Venerating Icons: A Protestant Critique
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 07. 2024
- Here I give an overview of some of the historic Protestant concerns about the practice of venerating icons, especially with a view to Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic beliefs. The main focus is on an interpretation of the development of icons in church history.
Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus.
Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai.
SUPPORT:
Become a patron: / truthunites
One time donation: www.paypal.com/paypalme/truth...
FOLLOW:
Website: gavinortlund.com/
Twitter: / gavinortlund
Facebook: / truthunitespage
LATEST BOOK:
Why God Makes Sense in a World That Doesn’t: The Beauty of Christian Theism: www.amazon.com/Makes-Sense-Wo...
00:00 - Introduction
01:40 - What Are Icons?
03:33 - Framing Comments
10:25 - Historical Sketch
29:14 - Concluding Questions
Dr. Gavin, I honestly believe that God used you and Dr. Cooper to keep me grounded in my Protestant convictions. You are one of the few Protestant apologists who can defend your worldview when in dialogue with Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians. Keep up the good work.
Thanks Michael, so glad to hear that! Bless you.
May i pls know the exact name of.Dr Cooper. As you said, we need.more well informed evangelical.apologists like Dr Gavin.
I think I do an alright job. In all seriousness, there's plenty of good Protestant apologists, you just have to be on the lookout.
@@beverlypecsoy4383 Jordan B Cooper, a Lutheran
Hey twin!!! :)
Subbed! I was very impressed with your purgatory video and so took a look at your other videos. As a protestant with a long held interest and love of religious art, including icons and reliquaries, I am LOVING your content so far!
This interest of mine long ago sparked a wider interest in Catholic and Orthodox liturgy and practices so I'm over the moon looking through your videos to see lots of interesting content to binge!
We are really blessed with some quality Christian content on CZcams, it may not get the audiences it deserves but I will definitely be recommending your channel to others now.
Thankyou also for your integrity and the care you take to honestly represent what Catholics and Orthodox believe and where practice diverts from official teaching. Its very important that a Catholic/Orthodox believer recognises themselves and what they believe in our descriptions of them and aren't misrepresented. Your desire for fairness and respectful handling of their beliefs makes me happy. Thanks again for all your hard work and research. I hope to see your channel grow!
thanks so much, glad to be connected! :)
I am so glad I found your channel. I’ve been listening so much to Catholic channels like Pints with Aquinas, Ascension and even recently Capturing Christianity (not yet Catholic from what I hear), that I’ve been craving to hear some sensible (and fair) Protestant perspectives on these questions. So grateful.
Likewise, I provide a Catholic perspective on the Protestant perspectives, in my ongoing critiques of Gavin's excellent presentations, as a brother in Christ. I'll be replying to the video above shortly.
@@DaveArmstrong1958 how about the poor people praying rosary to Lady Carmel to get theirs family members out of purgatory?? 😂
I’m a current student at MBTS and seminary really spurred my love for church history. Your channel is amazing and the things I’ve learned are being expounded upon further and I love it! I wish our seminaries had a more comprehensive track for church history studies but I’m thankful for resources like this!
I stuck with this thing through the whole video and you know what? it turned out to be a very good and thorough covering of the material.
glad you enjoyed it!
Your scholarship is so impressive, and I can't wait to buy the book!
Incredibly helpful!!!! Thankful for you!
The spirit of the Iconoclast continues to challenge the role of Icons in our Orthodox Church since the seventh Ecumenical council and is unlikely that a universal acceptance will ever occur. From a simple minded Orthodox layperson, I wear a Crucifix and have an Icon of Christ in my bedroom. I do not worship this Icon but for me it is a constant reminder of God’s presence in my life and indeed his universal omnipresence. Does this make me a weak/lesser Christian, in need of an Icon to remind me of Christ’s constant presence in my life? -quite possibly but what can I say, it helps me to stay focused on Christ whenever I see and venerate the Icon. So how can anything that helps you to focus your thoughts towards Christ be a form of idolatry? The Israelites built and worshipped golden statues of animals and other entities as did the Vikings, ancient Egyptians, Hindus, Buddhists and so on. It is beyond my comprehension how one can compare a picture of Christ used as a simple reminder of his presence compared to worshipping statues of false Gods. When I kiss an Icon of the Virgin Mary or a Saint of the Church, I am merely paying respect and using the image to focus my mind on the person depicted in the Icon. I also kiss a photo of my recently deceased father, does this mean I am worshipping that photo or the person in the photo, certainly not, I am simply remembering my father and everything he did for me during his life.
I understand this. When my husband was deployed, my toddler daughter carried his photo with her, and kissed daddy goodnight through it. It didn’t REPLACE HIM at all. She didn’t love the photo paper, frame, and glass. She loved DADDY.
@@CarolineJoyAmico This is a really beautiful metaphor.
I agree with almost everything you said, icons and images are, in my opinion, a perhaps greatly helpful mnemonic (memory) device that may aid in helping people remember God in their lives, in addition to some iconography providing an emotional effect, resonating with the people who use them, in those cases, I certainly don't thing of iconography as being a replacement for the things depicted themselves.
But, why venerate the icons?
I know that veneration of the icons is a part of Eastern Orthodox theology, but for me, icons are made to invoke mnemonic or emotional sentiments, which will in turn, cause me to worship and praise God directly, if I had an image of Christ Jesus on my wall, I would, upon seeing it and reflecting on what Christ has done, would pray directly to God and worship Him directly.
I suppose the idea is that when you're venerating or kissing the icons, you're also venerating what they depict. But I don't see why you wouldn't just venerate or kiss the things themselves, since God can be venerated or worshipped anywhere.
@@computergamescritical6917 Thank you for your very good feedback on the controversial issue of Icons. When I walk into a room with an icon of Christ my mind goes to God and I immediately say a prayer directly to God in heaven, hence the Icon reminded me of the presence of God. Otherwise I probably would just turn on the television and left my prayer till the evening. Hence the Icon helps me to prayer more often, even if just for a few seconds, a very helpful reminder/tool to help pray as often as possible. The Icon itself is clearly not God or worshipped in any way, somewhat similar to looking at a photo of a deceased loved one, it warms the heart and helps to remember all the good things about the person depicted in that photo. Indeed if I was true to the word of unceasing prayer, like the hermits or desert fathers I may not need an Icon but when living in the world with so many distractions anything that helps to direct your thoughts towards our loving Father has to be a good thing. I believe that Icons are simply a tool that can be used in ones spiritual journey, some Christians use them and some do not, obviously the most important thing is a personal relationship with Christ and whether you use a particular tool to help strengthen or maintain this relationship is a personal choice and should not create so much attention and distraction from the primary goal. Best Regards and may God Bless you.
