Orthodox. I am glad I discovered both him and Trent Horn before my chrismation, the pushback from the Protestants and Catholics, respectively.
Regarding his suspicion of Iconography, I suspect this mostly stems from its strong Incarnational nature, which clashes with the Protestant paradigm. That is to say, I don't think he's being uncharitable; I think this issue is not something that can fit into his paradigm of Christianity, and he thus treats this incompatibility with extreme suspicion.
One thing I have realized about Orthodoxy is just how important the Incarnation is. The visible Church, the role of priests and bishops, baptismal regeneration, the real presence of the Eucharist, and iconography, among other things, are all aspects of this strong Incarnational Theology.
It is precisely this Incarnational Theology that Protestants have an issue with. Note that Dr. Ortland denies every one of these. I struggle to think of any Incarnational aspect to his theology that I've seen aside from Christ's Incarnation. The closest I can think of is the Bible, but I suspect he would say that the actual material aspect of the Bible (the paper, ink, etc) is necessary only because it is needed to carry and transmit the knowledge within, which is the only really important aspect. This is the source of the Bible as an exception.
To Dr. Ortland's credit, I think his theology is more consistent than, say, a Lutheran, who tries to affirm some Incarnational aspects while denying others. But it's all ultimately rooted in an issue with Incarnational Theology. For Orthodox, Christ's Incarnation would have been necessary even if Adam and Eve had never sinned. I don't think this is so in Dr. Ortland's theology. Granted, these are assumptions based on my understanding of his paradigm, and I would be happy to be corrected if I am wrong, as well as by what he actually believes.
@Bill Cynic Dr. Ortlund has said many times he does believe in the real presence of the Eucharist but not in baptismal regeneration.
Excellent points, Tyler. Thank you for sharing them.
As a convert to Orthodoxy, here is my take:
Veneration of icons is just the outward expression of the inward veneration of God’s work in the life of the Saints. If it isn’t an act of idolatry for Asians to bow to each other, or Europeans to kiss each other, or for a grieving wife to kiss a picture of her husband, why would it be in the case of those who became radiant vessels of the Holy Spirit? I think your point about unnecessary suspicion is spot on in this regard.
Also, I believe that the ultimate logic of why the 7th Ecumenical Council and the Orthodox Church today have for considering this practice necessary, is the same logic Protestants use to explain the Biblical verses that clearly state the necessity of works for salvation. It’s not that the act in itself saves you, but there is no way to explain how a person could have repented without the fruits of repentance, there’s no way someone truly loves God without expressing that love in actions, and there’s no way they can truly love God and fail to express love to those people through whom His presence most shined in the world.
@@Jy3pr6 how many times are you going to troll the chat and copy and paste the same comment?
Please stop.
@@sharplikecheddar2 If what you love more than anything else and owe your whole life to is being misrepresented or treated unfairly, it brings that out of you
Thank you for putting so much effort into this historical and scriptural workout. I really profit from it. May God bless you in all your work!
Thank you so much for making this and doing all this research. I was very interested in Eastern Orthodoxy, but when I questioned their use of icons, they called me "protestant" and "Hitler" - apparently my questioning icons makes me equivalent to some supposed crimes committed over a thousand years ago. It was at that point that I realized icons really are idols, because otherwise they wouldn't have reacted that way.
Now, I still haven't learned enough about Protestantism to choose it yet... another dispute I have with the Orthodox cultists is the "ever virgin Mary" - they teach that Mary and Joseph, despite being married, never got down to business. The problem is, in at least two Gospels, it is mentioned that Jesus had brothers. So... add that up, lol. Does Protestantism solve this problem, or what is Protestantism's stance on Mary? And does it creep you guys out that people have obsessed over her sex life for 2000 years? Cuz that's frikkin creepy, imo.
Oh come one, dude. Don't make up stories. No one called you "Hitler". And if they called you a protestant, how is that insulting? This comment is ridiculous.
@@alexandrusipos7738 they did. I'm not making anything up.
@@fusion9619 well if they did then it makes no sense and is not what other Orthodox Christians would think. I don't think you should only focus on negative comments. There will always be some rude people, but that isn't the majority.
