Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
Why Gavin Ortlund is Wrong About Icons: Scriptural Foundations
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 08. 2024
- Part one (recorded about a month and a half ago) of a many part series with Michael Garten where we systematically analyze Gavin Ortlund's critique of the normative Christian tradition concerning the making and honoring of icons. Michael Garten's research on pre-Nicene veneration of images can be found on his Substack here: michaelgarten....
His upcoming book will argue that image veneration was widely approved of and practiced in the pre-Nicene Church. Please support his book project by becoming a paid subscriber of his Substack. Premium articles:
A detailed case with scholarly support for the claim that catacomb art was venerated: michaelgarten....
His next article will give a new argument that Clement of Alexandria's comments on signet-images are evidence of image veneration.
--
Your support through Patreon is very much appreciated and is essential in maintaining regular original content: / kabane
To schedule a one-time one hour call, simply send $50 to the following link with your email address:
www.paypal.com...
Please remember to keep all comments respectful (if you are a Christian, you represent Christ at all times) and on topic. Please, no foul language. Comments which do not follow these rules will be deleted. Critiques are fine, but they have to pertain specifically to the question discussed in the video- those who simply use comments as a platform will be blocked. Such is not a statement that you are a bad or dumb person, but that I don't think your participation will facilitate substantive discussion. I know some will take my enforcement to be too strict, uneven, or unfair- but ultimately it is what it is.
Thanks so much for watching.
Refuting Protestantism from the Bible in 17 Hour Lecture Set:
buy.stripe.com/dR62bz6Y467KdfGcMM
Recordings sent by email.
Topic list:
1: Why Answer Protestantism from the Bible?
2: The Arc of Biblical Theology: Creation, Covenant, Redemption, Glorification
3: How Does Christ Purchase Salvation?
4: Justification, Deification, and Imputation
5: Justification, Deification, and Imputation (2)
6: Liturgical Worship in Biblical Theology
7: What Happens in Baptism and the Eucharist?
8: Apostolic Succession, the Holy Priesthood, and the Visibility of the Church
9: The Communion of Saints: Veneration and Intercession
10: The Woman: The Virgin Mary in Scripture
11: Now Mine Eyes Have Seen: Iconography and Idolatry
12: The Biblical Doctrine of Tradition
anyone purchased and watched these yet? Let me know what it was like
To summarize Fr. SDY in the live broadcast of the new LoS episode where he connects iconoclasm with a fundamental denial of Christian ethics and a breakdown of the orthodox understanding of the Trinity, he said if you take iconoclasm all the way to its end or conclusion, you can't really support Christianity or call yourself a Christian. If the honor we give to the ones depicted in the icons does not pass to the prototype, then the good works we do in caring for the poor, loving our neighbor, etc. is not done unto Christ as He clearly states in Matthew. The implications for the final judgment are pretty bleak and hopeless for everyone if this is true. If the honor and worship we give to Christ does not pass to the Father, the Trinity isn’t what scripture tells it is then.
Just listened to that this morning. You literally have to throw away the doctrine of the Trinity to be an iconoclast.
Which episode?
@@jacob6088 Doomsday. It’s the latest one
explains why calvinists are nestorians.
There is a reason all iconoclastic protestants are essentially gnostics when it comes to the world and matter.
As a Catholic who has watched probably all the Catholic responses to Ortlund on this topic (Sonna, Albrecht, Horn/Akin, Catholic Brothers, etc.), I can affirm this video added value to the discussion! The emphasis on "since you saw no form" and tracing that theme through the Old and New Testaments was very interesting and persuasive. Went beyond the usual apologetics based on Jewish liturgical architecture and practice.
Based on Ortlund's response below, it seems like you could have spent more time establishing why "making" and "venerating" necessarily form a single unit (how in context you can't really have the former without the latter) and establishing how the Temple itself was indeed viewed as an ICON of heaven or the heavenly Temple (Heb 9:24, Rev 11:19)
How I wish more Orthodox videos would have spanish subs, to show them to my protestant family. Great video, you blew my mind.