Very well-stated, John.
Very thought provoking questions at the end.
Thank you Dr Ortlund, as always I greatly appreciate all that you do! What a refreshing perspective from the protestant stream!
This was an excellent treatment of the subject. Thank you!
This is why I love my Protestant tradition and heritage that has been given to me. Because we have the room for correction and freedom to follow our conscience. It often seems that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have hurt themselves by claiming to be infallible or almost infallible because then they can not take any criticism or reformation. It is insulting to them to even suggest that they may have gone astray on a topic, even slightly, because then it is like you are questioning the entire tradition and church teachings and god forbid you suggest they could be wrong on something.
Exactly
IVE BEEN WAITING FOR THIS!!!
Hope it doesn't disappoint! :)
Me too!
First, I admire your charitability. As someone who venerates icons, I don't judge you and I know you don't judge me. As for your historical sketch, I would add some caveats, i.e. the synagogue of duros-europos, christian catacombs, and that kind of stuff. Just to give the rounder context that hebrew and early christian culture was not void of images. As an iconodule, it is easy to justify the sparsity of images with the fact that identifying openly as Christian would get you killed, hence why the ixtus fish was so prevalent.
I have stuff to say about Charlemagne, even though he was only a footnote in your story. Charlemagne's reaction against veneration was due to a faulty translation of the Greek text, confusing veneration with worship. Plus, he was politically motivated to react against the East as to legitimize himself as the Western Emperor. The bishop of Rome wrote to Charlemagne rebuking his position against veneration.
This doesn't say anything about the theological justification of the icon though, which is what is most important. For that, I would recommend the introduction and first chapter of the book "The Meaning of Icons" by Lossky and Ouspensky. Especially the introduction deals with the question of innovation and tradition in the church and I highly recommend it, you can find it online nowadays.
As to my own interpretation, here goes.
So the Old Testament prohibits an image of God. In my understanding that is so because the Hebrews did not have an image of God. Through the incarnation of Christ, that changes. When God attained bodily form, people were able to point at him and say "This person right here, this is God". We were able to recognize God in this man, which opened up the ability to recognize God in an image.
Of course, the justification of images is not the same as the justification for its veneration. When we kiss the painted hand of Christ, our veneration goes to Him who it represents. Do we not do the same with pictures of our beloved? I'm also convinced that many protestants instinctively kiss the cross they wear around their neck.
When we venerate saints, we venerate people who have incarnated Christ in themselves. They were the good soil, and they have been gathered into the seed, the Word, and have become part of its body, and have become a plant bearing fruit. This fruit has in it the seed which is the Word of God. As it is said, we kiss the hand of our emperor to show our allegiance, and we kiss the hand of our duke for the same reason. It is not rebellious to submit to the duke if the duke has submitted to the emperor. Likewise, the saints are co-rulers with Christ and are submitted to Him. Moreover, if you see a person doing a heroic sacrifice, is there anything wrong in adoring that and wishing to imitate their embodiment of God-given virtues? We do it all the time, most of us don't even realize we're doing it when we're watching Marvel hero movies. I say, whatever historical reservations you may have about icon veneration, you have to judge a tree by its fruits. If, bowing down and kissing icons helps me humble myself before God, then that is good. Test everything. Keep what is good, and stay away from everything that is evil.
The big problem with idolatry in the old testament is that it is a rebellious act against God, and people worship fallen angels as their creators and liberators, instead of recognizing God as their creator and liberator. There is no such confusion in the Orthodox Church.
One other thing, in my understanding, the story of the woman in Luke 8:43-48, who touches the garments of Jesus and is healed thereby, alludes to the mystery of how inanimate objects can participate in Christ. That mystery is also one of the big mysteries of the faith. We, being dead in sin, were made alive through Christ.
I’m currently Anglican, and I appreciate your arguments in favor of iconography :) and the veneration of icons. I currently have icons in my house they are most helpful during prayer and engages the senses to biblical stories and saints of the past
Another interesting point, that the Jews before Christ would have Phylacteries holding scripture which they would wear on their persons or nail to their door frames, and would kiss them. Obviously, this is a form of veneration. And if we acknowledge that icons are learning tools no different from scriptures, it is not too much work to derive to icon veneration.
It's been confirmed that the synagogues at duros were heretical jewish synagogues, meaning outside the majority orthodox view of most jews, due to their heavy hellenic influence. Orthodox judaism during that time did NOT have icons or icon venerations in their churches.
That cannot be an argument.
@@sandromnator I don't see anything overtly heretical about the synagogue. Orthodox jews may disagree but we're talking about the Orthodox Church which sees itself as the true successor. And all this was just historical context. As I said there were images and statues in "mainline judaism" such as the cherubim and the zodiac
In the Bible the clear difference is seen in the bronze serpent. When gazed upon properly it brings healing as it is an image of the cross. Later it is worshipped in and of itself and is commanded to be destroyed. There are images in almost all of the early examples of churches from the catechombs, dura Europa, and Megiddo. Christ says if you have seen me you have seen the Father. That is why we use the psalms about seeking God's face. I do not worship wood or paint. Only God alone.
Superb video, thank you Dr. Ortlund
You are incredibly charitable and honest in your pursuit of the truth. I appreciate that so much. Listening intently.
Yeah, this guy is charitable towards demonic catholic practices, thats why i stopped watching his vids. But i keep getting them on my side bar.
Just revisited this. Really excellent.
This was very thought provoking. Thank you Pastor Gavin.
As always, your videos are a breath of fresh air to many evangelicals. Keep up the good work
Another enlightening lesson on Church history. Thank you for sharing the history of the early church and their perspective against the veneration of the saint Jesus told his disciples as we read in John 16:13-14 "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but what ever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you." The veneration of saints is bringing glory to the saint. When one asks "Who is your patron saint?", or if one wears a necklace of a saint that tells us who is getting the glory.
Lots of patience, alot of nice arguments, I think you did an excellent job of teaching here! I thought I knew stuff about this topic but you covered alot of stuff I did not know! 👍
Thanks for the excellent video, Dr. Ortlund. You state that icons can be used for teaching and decoration. Do you think they can be used for inspiration just as any type of art might be?