@@alexandrusipos7738 yeah, I've met several very kind Orthodox people and they helped me understand some things I was asking about. It is wrong to only focus on the negatives, and I might have been doing that.
The issue of the “ever virgin” Mary is a big one as in the gospels, Acts, and even the non Christian source Josephus, are the siblings of Jesus mentioned. The simplest reading of those texts are that these are the siblings of Jesus and since they are always with Mary, these are her children. It also fits the context since Catholic-orthos tend to ignore the Jewish context of the Bible in establishing their beliefs.
Though in the beginning, Protestantism accepted the perpetual virginity, most Protestants today just reject and accept the simpler interpretation that Jesus had siblings who were the rest of the Joseph and Mary’s children.
This is also the standard reading of scholarship and historians. So, I argue, that when someone accepts the “ever virginity” of Mary, it’s literally an argument of faith with no evidence vs history. The direct evidence of the position is non existent, only existing in the minds and writings of later Christian thinkers, which is of little value historically in this case.
Excellent as always. I can’t wait for Michael Lofton’s response video. This is timely, as he recently put out a video defending Pope Francis for the Pachamama statue veneration. He shows a video of a woman referring to it as “our lady of the Amazon” in Spanish, and basically says that means it’s a depiction of Mary.
I asked him in the comments if the statue was made with the intent of being Mary or if it was made as Pachamama and repurposed into Mary. I didn’t get into this, but I was trying to parse out what makes something a statue or icon worthy of veneration-is it intent of the person venerating, is it what it was made as, is it consecrated, etc.
He replied that that is irrelevant to the accusation of idolatry, and that Catholics have long appropriated pagan elements into Christianity. I can’t see how venerating a representation of an Amazonian pagan goddess isn’t idolatry, but I’m sure he would respond that I’m incorrectly assuming something and that I should be more charitable.
When the highest authority is man, they can change the rules as they please
Sounds like Pagan repurposing to me. Shocker paganism gets downplayed and everyone who was "pagan" becomes Christians. I wonder what could go wrong.
Fantastically put. Wonderfully detailed with all the important info
Glad it helped!
I go back to this video a lot. Its amazing how well your arguments stand against the massive amount of attempted refutations. I'm currently going through Suan's video and, while I really appreciate his charitable demeanor, I definitely don't find it too convincing.
thanks, glad you found this useful!
The early Church had to fight against constant gnostic/neoplatonic influence. This is why you get a mix of historic testimony regarding icons in the early patristic text. What is indisputable is the veneration of the relics of Saints from the first centuries (see martyrdom of Polycarp). Just as the king of babylon venerated Daniel after he interpreted his dream because the king recognized the Spirit of the true God in Daniel, Christians have always recognized the special presence of God's Spirit and glory in the Saint of His Church. The veneration of icons operates on the exact same principle that early Christians have always practiced in their veneration of relics. A picture of a Saint's body is basically just an extension of their relics. Pictures of Christ's physical and visible body operates on the same principle. God has indwelt His creation. The Son of God has united human and divine nature in His one person and has deified humanity in himself and is in the continued process of deifying humanity ("until I make your enemies your footstool") through His body, the Church. This really happened and is happening. It's real, we are not gnostics. And the Saints of the Old Testament were not gnostic either. God's people in the OT era used physical objects that represented God's presence in a special way in their worship. The same holds true in the post incarnation New Covenant. The details have changed but the principle is the same. Nicaea II's proscription of icon veneration was to try to put an end once and for all to the encroachment of these gnostic tendencies. Unfortunately, most secular people and many Christians in the modern world have become so gnostic in their thinking that they don't even realize how gnostic they are.