Protestant and Spanish? What went wrong? 😆
@@johnflorio3576 we are from south america. Here almost nobody knows the Orthodox Church.
@@johnflorio3576 It’s sadly more common than we would otherwise assume.
@@issaavedramaking subs of videos is tiresome 😔
@@johnflorio3576Ahhh!! 🤣🤣🤣 I'm crying! 😂
As I gradually came to accept the validity of icons when transitioning from Protestantism to Orthodoxy, I could sort of intuit the general point being made here, but I was not able to articulate it much better than "It's because of the incarnation. There was no image before, but now there is". I think this helped me to get a better grip on the specifics about the topic, and how the Bible itself also testifies of these things somewhat clearly. Thank you.
I appreciate how well-articulated you are while giving the reasons why you believe what you believe, Seraphim.
May God provide for both you and Michael ♥️
An important point that should be underlined in the broader discussion is that veneration, of relics in particular, is a very old practice/inheritance. The eventual (yet early) appearance of images and the development of the visual/symbolic/liturgical language of icons is not something that should undermine the practice of veneration at all.
Congrats on your imminent wedding, Seraphim.
He already wed, in June.
Hello Seraphim. After listening to this presentation, I love the cross reference of scripture between the old and new covenant and I think the exegesis is masterfully done at times. However, I do see that the argument for the use of images now being acceptable due to the incarnation is interesting. When I read scripture, I see that Jesus says he is leaving and he will leave us the Holy Spirit and how he also says that we are to worship in spirit and in truth. As you were speaking, my mind also harkens back to John chapter 20 verse 29, Where Thomas puts his fingers in the wounds of the risen, Messiah, and Jesus says to him “Thomas, because you have seen me you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed“
Since the whole main point of the argument was about seeing and hearing, I think this is important to bring up. I appreciate the presentation, I am praying through these things that if icon Veneracion is an acceptable form of worship to God, that the Holy Spirit would work these things out in me. And I also do see that there are distinctions in uses of images. When Moses could not be found by the Israelite people, Aaron built the golden calf, and said that it was representative of the God that lead them out of Egypt. Whether they were worshiping the calf as God, or worshiping God through the calf, either way, God was not happy with this way of being worshiped. As I said, I am praying prudently about these things and researching, but I still have my convictions.
Well done! Love this!! Looking forward to the rest of these refutations! ☦️
Garten, you are the perfect person to interact with Ortlund. Two gentlemen who actually put humility above intellect. (Not saying Seraphim isn’t the same, but I know Garten much better).
More of this please!
I love Seraphim but I think this was hard to follow.
I understand the point being made primarily because I've already listened to Seraphim make these points before.
I can't really send this to a protestant and not expect them to get kind of lost.
God bless though, and thanks for the content.
This isn’t made to be sent to Protestants. This is made so that we Orthodox can educate ourselves and then make this knowledge known in a simpler way to others
If you're arguing against protestantism you would use an internal critique, like how would they know their canon is true.
Gavin posed an internal critique of orthodoxy and SH is defending that, not arguing against protestantism. If he is, it's indirectly.
Why would a Protestant get lost? I followed it just fine 🤷🏻♂️
@@Cornelius135 not everyone is a genius like you 😅
Ortlund is really bent on leading people away from the truth of Christ's Church. His latest brief video "why you should be a Protestant" is sad. It's almost as if he hasn't really sat down and thought through these issues, despite having a PhD in theology.
The most glaring head scratcher is the "Augustine believed in sola scriptura" video. I guess saintly intercession, relics, the bishopric, Real Presence in the Eucharist, apostolic succession, and numerous other things that St. Augustine believed are all biblical in that case, right?
It's sunk cost fallacy for a lot of these guys all that money and time wasted on being a schism of a schism. Products of the degree mill world of protestant "theology."