Hello Dr. Ortlund, how are you brother?
Is it allowed to translate your videos and upload them?
You could use the translated videos, for free of course, for your channel too.
What Do you think?
God bless you
what can you say about images in catacombs in rome pre-constantine era?
The problem with the "falling into idolatry" argument is that idolatry always led Israel AWAY from God into worshipping OTHER gods. Veneration of icons for over a thousand years has never steered the Orthodox away from worship of the Holy Trinity and faithful adherence to the Nicene Creed. Has the practice produced good or bad fruit? Protestants have to show from Scripture that the practice is offensive to God and thus sinful, or that it has produced bad fruit. I don't believe - having watched this video twice - either of these points was addressed.
Often it was worship of other gods and images in addition to the God of Israel. Not necessarily worship only of other gods instead of Him. The argument of Protestants is that veneration is worship in some ways, and that belongs only to God. Also, his argument is mainly against the idea that it was an apostolic or ancient practice as some claim. I don’t think he’s trying to make a biblical argument aside from some references against idolatry. He does address this partially in his last section in question 4 I believe.
@@HoldToChrist That isnt even true - how many times was it written that the Israelites walked completely away from God for other gods? If the argument from protestants is that veneration is worship - well that is just their opinion and has no theological weight.
@@dankmartin6510 I might have to read through the whole Old Testament again pretty much to get proper biblical context for this, but I was under the impression that they had the high places to worship other gods in addition to having the temple or tabernacle to worship God. In polytheistic contexts it was and is highly common for multiple gods from multiple belief systems to be worshiped at once or collectively.
To say that bowing down before an image is worship or only due to God and not icons is not without theological weight.
“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.”
Exodus 20:4-6 KJV
Bowing down is clearly against the second commandment. Not all veneration actions are worship, but some that have been practiced are.
@@HoldToChrist Even if what you say is true in some cases, to even pretend that God co-existed with other actual gods of the capital G variety is not even worshipping the same God - it is the same thing as conflating Allah and God because the Muslim claims it as such. Was it not written that at one point Israel did not want to know God or his ways at all? And thus they were put under Judgment for it?
While I am not blaming you specifically for what others do, I notice now that no matter how many time Exodus 20 is broken down, Protestants /never/ acknowledge that EO response to it - you (not exclusively you) pretend that the EO have not responded at all and just keep repeating it like you discovered and understood its final meaning yesterday and the EO are just unaware of it - perhaps you have never had someone address you over it before, so as I said I am not pinning it directly to you but more or less addressing the now tradition Protestants have created out of it.
Exodus is specific to GRAVEN IMAGES, which are IDOLS, and IDOLS ARE GODS WITHIN AN OBJECT - that is not in any way whatsoever an injunction against Orthodox Icons. The further elaboration of bowing and serving is still within the context of them being Graven Images; idols; other gods and spirits - not Icons which are Venerated (not worshiped or served) as a show of Love, Respect, and Honor - only an Icon of Christ would involve Worship and that would be exclusively to Jesus himself, not the Icon itself.
I have to ask this - do you protestants really believe that for almost 2000 years that the Orthodox were just unaware of Exodus 20? That we just ignored it on purpose or something? Or is it more likely that your understanding of Exodus 20 does not apply to the EO at all?
@@dankmartin6510
I haven’t heard many EO responses to Exodus 20, which is why I’m grateful to hear what I have from you. So the response you’ve given me is that “graven image” is defined as a god or spirit within an object, and that it exclusively applies to that conception of an image. I was under the impression that it just meant an image that was graven, as in carved. Like engraved, and that it was simply saying that it is wrong to carve an image of something on the earth or in heaven and then bow down to it or serve it. You don’t have to do both to break the commandment. It’s just saying don’t give worship due to God to a carved thing. I think the real argument here isn’t about what “graven image” means, but what worship means, and what constitutes it, and whether it is necessary or spiritually healthy to direct worship through an icon rather than simply to the prototype. I’m assuming you are EO since you brought it up. What, as an EO Christian, does venerating icons to do strengthen your faith or help you worship God? I’m truly curious what your experience has been with it.
could you explain your first paragraph again? I’m having a hard time understanding what you’re meaning. I think you’re right that they did turn away completely at certain times, but they also had times where they were trying to worship it in a both and kind of way as most polytheistic cultures do. I don’t know why the fact that that would be a misunderstanding of the true God undercuts the fact that that’s what they were doing or trying to do.
Also, I’m not saying it’s a 1:1 thing for icons. Just that some of the practices devoted to icons seem to be only meant for God, such as asking the icon, or the saint it represents for help or protection or propitiation for sin. I’m not saying that Eastern Orthodox Christians view icons as gods or as a spirit inside of an object, just to be clear.
John of Damascus is "like a window into another world". Sounds like an icon to me.
haha, I thought about that afterwards...
Lol
Well done!
There is a “long tradition of dissent” to Nicea 1 as well. Arianism survived in massive numbers all over the place for the first 800 years or more of Christianity. Can I just appeal to the long line of arians throughout church history? I don’t know how valid that argument is
Does the Brazen Serpent (which is a type of the Crucifix) not constitute a venerated icon... that needed to be destroyed when that veneration turned into adoration?
The Brazen Serpent was a type and shadow of Christ that healed...It was destroyed precisely because there was worship of the brazen statue itself, rather than what it represented.
@@sandromnator Nope they venerated the Icon because it intercede.
I've heard the "venerating" argument before but it seems like this word is used to confuse the issue. Venerating holy people or holy objects is contrary to both Old and New Testament theology. Slipping a new word in on us (as "veneration" is never used in the bible) is a trick to get us to think it's okay to bow down in worship to holy people or holy objects. "Venerating" religious objects is worship, according to the bible.
Let's talk about the Commandments:
Lev. 26:1 - Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the Lord your God.
It's not the image so much as the bowing down to it, which is considered offensive to God. (More about being offensive to God later.) Whether you're a Muslim circumnambulating a black cube or you're a person kneeling before a statue of Mary and lighting a votive candle, it's all the same thing.
I was raised Roman Catholic. Our mom took us kids to the darkened church building where we knelt in front of a statue (usually Mary), lit a candle, then dropped a nickle into the slot beside the bank of candles. I always wanted to light more than one candle but mom made me stop at just one.