I was recently blessed as a Catechumen and immediately afterwards I had a meeting with the Priest. He told me I'd be leaving the church that day with a handful of Icons and that I had to venerate them as I prayed. When I told him I wasn't comfortable doing that he got quite prickly and told me it wasn't optional. Prior to this he'd said the only requirement for becoming a Catechumen was a desire to be part of Christ's Church ( which I have ) It doesn't seem like there just paint and wood to me. I obviously have a deep interest in Orthodoxy but the icon thing really puts me off. The compulsory element is so obviously an innovation and political response by the Byzantine state, that it negates the idea that they are the original "one true Church" I suspect your video, which was extremely timely for me, will have raised a few hackles because I doubt many Orthodoxy have ever thought about it or if they have, are guilty of such an enormous feat of rationalisation and denial, that they will respond harshly to this threat
Did you ask him if this is common practice for all priests to do this? It could be something he does but it could also be commonplace. Honestly either situation really creeps me out. I’m sorry. I hope the Lord guides you. Don’t feel guilt or ashamed by anyone
Hey brother. I spent countless hours studying the early church fathers/doctrines and the EOC. I have taken 5 catechumen classes online and was very close myself. I attended Antiochian, Greek, and Coptic Orthodox churches. Please prayerfully consider reading
Disillusioned: Why I Left the Eastern Orthodox Priesthood and Church by recently former EO priest Josua Schooping. You puts the truth out there. You need to know what you are really signing up for. It is not the apostolic deposit of faith. I would be happy to chat with you any time.
@woozyjoe4703
Thank you for sharing this.
Can you imagine Peter's follow up statement to " repent and be baptized" being, "and here are some icons you must venerate"?
To be clear, the Priest wasn't being unpleasant and he is a genuinely loving and kind man, but he was pretty immovable on the icon issue. I also spoke with another Priest who was much more relaxed about it and was advising me to take my time with everything and pray for God's guidance, which I am doing.
I find so many loving people in Orthodoxy, I love the Liturgy, I love the incense, I love a lot of the rituals, and I love the depth of so much of their theology it attracts me enormously, but the icons, as well as a lot of the Theotokos ideas, are the things I find really hard to ignore. Honestly, I was trying to put them to the back of my mind and telling myself that they were just details I could leave alone but this video has really put it into perspective. I need to wait for what comes. So grateful for the work Gavin does on here.
@@woozyjoe4703 The things that you love about the Orthodox church are found in a "high" Anglican church ACNA (Anglican Church North America) without the innovations and idolatry that have been added over the centuries. They are a "reformed" and "purified" catholic and apostolic church. There is a reason that you are uncomfortable with certain things in the EO churches, as I was as well. The believe that check you feel in your gut is the Holy Spirit. Please slow down, pray, research and reach out if you'd like to discuss.
@TruthUnites I'm going to go through the video point by point, section by section.
First of all, the term Icon as understood by the church is derived from the Greek Ekon, which yes means image but a more precise translation of what is meant by it in this context would actually be Likeness. Icons don't always depict one figure, nor is the figure necessarily the focus of the Icon, many depict multiple people and still many others depict events from scripture or from church history. Mary, for example, at least in Orthodox Iconography is almost never depicted by herself, she's almost always with Christ, holding Christ, pregnant with Christ with it painted so that Christ is visible in her womb etc. This is very much by design, there's a point that the Iconographers are communicated by doing that and it's the fact that Mary, while of paramount importance both for the example of her life and for her pivotal role in the gospel, is only important because she leads us straight to her Son.
It is also important to understand that Icons are not mere images nor are they limited to paintings, mosaics, and Statues. All who worship Christ should be constantly striving to be living Icons of Christ showing His likeness to the rest of the world by the way we live and the way we treat those around us. To call an Icon an image and limit them to wood, paint, or stone presents a limited understanding and a misleading picture of how Icons are understood in the church.
To be honest, researching enough to respond to the timing of when Icons came on the scene is really above my capabilities right at this moment but I will just point 1 thing out regarding the ancient examples of Icons dating back to the Ante Nicene period. The ones we have, are those that survived 2,000 years. That does not mean they were the earliest to be created or used, there may have been Icons earlier than we think that were either destroyed or rendered unrecognizable as such by the ravages of time or by the iconoclasts who did destroy Icons. One of the reasons many of the oldest we have are in western territories is because the controversy that led up to Nicaea II was so prevalent in the east. Icons were actually banned in Constantinople for decades during that period and many Icons of unknown age were destroyed during that time. My point isn't that Icons were absolutely being used all the way back to the beginning or were being used in the same way that they are now, my point is that we would do well to remember the limitations and incomplete nature of the evidence we have.