Icons are just like the Papacy Nicea 2 used multiple forgeries to prove their point, and we just need 1 example to refute since it claims that the Apostles venerated Icons.
@@internautaoriginal9951there is veneration given to many relics in scripture itself. Stop being stupid
@@internautaoriginal9951
Got proof of these so-called "Forgeries"?
Ortland approaches the Church Fathers the same way an Orthodox scholar would approach the Reformers. Might get some interesting insights, find some things we agree with, but we don't really care if there are points of disagreement (which there many), and when we cite their beliefs in debates it's usually as an internal critique of Protestantism. We don't cite Luther's belief in Real Presence because we agree with Luther (consubstantiation is heresy), we cite it to show how out of continuity evangelicals are.
This approach can be clearly seen in Ortland's video on Baptismal Regeneration. He admits that every single Christian writing we have that speaks of Baptismal Regeneration affirms it. And yet he still denies it, and uses it as an example of how he thinks the entire Church can go astray on something. If it turns our St Augustine didn't believe in _sola scriptura_ (which he doesn't), Ortland wouldn't care, except for losing another internal critique against Catholics and Orthodox.
Michael Garten! Hi!
What a pairing, two great minds discussing important matters. I hope this collaboration continues.
Hey Noah, good to see you! Would be glad to catch up sometime
Seraphim is my favorite Orthodox youtuber. Great content, very charitable.
He still has to be more aggressive in debates but SH is great
I’m Catholic and I have mad respect for my OrthoBros!
Come back Home to Orthodoxy
@@mariorizkallah5383how about NO?
@@calson814by "NO" are you referring to the disgusting novus ordo mass?
I feel bad for trad cats. Their hierarchy hates them and they have to watch their religion constantly slip further away from The Truth.
Keep on the journey, I pray you become Orthodox!
@@MrWesford How can you call home an ethnic church?
This gonna be fire
Great content man, always reliable content and appreciate the work you do. It would be good to see you improve your setup though, like having your mic on a stand so you don't have to hold it, having a more level camera angle and such. Looking forward to all that's in the future. :)
This video was recorded about a month and a half ago- I've moved since then and have been able to set up an office with a desk and everything that will fix those problems.
@@Seraphim-Hamiltondon’t listen to them. I miss the ten hour live streams with puggy snoring in the microphone lol
I always find it very interesting that the defense of practices like Icon veneration literally always consist of taking something that is unambiguous and very clear in its context, and then trying to force it to become ambiguous by pulling it out of its context and then developing it into something that it was never trying to say.
Also claiming that because God revealed himself as Christ, is somehow justification for venerating an Icon of Mary or some other creature is just odd. So because God the creator now has an image, we should then also bow before images of creatures? The math just don’t math. Scripture is clear in what it says about images, the supposed evidence supporting the making of images always relies upon stretching things out and reading doctrine into them.
Best work on this topic I've heard. Thanks for doing this!
Okay, I finished watching this. Lots of interesting biblical reflections here. I agree with the majority of what is presented here, but don't see why it would constitute showing "Why Gavin Ortlund is Wrong About Icons," as the title suggests. I also wouldn't agree that there is no distinction between making and venerating icons. In the Old Testament, the people of God made iconography in the temple but didn't bow down before and pray through it as a window to heaven. Nonetheless, thanks for engaging my work.
I always expect to see you somewhere in the comment section beneath these videos, thanks for your work Dr.Ortlund.
Hi Dr. Ortlund! Thanks for engaging and watching. This is just the first part in a lengthier series. Hopefully we can engage more directly at some point in the future. God bless!
You think early Christians could somehow make icons without venerating them _at all_ ? You don't think the very acts of making them and displaying them are themselves forms of veneration?? Do ponder and explain.