I was "confirmed" in the sixth grade, where I (along with my class) knelt down and kissed the bishop's ring. Kneeling down to holy things or holy people is worship. Covering it up with a different word (venerate) is just so much semantics. A rose by any other name...
Now let's look at some New Testament passages and examples of how the Apostles and angels behaved.
Acts 10:25-26 - And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. 26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.
Would Peter have allowed me to kneel before him and kiss his ring? Not according to the New Testament. Later on, those who hijacked Peter's office gladly welcomed such practice but not Peter.
Rev. 22:8-9 - And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. 9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.
The Apostle John fell down at the feet of an angel, who instantly corrected his action. "See thou do it not!"
Is God offended by our bowing down to holy people or holy onjects? Are you willing to take that chance? I mean, fear of the LORD is part of our "reasonable worship" of Him. Is bowing down to that image of Mary so important to you that you'll run that risk? Think about it. If you ask, "How close to breaking a commandment is safe?", then you're off on your own trip. You've violated the spirit of the commandment. As the Apostle Paul noted: "There is no fear of God before their eyes." Romans 3:18
Finally, I'll refer you to one of the STRONGEST warnings against worshiping idols that I have ever read and IT'S IN THE CATHOLIC BIBLE! Read Wisdom starting with the 13th chapter and then continue reading through the 15th. The author talks about the evolution of idolatry and how it STARTS WITH VENERATION and then turns into full-blown idolatry. When I read this, I was amazed that I was reading it in the Douay-Rheims version of the bible. I thought to myself that Catholics all need to read their own bible. It would change lives. Read Wisdom 13 thru 15.
I lived in a Catholic country and how they treated their saints particularly on Saints Day really shocked me. If one accepts (and I am not sure about it) the veneration-worship distinction the way these people treated these statues of the saints was at time delirious.
I went to the Holy Land as a protestant and saw Orthodox or Catholic people kissing the stone of unction at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and felt repulsed as if they were worshipping it. Now I feel ashamed that I didn't love Christ that much and that I was so prideful to judge them. I'm not saying all Catholic celebrations are holy or anything, I'm actually investigating Orthodoxy and I definitely differ with some Catholic approaches, but it should not be a broad brush between the two faith traditions. In all humility, I'm sure some Orthodox pray to a Saint excessively or in a manner that is more superstitious than holy. We're all doing things that aren't perfect all the time. Some protestants get way too wrapped up in a certain pastor's approach and believe some crazy, unbiblical things as well. God is the ultimate judge of people's hearts, though. Blessings!
@@OrthodoxInquirer thanks for sharing your experience. I got to admit it was hard work keeping an open and generous heart to our Catholic brothers and sisters and their practice during my life there. I dare say I did not always succeed. I also agree with you that we should love all our Christian brothers and sisters irrespective of how they practice their faith. Just like we reach out to other faith and non faith communities.
What kinds of things did you see and which Catholic country? I've heard that N. American versions of Catholicism are much lighter when it comes to crossing lines of venerating saints and Mary.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 It is, in hispanic countries they venerated as Gods.
@@internautaoriginal9951 Yes because catholics in Latin America and the Philippines live the catholic faith like how every catholic did before 1900s. Irish and Italians used to worship like that looking like pagans. Carrying dolls and parading them around the city’s square.
If this lesson tells us anything, it's that whenever "the church" (your church, my church...whatever the confession) gains temporal power, all hell breaks loose. That's not our purpose, not our charge; God's kingdom is not of this world, and never will be, not until he himself decides to reign.
The Seventh Ecumenical Council
Held in Nicea, Asia Minor in 787. Under Empress Irene. 367 Bishops were present.
The Iconoclast Controversy
It centered around the use of icons in the Church and the controversy between the iconoclasts and iconophiles. The Iconoclasts were suspicious of religious art; they demanded that the Church rid itself of such art and that it be destroyed or broken (as the term "iconoclast" implies).
The iconophilles believed that icons served to preserve the doctrinal teachings of the Church; they considered icons to be man's dynamic way of expressing the divine through art and beauty. The Iconoclast controversy was a form of Monophysitism: distrust and downgrading of the human side.
The Council's Proclamation
"We define that the holy icons, whether in color, mosaic, or some other material, should be exhibited in the holy churches of God, on the sacred vessels and liturgical vestments, on the walls, furnishings, and in houses and along the roads, namely the icons of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, that of our Lady the Theotokos, those of the venerable angels and those of all saintly people. Whenever these representations are contemplated, they will cause those who look at them to commemorate and love their prototype. We define also that they should be kissed and that they are an object of veneration and honor (timitiki proskynisis), but not of real worship (latreia), which is reserved for Him Who is the subject of our faith and is proper for the divine nature, ... which is in effect transmitted to the prototype; he who venerates the icon, venerated in it the reality for which it stands."
Defenders of Orthodoxy
St. John of Damascus (675-745)
John Mansur was educated at the Caliphate Court in Damascus. He held a position comparable to that of a Prime Minister. He was a devout Orthodox Christian. He entered the Monastery of St. Sabbas in Palestine, where he wrote many poems, hymns and treaties, one of which is called "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith." This work is a systematic theological summary of all the basic doctrines of the first seven centuries, a monumental work which became a classic in Orthodox Theology.
The Triumph of Orthodoxy
An Endemousa (Regional) Synod was called in Constantinople in 843. Under Empress Theodora. The veneration of icons was solemnly proclaimed at the St. Sophia's Cathedral. Monks and clergy came in procession and restored the icons in their rightful place. The day was called "Triumph of Orthodoxy." Since that time, this event is commemorated yearly with a special service on the first Sunday of Lent, the "Sunday of Orthodoxy."
Brilliant video. As always you handled the facts with care and good measure.
Fascinating stuff - thanks Gavin
The Council of Frankfurt sounds really interesting. Can you recommend some more sources about this (both primary and secondary)?
Do you have some book recommendations on this subject? especially on the seven ecumenical council?
Really enjoying watching your videos! You mentioned some books that you like on the subject of the church fathers/Catholic Church/Orthodox Church…I’ve recently wanted to dig further into all of this and really see where my Protestant beliefs come from, historically, and how the east/west split came about with their beliefs. Besides the books you mentioned in this video, any more books you’d recommend to get started? I’ve only read a couple intro books for the Orthodox Church (Kallistos Ware), and I feel like I don’t even know where to start!