As for the distinction between bowing down to images to worship them or to venerate them, of course this would not be seen in the Old Testament, because at the time, there aren't any actually Holy things that man could correctly make an image of, there are no "Icons" as we understand them in a religious context now. during the Old Testament period. The verse you referenced even makes note of this fact, saying that they didn't see an image when God spoke to them in the fire. they don't have the first clue how to make an actual Icon of God because they don't have any idea what one would even look like. The only images that exist at that time are idols, the difference is that an Icon is a likeness or image of that which is true. An idol is an imagined representation of that which is (at best unseen and at worst completely false).
If followers of the God of Israel in the Old Testament period were forbidden from making and using all religious art, why does God follow that commandment up a little bit later by commanding them to adorn the Ark of the Covenant, the tabernacle, and later the Temple itself, with so much imagery?
The connection between Icons and the incarnation is this, Jesus, being both fully human and fully divine, is Himself in a way, a living Likeness of God the Father, one that, at least for a while, mankind could see, hear, touch, and converse with. This, in effect, meant that God was no-longer unseen and therefore an Icon, not an Idol, but a true Likeness of God could at last be made.
As for the concern about when the line gets crossed in the human heart, I won't deny that it's a fine line and that is exactly why a correct understanding of the line between veneration and worship, the line between Holy created beings (God vs angels, saints etc), and the theology of what it means to venerate and who and what is being venerated, must be a thorough and repeated part of catechesis for all those who venerate the Saints, Angels, Prophets, and indeed Christ Himself through the use of Icons. That said, to say that just because the practice can become warped and dangerous when incorrectly understood that no one should engage in what can actually be a fruitful and humbling part of devotional practice would be like saying the Eucharistic wine should be replaced with water just in case someone in attendance is so easily tempted to alcohol abuse that the spoonful offered from the chalice to each worthy recipient would be enough to set them off.
Sincerely, your Friendly Neighborhood Orthodox layperson
I agree with you, except for the Hebrews bowing down before Icons in the OT. They bowed down before the Ark of the Covenant, a typology of the Theotokos (Mother Mary). They even created images of Divine things, the Cherubims on the Ark of the Covenant.
In I Samuel 5, we see that even the statue of the Philistine god Dagon falls down before the Ark of the Covenant.
The Ark of the Covenant is to have the Presence of God inside, just as Mary has God in her womb, and now all of the Saints have God inside by Grace (theosis). Thus, the icons are like arks of the Covenant. Thus, iconoclasts not only go against the Ancient Church, but against the Faith handed down to us through the Jews.
The main issue is what Gavin addressed in the video - that the veneration of icons is considered a theological necessity, despite the fact that it was universally opposed just a few centuries earlier.
It’s the prime example of the Church claiming authority and tradition when in fact what they are introducing as doctrine is a novelty and an accretion.
@@repentantrevenant9776 No, it wasn't brand new doctrine. The idea of a physical space/thing representing the holiness of a departed saint was not a novelty in the early church. Rather than gathering in temples, which were illegal for Christians to have at the time, they gathered around the graves and tombs of the early martyrs and held their liturgies there. Even during the lifetime of the apostles Christians had already recognized that was something unique and special about the bones of a man or woman who had been martyred for Christ as opposed to gathering and holding liturgy in a field or forest or something like that.
Also you have to understand the audience that early church fathers like Clement of Alexandria were writing to. They lived in a pagan world and shared their faith with pagans. In other words, people who only understood religious imagery in the sense of an icon of a pagan god that you DID offer full worship/adoration to. This is why you see the strong language against the worship of images. It is not because they didn't yet have a theological difference between worship and veneration at that point. They had the old testament after all.
In the second giving of the Law in Deut, God explicitly says that you are to make no image of him since when you looked into the fire (at Mt. Sinai), you saw no image. This, of course, now means that since we have an image, the prohibition is removed. The other thing, worship has numerous levels of meaning in English (in the Anglican wedding service: "with my body I thee worship", and judges in England for years have been known as "your worship".