"made iconography in the temple but didn't bow down before and pray through it as a window to heaven"
And yet we can find Scripture citations of the people bowing toward the temple and believing the earthly Temple was a copy of the Temple in heaven:
"For Christ has entered, not into *a sanctuary made with hands, a copy of the true one,* but into heaven itself" Heb 9:24
"Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple." Rev 11:19
"I bow down toward thy holy temple and give thanks to thy name for thy steadfast love and thy faithfulness" Ps 138:2
"But I through the abundance of thy steadfast love will enter thy house, I will worship toward thy holy temple in the fear of thee." Ps 5:7
"And let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst."
Exodus 25:8 (cf. 29:42-43)
"the LORD is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other"
Deuteronomy 4:39 (cf. Joshua 2:11; Isaiah 66:1)
Bowing isn’t worship
@@therealkingbaldwin Technically, he didn't say it is. Let's respond to what people actually say, not what we've heard other people say or what we assume they are saying but didn't actually say.
Great video! One question that needs to be posed to Protestants and all those who hold iconoclastic tendencies is does the New Testament abolish the economy of sacred images that the Church inherits from the Synagogue and Temple? If so, an account as to why the Early Church had iconography and worshipped liturgically needs to be given. Secondly, the Early Fathers venerated the relics of the Saints. The principle of venerating the relics of the Saints is the same for the veneration of icons. Lastly, the Reformation's doctrine of the invisible church is really nothing more than the application of iconoclasm to Ecclesiology. It is a total relegation of both Christology and Ecclesiology to the realm of invisible platonic forms that only exist as figments of Protestantism's iconoclastic imagination.
Remember how the other ANE societies specifically show the perversion of idols in a religious sense - they considered each city-god an actual god, and the priests, citizens and visitors of the city would bathe them, feed them, and worship them as actual beings; having your city-god as an empty space inside of an Ark would be confusing to them (who would be fighting Israel's opponent's city-god literally up in the heavens when Israel is at war if they don't have a statue in there?).
But Christ brings the ANE paradigm to Israel in a real way! He really IS God, and one that REALLY can eat, bathe and, as He will in His Second Coming, do battle by virtue of His Divine Light just as he did battle with death when He died and rose for us. Only now, when the ANE gods have all toppled, do we have the REAL and PERFECT Icon - Christ.
Will you tag Gavin so he can see this because he seems to do some reactions and interaction
☦️♥️ Dear Brother Seraphim, I apologize for being off topic, but I need your attention, I have also already addressed Brother Jay Deyer, as I understand, at the moment our highly respected and valuable apologist Sam Chamoun is in a state of choice between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic , please talk to him about this and help him make the right choice, I ask you for the sake of the Lord☦️♥️
Thank you for doing this. Dr Papandrea and I actually did a video about this on my channel :)
Big if true. (It’s true)
But I don't understand, then, the logic of why Cherubim could be depicted in the Old Testament if they weren't seen (except by a few prophets, I guess).
I'm Orthodox, just trying to figure that bit out.
Why Gavin doesn't understand Orthodoxy...
Because he's Reformed 😁
"I don't have time for Orthodoxy. Now pardon me, because I have a Nontrinitarian cult to go after in the Philippines."
Come on people, get in here!
So if it's only because they had not seen God in physical form, why is the second commandment repeated in 1 John 5:21? Jesus had already revealed himself.
I wish Seraphim would write Bible commentaries
Thank you for doing this!
Incredible video. Mind blowing.
Hi,
Thanks first and foremost for this great explenation but then I have a question:
If God revealed himself in Christ and thus allowed us to depict him don't we try to depict him as realistic as possible? Because every other methode would't really reflect the recieved revelation and following your line of argument be idolatry?
Any thoughts on this?
Ortland's failure to mention Dura Europos was a glaring omission on his part.