The book he presented, Latin West, Byzantine East, would be a start--gives a comparison of the cultures behind the churches.
Anathema to the calumniators of the Christians, that is to the image breakers.
Anathema to those who apply the words of Holy Scripture which were spoken against idols, to the venerable images.
Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable images.
Anathema to those who say that Christians have recourse to the images as to gods. Anathema to those who call the sacred images idols.
Anathema to those who knowingly communicate with those who revile and dishonour the venerable images.
Anathema to those who say that another than Christ our Lord hath delivered us from idols.
Anathema to those who spurn the teachings of the holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church, taking as a pretext and making their own the arguments of Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus, that unless we were evidently taught by the Old and New Testaments, we should not follow the teachings of the holy Fathers and of the holy Ecumenical Synods, and the tradition of the Catholic Church.
Anathema to those who dare to say that the Catholic Church hath at any time sanctioned idols.
Anathema to those who say that the making of images is a diabolical invention and not a tradition of our holy Fathers.
Anathemas of the Holy Seventh Ecumenical Council
Sounds more like Trent!
Sadly the apologetics in the protestant circles are very abrasive in approach and often resort to straw man arguments. So I started listening to Catholic podcasts a lot. I am thankful to find an peaceful and reasonable protestant. And yes, this is an issue I cannot get behind although I admire many good qualities in most Catholics like being philosophical, reasonable and their high view of sacraments.
You need to read the dogmatic documents of the Catholic Church to find out what they really teach. I've found Catholic apologists to tend to misrepresent doctrines to please their listeners.
Understanding scholasticism is also extremely important. Catholics believe that God's activities are creation. For them, sacraments are pieces of created grace that then get applied to cancel out equal measures of sin committed after baptism. If you don't get enough grace from sacraments and merit from your good works, you end up in purgatory to burn off the rest. If you do, then if you have bonus works, you're a probably a saint and those extras go into the Vatican's bank of grace called the Treasury of Merit, which the church can give out in return for people going on pilgrimages or giving money.
In this economy of created grace, then the eucharist is necessary to have a KIND of high view for the purpose of making up for temporal sins to avoid purgatory. But on the other hand, from another point of view, reducing the eucharist to a mere "means of (a finite measure of) grace" as if it is has its value in currency to cover a certain quantity of finite sins is not a high view of the eucharist at all!
@@toomanymarys7355 Thank you for explaining this. I'll look into their sacramentology more. I familiar with scholasticism and favorable towards it.
I have also observed that some Catholic apologists tend to smooth out their doctrines to the point where it could be misleading. I found that to be the case especially with praying the saints and venerating icons. I completely resonate with Gavin's concerns on these matters.
When I was in seminary, one of my professors said that some times when you're in scholarly circles you examine the fine details of theology and parse out things neatly and finely you don't realise where you end up.
The neat cerebral distinction of dulia and latria makes sense. But pastorally and practically, I want to stay away from the danger of idolatry as much as possible. I don't want to put myself and others in danger of a sin that's warned about again and again in scripture.
Dr. Ortlund as a protestant what do you think or what do you say to wearing crucifixes or hanging a crucifix on a wall at one's home? Not for adoration or veneration or praying too or anything like that. Simply as wall decoration, a memorial and reminder of one's faith in Christ's sacrifice, his blood, death and resurrection. Or wearing a crucifix as a fashion choice and as a symbol and testimony of one's faith to others??
Awesome video! You are so gracious in your speech. I to have gained peace in my protestantism by listening to your defenses. I was in a place of intense stress over whether I should be E.O and you have helped relieve the doubts in my head. God Bless!
So glad to hear this! May the lord guide you and bless you.
@HolyHammerOfByzantium Sadly I see this kind of rhetoric (accusatory and disparaging) from EO and Catholics far more than I see loving and thoughtful dialogue. I encourage you to evaluate how you are portraying the Body of Christ.
@HolyHammerOfByzantium your rhetoric is devoid of any semblance of the heart changing sanctification possessed by born again Christ followers. You should be growing in love and gentleness, not sectarian tribalism. God can work through anyone, even demons, but that doesn't give us an excuse to ignore His commandments on how we are to behave.
@HolyHammerOfByzantium Thank you for proving my point.
@HolyHammerOfByzantium I trust the words of Christ more than I trust edgy little internet trolls who spew unchristlike belligerence and try to bar shut the gates of Heaven to Christ-followers.
I can't judge your salvation. I can say, however, that from your behavior; you appear unsaved according the Biblical criteria of showing the fruit of sanctification.
I urge you to think about that and whether you are in Christ, and what you need to do if you are not. Further neo-trad trolling will be ignored for the remainder of this wonderful holiday. Happy Thanksgiving!
U gotta remember the strong influence of Islamic iconoclastic behavior at this time too...I feel like that would be playing a role historically too
When are you having a discussion with Jay Dyer or Kabane?
Great work brother, it's good to learn of the history. Personally I though it happened much earlier than it did. When did they actually begin putting an icon at the head of the mass and on top of the popes staff?
Man, Dr. Gavin, thanks for your work. Seems like CZcams is Saturated with Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists who just bash American Protestantism, without any knowledge of classical Protestant theology. Thanks for all your work and your wonderful defense of the reformation. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox positions, as I contemplated them, were ultimately depressing. Too much looking to myself, no assurance, the heavy focus on Mary and the Saints. It just wild. Reformed theology is so wonderful and God centered. It’s so beautiful, comforting, and assuring, knowing I am secure in the hands of God, and that it is the Will of the Father that Christ loses NONE of which is given to Him. Keep up the good work and God bless!
Catholics are almost always on defense to Protestant offense on the internet. If Protestantism had value wouldn't you be talking about that value instead of bashing others?.
I'm an Orthodox Christian, I like your channel, thank you for your work! God bless you.
Just a comment about your concluding question: we are not venerating an object, we venerate what the object show, the material object is the window (as you quoted in the beginning). In the tradition, we often talk about the images in the same way of the words: codes that inspire themes in your mind. There is no much differences between words and images, that is why there is little room for innovation in Icons as there is for other aspects of the liturgical life (you don't invent while writing an Icon in the same way you don't invent while interpreting the Bible). Every part, from the theme, form and color, etc, follow strict guidelines.
Sometimes is hard to define just what makes an icon an icon. For example, the icon "Battle Between Novgorod and Suzdal in 1170" is a triptych depicting a historical event and the role a famous icon played in it. "Innovation" is a bad word, but it sure stretches the genre.