@@repentantrevenant9776 Veneration of icons is just the outward expression of the inward veneration of God’s work in the life of the Saints. If it isn’t an act of idolatry for Asians to bow to each other, or Europeans to kiss each other, or for a grieving wife to kiss a picture of her husband, why would it be in the case of those who became radiant vessels of the Holy Spirit?
The ultimate logic of why the 7th Ecumenical Council and the Orthodox Church today have for considering this practice necessary, is the same logic Protestants use to explain the Biblical verses that clearly state the necessity of works for salvation. It’s not that the act in itself saves you, but there is no way to explain how a person could have repented without the fruits of repentance, there’s no way someone truly loves God without expressing that love in actions, and there’s no way they can truly love God and fail to express love to those people through whom His presence most shined in the world.
Reading was for the few: Historically, this is why religious art, icons, sculptures, and oral traditions have been so powerful. They communicate ideas and stories that transcend the written word, allowing people to feel a sense of presence and meaning. A painting or statue of a saint, for example, can convey a sense of reverence and inspiration without needing any words at all.
1:00:20 this is a really good analogy, because it is obvious that when the wife doesn't want her husband kissing other women, even if they live in a cultural where it is a form of cultural greeting, the wife obviously didn't allow her husband to kiss for that reason. Likewise, when God commanded Israel not to create images & bow down to them, obviously that included creating & bowing down to images of even Himself not just pagan images. Bravo! 👍
Back then the ancient Israel didn't know what God looked like and there were many images and statues made by the Israel (and others too) that they worshipped as God. Now as the Bible says we know that Jesus Christ is the image of the invisible God (Col 1:15). So it's different. God forbid worshiping *other* God, not forbidding making images or statues.
God bless...
@@For3nity those who believe this combine the first & second commandments, when in reality, the first commandment is about not having other gods, and the second commandment is about not making graven images OR likenesses of him, which the Israelites did when they created the golden calf, which they were condemned for. The apostle Paul also supports this second commandment about not creating images - even of God Himself - in his epistle to the Romans.
@@BornAgainRN We have to read scriptures in totality and in context. Idolatry is about worshipping other God..not about making images or statues. How you worship statues as other God if you don't have statues. Back then so many statues and images worshipped as God by the Israelit and others...that's why it's prohibited to make statues so as not to be worshipped as God because the image of the unseen God...Jesus...was not there yet. Now if you still worry about statues it looks to me you don't believe in Jesus :)
Anyway, God asked Moses to make statues...it's in the Bible.
God bless...
Good Job Gavin! Everyone on the internet has now commented on this video.
Yes, everyone is commenting on it because it is astonishing that in this day and age, there are still iconoclasts. Unbelievable. Why are you so excited about this? Is this your way of living boldly for Christ?
I think the story of Micah in Judges 17 plays a role in the pagan vs. Christian idol discussion.
Seemingly, Micah was trying to please God by making the silver idol. He even got a Levite to be his priest so that the Lord would do right to him. I think an argument can be made that Micah had actually made an idol representing Jehovah; which was still considered sinful. So, the attempt to separate pagan and Christian idols seem to fall apart.
But Jesus Christ doesn't merely "represent" Jehovah. He actually is God made visible.
accretion
noun
ac·cre·tion ə-ˈkrē-shən
Synonyms of accretion
1
: the process of growth or enlargement by a gradual buildup: such as
a
: increase by external addition or accumulation (as by adhesion of external parts or particles)
b
: the increase of land by the action of natural forces
2
: a product of accretion
Thanks for the video! You presented it very charitable and truthful. That’s true, this alone will make one Protestant!
I don't think this video will make a person protestant. A person that does not think the Bible is infallible or even correct, will not suddenly think:
Oh, icon veneration is an accretion, I should be a protestant Christian.
I agree with Trent Horn on that point. For protestantism to be true Protestant claims need to be proven, disproving catholic/orthodox claims does not do that.
@@georgwagner937Protestantism doesn’t have to be proven true, all it does is rely on the Bible. All we care about is that the Bible is true. And yeah, that can definitely cause differences in belief and practice, but not in orthodox beliefs - those are not “Christian.”