Thank you. if you are engaging you should maybe meet with Dr Ortlund to discuss? That would be really helpful. Would you consider it for the future? Congrats on your nuptials by the way
Looking forward to this takedown
46:20 curious that when Christ and the disciples are picking grain in the field and the Pharisees accuse them of breaking the Sabbath Christ's comparision to David and his retinue doesn't go to David but rather to the Temple. One greater than the Temple is here Christ says.
If the opponent denies that a visible representation of God is viable in any way, then the Incarnation cannot be God! By the way, I don't think it's necessarily **wrong** to Tu Quoque with the Biblical Canon not appearing in the earliest Fathers bit, so long as one points out how iconography/relics can be identified or necessitated some other way during Persecution. Knowledge of the Protestant Canon is a bit more difficult to nail down during that era than icons are.
I think it’s ok to point out that Ortlund doesn’t seem obligated to follow “the consensus of the scholars” on numerous issues and that his case kind of turns into special pleading, but I think the point was just to say that even if that’s true it’s not an argument against what he’s putting out there.
@@evren.nikolaosall of ortlunds arguments boil down to special pleading since in his view the saints and early Christian figures he quote mines have no authority on anything. It's a bizarre form of whataboutism.
Lots of good stuff, several items new to me that clarified some issues. However, the extrapolation and conclusions made don’t logically follow. When it says, make no image, the extrapolation to now we can make it because we have seen Jesus. It seems tenuous at best and definitely concluded by looking back based on veneration of icons. If we can now make icons since we have seen Jesus because we know what he looked like, where is the image of Jesus that tells us what he looked like? It seems like we are still in the same boat as the OT, the disciples saw what Jesus looked like, but we don’t, we have no idea, so any image we create would be our imagination and not an image of Jesus.
where can one find the concept of the three heavens? is it in scripture or some churchfather? thanks
Hello Seraphim. I like your presentation. How would this argument of not seeing God as a proabition to not make an image of God work with Abraham seeing the theophanie of the Trinity?
@@johnnyd2383 are you asking me if Abraham painted the theophanies?
@@johnnyd2383 I don't think I ever insinuated that Abraham painted anything
So did the other group left and created their own church after? Without images..
So, because the incarnated Son is an icon of the Father, we have an overturning of the religious part of the commandment against Idols; the Commandment doesn't vanish, as we can still sin by them (by e.g. iconoclasm's denial of the intimacy of His two natures or even by over-relying on icons and relics!) but, like the Sabbath going to Sunday, the Commandment transforms and transfigures because of the reality of the Incarnation bringing God personally near to us.
Thank you, gentlemen.
It is claimed that the prohibition against images springs from the fact that the people had not seen God and therefore had no paradigm from which to copy His image, but that we know have seen Jesus (God the Son) and therefore we have such a paradigm. The argument breaks down in Numbers 12:8. Moses saw the form of God and, by the logic presented, he should have been permitted to make an image of God which then could be shown _and copied for all to see._ The fact that Moses was still under the commandment forbidding the making of such an image demonstrates the fallacy of the argument that we have seen God and thus may copy His image. In addition, many believe that Abraham saw God (pre-incarnate Jesus, appearing as one of the three "angels" prior to the destruction of Sodom) and that Jacob saw & wrestled with God; even so, God later said what He said in the "2nd Word."
Furthermore, no one during the Apostolic Age created an accurate image of Jesus, so our alleged "copies" of God's image are _faulty,_ and thus _they are just as forbidden as if we created a golden calf _*_or a wafer of bread_*_ and pronounced, 'This is our God!"_
@@johnnyd2383 O wise one, where is the proof that Luke painted "icons," or that Peter put in an order for some to painted? Where is your documentation?
@@johnnyd2383 So in other words, you have no early church writing to quote. You just pull fictitious "facts" out of your arse.
@@johnnyd2383 You're bluffing, and you're being rude. On Easter Sunday, no less. You disgrace the cross of Christ, which emblem you display next to your moniker.