Unless if you don’t venerate an ikon you end up in hell…
Thank you, @@synthesaurus, for illustrating the iconodule position. It is totally heretical, adding to the gospel, changing the gospel, contra Galatians 1:8-9.
Hi, Gavin!
Thanks for this video!
One thing it made me think on and that I’d like to ask you about is your concession of Nicaea II as an ecumenical council.
I imagine you’d agree that there is nothing objective about the councils themselves that can differentiate seven of them from all others, which makes defining ecumenical councils problematic from any perspective.
Catholic and Orthodox perspectives will generally lean on some kind of eventual universal reception as a key part of what makes a council ecumenical. But then key to that identifying the normal seven is the view that those other than themselves are not part of the church.
With your view that the church is and was wider than those groups, and has been divided, at least from the time of Chalcedon, how do you affirm (or, perhaps, what do you mean by affirming) the ecumenicity of some of these councils without conceding to these groups that Coptic and Assyrian churches, for example, were not a part of “the church”?
This is a really good question. It is very tricky defining what exactly is an ecumenical council. I definitely think Nicaea II can be challenged as "ecumenical," but it comes down to how we define that word. I need to think more on this a bit ... thanks.
Nailed it! I actually just wrote an article against the veneration of icons recently. I must be reading your mail!
Where can we find it
What's your view on watching a Jesus movie and being moved in devotion?
@@andys3035 not. Because of the images since they have no spiritual power. Technically in the Westminster confession of faith all worship should not have images, including mental worship should not have images. I would not bow down before a movie about Jesus.
@@truthisbeautiful7492 that's not the purpose of icons. They don't have any power in themselves. But if you have never been moved watching the crucifixion or shed a tear, you have great emotional control. I saw someone else comment here that their daughter kisses a photo of her father when he's away on trips. The act of kissing the photo is the same as kissing an icon. It's what it represents that's the point.
@@andys3035 I have never seen the Lord Jesus be crucified, but Scripture says though we do not see Him, we love Him. We believe on Jesus through His word. Christ is certainly proclaimed as crucified by the scriptures. But God uses the Scriptures as His instruments, as the Holy Spirit wrote Scripture, and the Holy Spirit works with the Word. No similiar promise or spiritual power is attributed to images. In fact, the Scriptures warns us against images over and over, including in the New Testament. God has never commanded us to bow and to kiss images, in fact He commands the opposite. God can only be worshipped the way He has told us, we don't have the right to make up any worship we want.
Now if a person becomes emotional seeing an actor pretending to die, that is not something that is promised in Scripture or commanded. If you saw a man executed, or someone die in the ER, would you also become emotional? Perhaps, but that doesn't mean it is something that God has commanded or that God has promised to bless, or that any emotional experience has any spiritual power.
In fact, did you not read in Scripture how man did not have repentence, even though he had tears? A person can cry for many reasons that don't involve true repentence from sin and faith in Jesus Christ. It doesn't require the Holy Spirit for an unbeliever to cry, or for men to sorrow who have no hope. Godly sorrow works repentence, but wordly sorrow leads to death. So tears and sorrow alone do not prove that a religious practice is blessed by God, or commanded by God. In fact, without any Word from God, it cannot be done in faith. Because faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. But since there is no Word of God that commands us to bow and kiss images, it cannot be done in faith. And Scripture says whatever is not of faith, is sin. And without faith, it is impossible to please God. Since faith has to do with the Word of God, and faith is spiritually given by God, doing religious practices without faith is sin. Doing a man made religious practice because you think it might be good or might be reasonable is not divine faith.
Dear Dr. Ortlund, a very relevant topic to delve into in discussing idolatry, veneration of relics against the Bible.
As an ex staunch Catholic who was guilty in every sense of idolatry, how would laity be able to discern what constitutes idolatry and veneration?
Since the veneration of Mary was deemed right to the extend that she is seen to give grace and mercy for salvation, how would this prevent worship to her too?
As the Biblical Trinity is the Father, Jesus Christ and the Blessed Holy Spirit, from where I had come from the Trinity is Joseph, Mary and Jesus....so where and how is a Catholic to focus on worship without the presence of the Holy Spirit? Idolatry is essential for worship.
Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Roman Catholism have this common practice, idolatry.
Thank you very much once again Dr Ortlund.
Untold blessings to those whom you Pastor..
May God continue to shower you with His choicest blessings and divine wisdom to clearly divide between true pure Christianity from paganism.
God bless.
Very Nice and gd
How isn't venerating icons EXACTLY LIKE "saluting the flag" or "bowing for the King of England." It is EXACTLY THAT...and a tiny bit more, because they are venerating A STORY about that Saint.
Dont worry about it. Just keep bowing befor your graven images. Dont worry about what the bible says.
@@peterzinya1 Do you have some kind of alternative explanation for what "the bible" is....or what counts as "the Bible?" You realize who compiled "the Bible?"
@@charlesnunno8377 Well friend, the bible i read is the KJV. I understand the NKJV is OK and maybe a few others but i trust the KJV.
Please, not another catholic who gives credit to the CC for getting us the bible. At least you didnt say....wrote or gave us the bible like some catholics do. Catholicism is all about men and giving credit to men. I give credit to the holy ghost for getting me a bible.
So tell me, if the bible is a catholic book and held in such high regard by the CC, why are its priests, its costume holymen such vile perverts the world has ever seen?
@@peterzinya1 I think the Ancient Orthodox Church effectively "gave you the Bible."
You literally deleted words in it because you don't like certain implications.
@@charlesnunno8377 Orthodox Church. You guys are really something. Last i heard, hebrews penned the Old Testament under gods supervision. The NT was penned by jews who knew the Lord and walked with him.
I dont know where you get your info, but im sure its from men who wear costumes.
When you say "You" deleted things from the bible, you mean someone like me did it, long ago. The bible has been diligently translated many times. Catholics have this hysterical notion that Luther crept into every home and church and bookstore on earth and changed a few words of every bible on the planet. The Santa Claus of the bible, or the tooth fairy of scripture. One lonely man sitting in his lonesome room changed every bible on earth. Do you catholics ever read what you say?