But if we disprove Catholicism / Orthodoxy, that is, any of the “infallible” portions, the whole point of authority falls. Therefore, the church is not the only authority. And those who disagree with the authority are… drum roll… protesters. Or, Protestants.
So if you want to be a Christian, but reject the Catholic / Orthodox views, you can easily be a Protestant.
Anyways, I am not against Catholic / Orthodox Christians. But I don’t think their authority as the only church (not necessarily “true,” - I think all three branches are true) is accurate.
@@manxydom9879if orthodoxy isn’t true than Christianity isn’t. I’m sorry but that’s just the truth.
@@Tornadospeed10Asserting that if orthodoxy is false means that Christianity is false is just that - an assertion.
Anyways, I never said orthodoxy or the Orthodox Church wasn’t true. I think it is. I don’t think it is infallible in every aspect though.
For example, the assumption of Mary could have never happened, and the Orthodox Church would still be true.
Fallible men stating that something is true when it isn’t doesn’t stop the scripture from remaining true. I’m not saying all traditions outside the Bible are false, but I think some are false.
@@Tornadospeed10 As a former oriental orthodox from the cradle for 4 decades and presently baptist, I find your claims laughable :D
Informative, thank you! When you wrapped it up with the Gospel, I couldn't help but say AMEN.
Brubaker (author) - it's a purple coloured book
Thank you so much for this video!
I am a Protestant believer who makes pictures of Christ and the saints. I have often been told throughout my life that it’s wrong of me to make pictures like these mainly because of how Catholics and other “traditional” Christians treat such images.
I never felt the temptation to bow down to my work or worship it. I know my pictures aren’t the real Jesus or saints, but representations of my interpretation of what I learn in the Bible. These pictures often help me remember important truths in Scripture.
I have filled a shelf in my room with paper cutouts showing the life of Jesus Christ. They’re one of the first things I see every morning. I have seen guests’ jaws drop when they see the cutouts. It’s honestly amazing what God’s gifts can do.
I can appreciate artwork as artwork, but if someone asks me to bow down to an icon of any biblical character, I would leave the place. That’s not for Christians to do. If people make artwork of Jesus and the saints for the purpose of veneration, I think they should stop, repent and never make such things again.
I do acknowledge how frequent the temptation to idolatry is, but from my personal experience, it seems to me that most people’s idols are *themselves* . They idolise their own tastes, things that make them happy. This is why the command is given to deny the self, stay away from idols (after talking a lot about how friendship with the world is enmity with God), &c. I understand that idolatry in the NT has a broader scope than simply making portraits of funny characters and performing rituals/showing respect to them.
Unfortunately, many who claim to be Christians do not seem to see the flaw in their logic about the distinction between bowing down to God and bowing down to pictures of who is supposed to be God or one of His servants. I think it’s okay to have pictures of Jesus in your home as decoration (like during Christmas when we make a Nativity scene) or reminders of Scripture, but it’s definitely wrong to do what our Catholic and Orthodox friends are doing with pictures.
I’m sure your art is beautiful. I agree with you 100% about the worshipping of oneself. I don’t know anyone that worships statues, but I sure know a lot who worship themselves.
How can you hold to his view but still make images?
Wondering how that is?
The thumbnail in itself is an indisputable argument from beauty
This is a great discussion and good points made Dr. Ortlund. I have read the counsel in question as well (Nicea II) and still come away with a different conclusion which I would relate to this:
When I see a picture of my now deceased grandfather I’m filled with emotion and respect for the man, sometimes even to the point of tears or talking out loud in the hopes that the words might be heard by him somehow (his faith was in question).
To me, this is pure respect and love for the man and what he meant to my life. Is this not even more appropriate for those who have finished the race well and serve as examples for us in this life? A very personal example of this is when I first came across a depiction of the martyrdom of St. Laurence - it was deeply impactful and in that moment I felt challenged to walk in greater boldness in my faith.