@@rexlion4510Classic tactic, sanctimonious and righteous indignation, "on Easter Sunday, no less." No need to make any real attempt to engage with the suggested material, better just shift the argument to telling him how rude he's being.
When St. John of Damascus notes it as common knowledge that St. Luke wrote ("painted") icons, he's drawing from the oral tradition of the Church. Of course this isn't dogmatic, and is therefore not a required belief. However, dismissing longstanding oral tradition out of hand isn't something Orthodox Christians do, for not only do we have full and visible continuity with the early Church (distinct from the doctrinal developments of Rome), but many things are not documented in their respective times or centuries, including particular historical figures.
Given how imminent the Second Coming of Christ was through the eyes of the apostles, it's not unreasonable to surmise that the apostles simply didn't foresee oral tradition becoming so controversial among novel sects of Christianity over 1500 years later. In other words, given the indivisible unity of the early Church ("that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment"), it's not a stretch to conclude that oral tradition was simply taken for granted in the first century ("hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle"), onward for a thousand years until the Great Schism.
You certainly don't have to believe that St. Luke was the first Christian iconographer, or even that he took part in iconography whatsoever. Even for those who are Orthodox Christians, it's not required that one believes this, regardless that it's remained a commonly accepted belief throughout Christian history. Given how close we can clearly see St. Luke was with Mary via the text and context clues, that St. Luke must have been quite skillful with precision in that he was a physician, that St. Luke is the sole person particular icons are attributed to, and that this oral tradition (having been written down eventually) has survived over a thousand years later, I personally believe it, as do a great many others.
Worth mentioning also is the presence of oral tradition throughout much of the ancient Israelite faith before the Incarnation of Christ. A few examples, "He shall be called a Nazarene," "the scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses' seat" (an actual stone seat in front of the synagogue), "when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses," "now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses" (previously unwritten names of the magicians who opposed Moses), "Elijah...prayed earnestly that that it would not rain" (1 Kings never mentioned Elijah praying), etc.
If I'm to understand Christianity as the continuation and fulfillment of the ancient Israelite faith before it, and if I'm to accept what we're told in Scripture about the Church, that it is "the pillar and foundation of the truth," it doesn't seem right to dismiss these things of rich and longstanding tradition (especially Apostolic Tradition) which Protestants are content to overlook in absence of any real critical thought.
P.S. the Image of Edessa is genuinely a neat thing to look into.
@@jabrication8048 Despite all of what you wrote, you never refuted what I wrote. The fact stands that the maker of this video made a claim, and I showed that the claim falls apart under logical scrutiny. No commenter in this thread has refuted the logic I presented.
As for Johnny's claim about Luke, that's a separate claim. At least you addressed it by stating that John of Damascus writes _something_ about Luke painting _something,_ but even you fail to quote the subject material or to give a citation that anyone can look up to verify the content and context of your allegation. But putting that aside, it is one thing to have paintings and it is quite another (and sinful) matter to bow, kneel, and pray toward such artwork. I hope you can discern the difference.
Great videos
Brother, you sayed that representation of images was forbiden becouse God has not revield Himself. But Moses has wrote how God apear to Abraham as three man. What than Israelites has not represent God how He apeared to Abraham?
Are you saying God incarnated twice? Speak clearly please. Christ was a real person in history, he is not just a story. He had a physical image, we don't know how the theophanes(sp.?) appeared to Abraham in visual appearance but we know Christ was real and have a general idea of his appearance.
What would the israelites depict before, three random illustrated people? Three phantoms? Please be clear with such a bold claim
amazing stuff...
Thank you for your exemplary work
No acknowledgement of Suan Sonna's work/videos? No reference to them?
When are we gonna get a formal debate on this subject
Thesis is false: God did reveal his form in the old covenant, Moses saw the form of the Lord and the second commanded stood
The problem with saying, "Now, we've seen seen His form, therefore the 2nd commandment is reversed" is that we are creating a prescription from a logical possibility, which is obviously problematic.