Ill tell you what the CC got rid of from their own bible......the second commandment. The CC had to do that, in case a catholic ever bothered to open a bible and stumble upon that one. Reading the 10 commandments in catholic sunday schools, the kids might ask embarrassing questions. My girlfriend was born and raised catholic and went to catholic schools. Got a top notch education. Nuns were mean and she smelled a rat with all the Mary stuff. She never believed a word of that madness. At 18 she never went to a CC again. Didnt even look back. Her two kids didnt even know what a catholic church was when i first met them. Now they do.
Having previously been a Protestant, the content contained nothing particularly new that I hadn’t heard before. But it nevertheless is a well thought out and charitable Protestant critique communicated with great meekness and love.
I would like to note, however, that a significant oversight in the argument is in the failure to recognize the distinction for Orthodox between unanimity and conciliatory, particularly as it regards what Orthodox consider to be the voice/position of the Church (past and present). The Orthodox Church does not recognize the authoritative voice of the Church along the lines of unanimity but of conciliarity. As such, the truth may always be opposed by some and at some points by many/most, but that doesn’t diminish the truth we hold to as the authoritative position of the Church (so we claim). So, the fact that many (even significant) Christians throughout Church history may not have condoned the veneration of icons, and the fact that at one point those Christians may have even been the majority does not necessarily carry significant weight to Orthodox as an argument against veneration of icons. A similar (but not 1-to-1) situation is Arianism which was pervasive in much of Christendom and at many points was the majority stance for long periods of time (it wasn’t Athanasius against the world just as hyperbole, after all). But that fact is rather insignificant as an argument for Arianism. A lot more could be said, but I think that suffices.
And a final, shorter note: I feel the end of the video which touches on icons/saints giving us what we can and should be seeking/receiving from God alone could have benefited from a charitable caveat conceding that that specific point is more complex than could be treated in that short portion of the video. I say that because that particular point strikes at deep and well established Orthodox belief regarding what salvation is/looks like as well as a number of other significant areas of Orthodox belief, and the comments made about it toward the end may have an unintended effect of making it seem like Orthodox don’t also believe that God alone is our salvation and that Christ is the one mediator between God and man who offered himself for us as a sufficient, once and for all propitiation of our sins before God. The only difference is what exactly we mean by that.
Like I said initially, I appreciated the video. And overall I consider it a rather well stated position that holds even greater weight because of the humility and love with which it was communicated.
Your rebuttal only makes sense if one first assumes that Orthodox epistemology is correct, which Dr. Ortlund does not. Dr. Ortlund's point is that it's not "me vs the church." It might be him vs the Esstern Orthodox church, but certainly not the church at large.
The fact that large numbers of Christians have held views that are now almost universally thought heretical (i.e. Arianism) is not evidence that EO epistemology is true.
Friend, what is the authority that makes you believe the Orthodox position is correct. The authority of Protestants is Scripture which Jesus states is true.Is there any similar endorsement of tradition by Jesus? If Scripture which God claims is true is opposed a practice like veneration of images in the cult to God, for example in the Divine Liturgy, what other possible authority could trump Scripture?
As with every topic you address, I appreciate your approach on the subject of icons as well. As a Protestant, I completely understand where you’re coming from and I agree. I do have some icons on my bedroom wall such as the Annunciation, Nativity, Jesus’ Baptism, Transfiguration, Crucifixion, Resurrection, and a few saints and martyrs such as Athanasius, the Forerunner, Stephen, Ignatius, and Apostles Peter and Paul. I find them beautiful depictions of events and people in salvation history and church history. But my Protestant conscience will not allow me to greet them upon entering my room, or to bow to them even with all of the research I’ve done on the argument in favor of icon veneration. I will say that I appreciate all the thought, care, and guidelines that go into painting , or as some would say “writing” icons. I love how in Orthodox iconography, Mary is almost always depicted with Jesus and she is always directing attention toward Him with her hand. I was seriously considering becoming Orthodox at one time but I never could arrive at a sense of peace about it so I remain joyfully Protestant. I couldn’t agree more with your point about being able to work things out in Protestantism as opposed to being required to practice things that violate your conscience as a convert from Protestantism to Orthodoxy or Catholicism. I realize that many Protestants have converted and I don’t judge them. But I have read several confessions of former Protestants who struggle with venerating icons even after having converted some time ago. I have also read material from other converts who seem to have no issues with it. Obviously, I can only speak for myself. I love my Orthodox and Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ. I’ve learned many beautiful things from them and I continue to do so. Thanks for this video!
It's not good to not do what is true and good because it violates our consciences, especially when our consciences have been formed by heretical aberrations in practice and doctrine. Either St. John the Damascene is correct, or he is a heretic. Icons have existed from the beginning. The Bronze Serpent in the wilderness. The Cherubim on the Ark. Even the Ark itself is an icon.
The second commandment only existed because God had not made himself an image, but Christ is the image of the invisible God.
Most Christians accept and love one icon: the cross. The cross is not God. It is a created object. Yet it adorns the walls of faithful Christians' homes around the world, even protestant homes. Why? Because the non-God image is something that conveys grace to us by helping us remember the gospel.
Icons have always been part of God's covenant people, always.
You sound like you have a good idea of what's up. May the Lord bless you, brother.
@@rileychapman642 Hi Riley! Thanks for your reply. I agree with you that it is not good to not do what is true. It just seems that you and I don’t agree on what is true when it comes to this particular subject. I do humbly ask that you, as my brother in Christ, would pray for me that I would accept, believe, and walk in all that is true and I will do the same for you. The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face shine on you and be gracious to you; the Lord turn his face toward you and give you peace.
@@willcunningham7049 As Christians we are not allowed to disagree on iconography.
Christ is the physical and material icon of the Father.
I respect that your conscience may not feel at ease, but we are not muslims or gnostics who deny the incarnate God and the redemption of the material world.
We are Christians who affirm the incarnation.
Of course, always praying for the light of Christ to enlighten the eyes of those who cannot see.
@@rileychapman642 Thank you, Riley. I really do understand where you are coming from. I appreciate your prayers 🙏🏽
@@rileychapman642 Jesús is not an Icon.
Gavin, I confess this may be your most powerful criticism of the Catholic/Orthodox/Coptic theology-measured by an n of 1 (me).
I admit, I’ve been a little shook everyday since you released this. This was my FOURTH viewing, and I just can’t perceive a hole in your argument. Very much in a “oh sh*t, what if he’s right?” posture right now. 😬😬😬
Thanks for mentioning that Matthew. The fact that you are thinking in that way shows how much you care about the truth. That is an admirable quality and I have every confidence that God will honor that and direct you in your thinking about this. May the Lord richly bless you!