My conclusion is that the counsel actually left room for this to take place within the heart of individual believers without making the choice for them, that idolatry is absolutely possible before venerable images but that abuse would be a fault made by individuals going too far and treating them in place of the Almighty who they serve and not of the nature of the images themselves…
Sorry for the long winded response but I was thinking of all of this while watching your video. Thank you for your work!
Even God Himself commanded images to be made - the statues of cherubim that go on either side of the tabernacle and the bronze serpent (which when people looked at it, they were healed from their snake bites) to name a couple.
God made us to be body AND spirit, not just spirit. As such, the LORD comes to us in both spiritual and physical ways. Think of Jesus - He healed by His Word, and by mixing His saliva with dirt and putting it on a man's eyes. He gave large crowds bread and fish to keep them sustained. A woman was healed through touching the tassel of His cloak. He died on the Cross for us. He instituted the Eucharist! We get to actually receive the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus!
God made us with bodies, and He declared it very good. Our bodies are not bad. Images are not banned - graven images are. Looking at/having an image of Jesus is not only not harmful, it's and ! I encourage you to look into the Catholic Faith - good resources can be found on Ascension Presents (UA-cam, the Ascension App) and Catholic Answers (website and UA-cam). God bless!
- A Catholic Christian
Excellent presentation, clear and concise. Thank you so much!
This is why Lutheran and Anglican is the best, ancient faith of the fathers but Gospel centred without the errors of Rome and EO.
Yes, I recall reading how the Fathers married same-sex couples, condoned abortion, ordained women and homosexuals, etc. Anglicanism and Lutheranism, yup. Just like the Fathers.
You're daft.
I wanna put a comment on this particular video just to put an emphasis on that which Gavin said explaining the viewpoint of Clement (of Alexandria) …
“ Familiarity with the sight disparages reverence for what is divine. “
This statement perfectly sums up the conflict I once presented to a Catholic friend of mine concerning the relation of faith and sight in our christian walk (including worship). What I presented to my friend was that case mentioned in 2 Corinthians 5:7 (we live by “faith” not by “sight”), it certainly has it’s proper immediate context but applies very easily to a broader context of religious walk and practices within Christianity. So, a specific question (which my friend said would require him to inquire about it) was: Doesn’t that phrase in that verse (2 Corinthians 5:7) contradicts the ritual practices performed in relation to icons in a christian walk (including worship)?
Because it states how we (christians) ought to live (by faith) and how we ought not (by sight). I think this is one of those simple issues that can be addressed logically and reasonably yet has become so complex. And thanks to this particular video I can see that that complexity is ancient…
“Because images are associated with the material world - which you can see - works of art cannot be sacred or divine.”
I would definitely use that mentioned answer now: “Because God is invisible.”
To Dr. Ortlund:
Thanks Gavin for your great insights which I consider filled with honesty on this particular video… (not like that in the ones concerning baptism in the early churches of Christ…) I really appreciate all your work, and it has been definitely a blessing to me, in knowledge and grace. So, may God continue to bless you according to His will.
"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)" So I guess St. John and St. Peter and all the other Apostles really didn't need to see Christ risen from the dead, and that seeing him made him less of a means of faith? You might want to rethink what "walking by faith and not by sight" actually means. Why not just have a non-physical Christ? What need have we of a circumscribed God? Is there anything you wrote above that Valentinus or Basilides would not have said? What of Simon Magus?
I do not worship matter; I worship the Creator of matter who became matter for my sake, who willed to take his abode in matter; who worked out my salvation through matter. Never will I cease honoring the matter which wrought my salvation!- St John of Damascus
Idols are matter
@@ExpiditionWild So was Christ what's your point
I know there’s much discussion on this topic about the difference between worship and veneration, but this will be my guide:
“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything ... You shall not bow down to them or serve them ...” (Exo. 20:4-5, ESV).
“When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. But Peter lifted him up, saying, "Stand up; I too am a man" (Act. 10:25-26, ESV).
“I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me, but he said to me, ‘You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God’” (Rev. 22:8-9, ESV).