@johnnyd2383 Does that mean we reverse the commands and do the opposite?
Can we now lie or murder or commit adultery?
Or is there something about the 10 Commandments that are still relevant?
@@johnnyd2383 What about the 2nd Commandment is meaningfully relevant today if the veneration of icons is a legitimate practice?
@@johnnyd2383 I will ask again. What is relevant about the 2nd Commandment today?
@johnnyd2383 The first commandment is a command against idolatry.
The second is a similar command also dealing with idolatry, but it specifically references images and bowing to them. How is the 2nd Commandment distinct from the first if they both just mean, "don't fall into idolatry?"
@johnnyd2383 Alright, let me see if I hear what you're saying. You're saying that the rationale for the 2nd Commandment (not making images and bowing to them) was that they had seen no form. The incarnation changes this, because we have seen a form of God in Jesus.
Am I understanding you correctly?
Where’s the next part?
It will be uploaded within the next week.
A Tour de Force
Questions
Is this a salvation issue? Is this a primary, secondary or tertiary issue?
Anything related to the Incarnation is central to salvation.
@@helovesmankind of course - but from the reformed point of view they don’t see icons as having anything to do with the incarnation.
@@helovesmankindworshipping icons is a salvation issue?
@@matthewkay1327 who said anything about worshipping icons?
@elyudekrane15 guess I wait for part 2 and 3. But these are protestant concerns.
I heard your case out.
Unfortunately it was not very compelling as there were several plot holes, ad hoc arguments, and clear non sequitirs.
First, there were a lot of interesting theological points about symbolism and such. (The tabernacle and such being a reflection of the pattern Moses saw of Heavenly court.) I don't disagree with these. The problem is that you will say a lot of solid things then make a jump to Orthdoox belief that is not justified.
The first problem is that you misunderstood Romans 1 and idolatry. Idolatry is not about making the image according to our imagination or about making an image according to our imagination (so it is about us).
This misses many of the points in Romans 1 and also the attacks made on idolatry in the OT and elsewhere (isaiah and 1 Corinthians).
If a demon appeared as an angel of light and demanded worship (or the beast in Revelation) and people made an image of it for worship, that is idolatry. Your philosophical digging into the self-centeredness and error of idolatry does not address this obvious case.
This is deeply connected to how you entirely glossed over the part about making images of things in heaven, under the earth, etc. in Exodus.
This is not just a prohibition against making images of God, but also his angels and also the gods of the nations (which are at times referred to as demons). These were prominent examples that often came up alongside making images of God.
This would be a prohibition against makig an image of one's dead ancestor (or of a prophet like Moses) in order to try to communicate with them. Communicating with the dead is also specifically prohibited elsewhere.
My point is that you are trying to reduce the command to a hull which you can then say is no longer in place.
Your main logic for this is based on saying "for you saw no form."
But since Christ is the image of God (hence a form), the command no longer applies.
This is flawed. For instance, just because one reason is given, it does not mean it is the only reason. For instance, it says that we celebrate the sabbath because God rested on the 6th day but also for some other reason at another place.
You can't just dismiss a command so easily. More needs to be shown.
I could say more about the image of God (which are people, of which Christ is the only perfect image), but I think that a plot hole in our argument is concerning what to make the icon to look like.
It is exactly done the way you said that inages were prohibited in the OT: out of people's imaginations.
I don't believe we have any extant images of Christ (except maybe shroud of turin which I am not convinced is of Christ) so images are done based on our imagination, based on how people around us look.
One of the earliest images of Jesus in the catacombs looks like a Roman with short hair, deeply unlike the images in Orthodoxy.
Besides this, all the discussion of Jesus as the image of God in John (which was seen by Moses, some of the elders of Israel, by Abraham, etc. and so by your reasoning they could have made an inage because they saw him contrary to the 2nd commandment), it is a non sequitir / plot hole to say that Jesus is the image of God that we have all seen (even those in Corinth so the universal Church) but somehow we need pictures of Jesus to make his incarnation seen.
You unintentionally made an argument against the use of images based on a protestant understanding.
I guess you might argue that those in Corinth only sae Christ through the icons that Paul brought. This however undercuts your argument about the non-uniqueness of the apostles' seeing Christ as argued by protestants.
About veneration, you hardly justified this. Your argument about the beginning and ending of Ephesians is not valid.
It is not a consequence of what you are saying (so it is a non sequitir).
Respecting our parents and enjoying our inheritance and also respecting our Father snd receiving an eternal inheritance are interesting analogies worth studying.
What this has to do with venerating God through our parents is not something that comes from the text based on your argument.
If there isn't another reason yo see this, then you are just reading in what you view the way veneration works then using this eisegesis as evidence that this reasoning is in Scripture.
This is flawed reasoning.
About common sense veneration, this is a bait and switch.
If you say even protestants venerate images by not desecrating them then ok. But that only gives you veneration that one gets by being respectful of an image.
It does not give you the idea that you express prayer or worship to or through the image.
Bookmarking this for later so I can address it when I'm at home. A lot of misunderstanding going on.
@@CosmicMystery7 Ok thanks.
My point is that he says he is making the case FROM Scripture but he is just reading it into Scripture.
Remember, he is going against those people (scholars and also protestants) who say that it is alien to the text and a later development. It isn't enough to try to find something that reminds you of the doctrines. He says he is making an argument for it and it just isn't compelling.
The issue is that you're interpreting the text based on your worldview, SH is using biblical texts not really to prove it's true, but to prove it can and has been read this way. The Orthodox epistemology doesn't begin with the Bible itself it begins with the person of Christ in history (the Infinite revealing himself to the finite).
If this were a real debate between denominations and critiquing coherency, EO has the only one that's consistent.
Exodus 25 seems to mention that there were images of angels in the temple.
So by your logic God contradicted himself
@@UltraX34 Hello. Thank you for the comment.
The point of my comment was to react to Seraphim's arguments in the video.
I found that all of them made a leap from sound arguments to his conclusion.
Can you quote what I said that is contradicted by there being images in the temple?
(This is something everyone agrees to because as you pointed out it is right in Scripture and that I don't deny.)
I don't see where I said something that contradicted this so if you could point that out it would help further discussion on this topic.
Remember that it's sinful to use unflattering photos meant to mock people. God bless.
Ortlund himself used this photo in a humorous manner during the height of CZcams debates on iconography. There was a pleasant and jovial back and forth between Ortlund and interlocutors where they would use unflattering photos of themselves and each other.
I would honestly recommend removing this comment, as it reflects a lack of understanding of the context and as such is a premature judgement.
I took this thumbnail from a thumbnail Ortlund used in his own videos on this. That's what it's a reference to.
Icons are just like the Papacy Nicea 2 used multiple forgeries to prove their point, and we just need 1 example to refute since it claims that the Apostles venerated Icons.
Oh yeah!? I’d like to know more about this!
@@bradleyperry1735Yes Like Mary’s painting made by Luke (Never happened)
Using multiple forgeries of Church Fathers and claiming that it’s an apostolic Fathers when the Earlies representation of Christian art is Syncretistic.
What forgery did Nicea II use?
@@justin_messerMary painted by Luke.
Jesus sending an Image to king of Edesa.
Quoting forgeries of Church Fathers.
As I said is just like the Papacy.
Also Pseudo Basil.
none of these are “forgeries.” The are written accounts of tradition. Again show where Nicea II uses forgeries.
I pointed out in Ortlund’s channel that recent scholarship is actually divided in wether or not Basil wrote those disputed letters. JSTOR has a write up on a peer review paper that argues for the authenticity of letter 37, for example.
Can we link Moses face being veiled to the Veronica cloth?