"Moses went out to meet his father-in-law and bowed down and kissed him."--Exodus 18:7
"When Abigail saw David, she hurried and got down from the donkey and fell before David on her face and bowed to the ground."--1 Samuel 25:23
"And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the LORD your God. And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king."--1 Chronicles 19:20
@@antoninoskomnenos1022 Like I said, “I know there’s much discussion on this topic about the difference between worship and veneration.” For some, they’re merely venerating icons; but for others, the practice looks too much like idol worship. Therefore, as the apostle Paul said about a similarly disputable matter: “Each one should be fully convinced in their own mind” (Rom. 14:5).
As a catholic, I love how everything is sacramental. We experience God in the physical world that He made for us. I can pray by watching a sunset, watching the trees, or enjoying an icon painting. God wants us to Love Him, and while He gives us some rules to do so properly, He also gives us a creative spirit and an attraction to beauty that is absolutely theologically relevant.
@@xuniepyro7399I mostly agree with you, but this is very uncharitable.
Thank you for this excellent and thorough explanation!
I have never seen a more even-handed and objective report on the questions surrounding icon veneration. I enter this as part of my research into Orthodox understandings and practices because I have Orthodox friends I love and want to understand. I watch their Orthodox videos done by some well-educated and clear-teaching priests. I've seen those priests use the language Dr. Ortlund attributes to them, which elevates my confidence in Dr. Ortlund as he does not mock or mischaracterize them. Thank you, Dr. Ortlund, for being gracious and sharing these scholarly videos with those of us who are seeking the truth.
whatever perceive benefits icons may have had in the past, people can read and pray for themselves today and hence not needed. icons have never sat right especially with the cultural heritage of the old testament where such things always tended to deteriorate into some form of idolatry
Icons have been used since the foundations of the Orthodox Church in 33 AD and have persisted for 2000 years now without falling into idolatry. They are a useful means of worship of God the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is no idolatry in asking the Mother of God, for example, to pray before her Son for our salvation when she clearly interceded on behalf of the people at the Wedding of Cana. She's alive in heaven with all of God's saints and therefore can pray for us. All of the saints pray ceaselessly before God... read Revelation.
I respect this man, he is humble a respectful kn presenting his arguments, unlike most people intuese comments.
Im not educated well enough to argue or try to prove any points in these comments.
I was brought up with exposure to both Catholicism and protestantism, one aide of family was one, themother side the other.
I just want to say my favorite olace to worship is churches usually in downtown, more run dinw area churches with the huge vaulted ceilings, staine x glass windows, the statues. The beautiful art on those ceiling, and yes, statues. I feel so close to God in those beautiful old Catholic churches I dont worship the statues. I dont think many peope have actually visited the places they speak out against so much. Just my opinion
This overview of examples of early church interaction was brilliant and enlightening in bringing forth truth. a must watch for all Christians.
From the part of Nigeria I come from, the younger generation are returning to animism and idolatry. One of their reasons is that there's no difference between what is practiced in Roman catholicism from the practices of African traditional religion. They say that the images are used in both religions, and saints are venerated in Roman catholicism, while in ATR, the dead ancestors are venerated and prayed to. They don't see any difference and they see no reason to be venerate the ancestors of the Caucasians and then demonize their own ancestors.
I can't wait for Jesus Christ to return and settle this issue in judgment once and for all
But there _is_ a difference.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj what the difference? I think Roman catholicism is simply Christianity with all the baggages of human natural religion that it accumulated over the centuries. Anything that is left entirely in the hands of man will definitely go the way of naturalness. Man's view of religion consists in use of images, articles, relics and a high almost a deified regard for dead people. That's the characteristics of any religion of human origin. Catholicism is Christianity taken out of the hands of God and into the hands of man... hence the whole baggages.
@@ezidimmakenneth7927
The difference is that you aren't the arbiter of what is and isn't orthodoxy.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj I did not claim to be. I'm not, and you're not. The scripture alone is.
Thankyou for this. It is alot of information. I will need to watch this a few times more.
Incredible work sir, thank you and my the LORD continue to bless. I have been interacting with Catholic friends and acquaintances more on these issues and appreciate your thoughtful approach to these very deep doctrinal divides.
This and the Marian dogmas are the primary issues that prevented me from converting, these practices are clearly later additions unto the Faith.