@@TruthUnites Gavin, I have a follow-up question. Here, I ask you to take the question in the posture of me seeking pastoral advice.
Suppose when I kiss or venerate or focus my attention on an icon (or relic, or some other visual representation of a saint or Mary or even Christ)…. What I am subjectively doing is using the visual representation as a sort of psychological “tool” to focus my attention, or keep my attention fixed on the intentions of my prayers…
I’ll give a concrete example. Set aside for a moment whether you think it’s proper to ask for Mary’s intercession. Not because I’m not interested in your views on that (video idea!!), but because I’m really focused on the proper vs improper use of iconography… Suppose I am praying a decade of the Rosary while gazing upon or glancing upon a statue of Mary. In my subjective mind, the point of the gaze is to avoid letting my mind wander and “forget” that I’m undertaking a Marian devotion. Feel free to play with that hypo to make the point better in your estimation. But my key question, as I wrestle with this-and I admit this video has really hit hard.
In addition to teaching and decoration… would it be idolatrous to use imagistic representations as a kind of “psychological tool for focus,” or would that-in your view-be too close to the line?
@@jmschmitten Thanks for the great question Matthew. I actually don't have a problem with using images as tools to avoid distraction, necessarily. I think the concern would come in with (a) praying to saints (another video topic sometime -- its on my list!) or (b) venerating the icon. Simply using it to heighten your focus is not where the concern lies, precisely. Hope this helps!
@@TruthUnites it does, thank you! Could I trouble you by changing the hypo in what I hope is a helpful way to avoid other theological issues. If I was praying at a crucifix, and I kissed the feet of the statue, and my actions and focus were intended to try to emphasize focused meditation on a deep, thoughtful reflection of the historical Passion in something like an Examen… if I were a Baptist member of your congregation, would I have erred?
@@jmschmitten Believe it or not, we don’t actually have crucifixes in my Baptist Church! Shocking, I know! Seriously, there may be expressions of kissing and bowing to an image/object associated with Christ that would be acceptable and good; it’s tricky to know exactly where the line is crossed and one doesn’t want to be judgmental. But I do think there is a line, and I think the practice affirmed at Nicaea II crosses beyond it. One of the worries of course is that we move beyond images of Christ to images of saints. We also start to get into what constitutes “veneration” per se.
Great stuff. I think of it in the terms how the Bible treats the other well defined sins- like they're made of fire (dangerous to play around with). When there's potential to misinterpret, or to get confused about a thing, the Bible just says 'just don't do it at all'.
The question on my mind is: What does an EO person who venerates relics think he's doing? What is the internal logic as practiced by someone who does this? Surely it is not the case that someone woke up one day and said, "Let's see how dangerously close we can get to idolatry without crossing over."
Acts, why did many in the early Church seek the mediation and intercession of mere human beings like Peter and Paul and their prayers and shadow and handkerchiefs? Because of the power of God working through relics! Even the blameless before God Elizabeth felt unworthy as the Mother of the Lord approached her. This is not worship, but respect! Such as Solomon who bowed down before the Queen Mother and the brothers of Joseph who bowed down before him! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Thanks for the response. To me, it is naive to suppose that it's only idolatry if someone wakes up in the morning intending to commit idolatry. I doubt the countless Israelites worshiping at the high places or worshiping the golden calf all woke up thinking that.
@@TruthUnites was Elizabeth guilty of idolatry for feeling unworthy in the presence of the MOTHER of the Lord? Was Joshua guilty of idolatry for bowing down before the presence of the Ark of the Lord? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@TruthUnites : Yeah.... I just want to better understand what their motives are from the inside before I start bringing out Golden Calf comparisons.
@@actsapologist1991 well, we can agree that there are differing expressions of idolatry (some more severe), and that motives matter. But the principle you initially stated I see as problematic for the reason I mentioned. Blessings.
Icon is the visible representation of scripture don't have sacramental elements?
Gavin, in Eusebius of Caserea's Church History Book XII, Chapter 18. Around 325 AD. He writes that the bleeding women from the gospel whom Jesus healed, made a shrine of a woman kneeling with a statue of Jesus. Which he writes he had heard of it having miraculous healings itself. And said this shrine was still present when Eusebius wrote this book. He then said it was normal for the Gentiles to have preserved paintings of Peter, Paul and Jesus
I am OO and thank you for this, I have the same issues and concerns, however, I am not iconoclastic, there’s still a purpose to them. The main reason why I am in favor of them is because I’ve learned so much from the icons, and more about how I am supposed to be like as a Christian. All of the icons we have in Church are of Martyrs, who had great faith and who are people I want to be like. I do get concerned seeing some people worship icons, especially RC and some EO, who don’t understand the difference between veneration (which I see, but don’t do) and worship (which is only due to God). It looks suspicious at times and is a cause of concern. We could do away with them at any time if the need arises. In my personal experience, I don’t see anyone ever venerating icons outside of kissing some relics/items, and I don’t see bowing to them ever, either. I don’t think that kissing the icon or relic or item is worship simply due to what we say about them, just having an attitude of gratitude towards God for His mercy and grace and for that item being a representation of it. For example, in my church we have relics of St. John the Forerunner and some people venerate them in thanking God for St John’s presence and his role in Jesus’s life. The icons never become a focus of Church and are only used to focus back to God. The icons on the wall actually depict people who had similar experiences to the life of Jesus (they’re mirrored from the icon of an event of Jesus life). Never do I see people claim that icons do things, however I’ve heard some say that God works through them, not the icon itself or even the person depicted doing anything, just God doing something around icons. I really can’t answer because who knows, He might and we can’t tell God where he can and cannot work at.
There might be a difference between the EO and OO view on icons.
If I could be convinced that Apostolic Presbyterial Succession was not biblical, I'd look into Oriental Orthodoxy or Assyrian Church of the East before I'd consider Nikonite or Papist churches. Both have made many inventive innovations and ignore your older faith.
@@Mygoalwogel just because they schismed earlier doesn’t mean the faith is older. I bet the Assyrian church of the east would love to get a convert. I don’t mean this in bad spirits though i may convert to OO.
@@obscuredictionary3263 The priest from Assyrian Faith YT channel says they aren't interested in converting other Christians. They're more active with Iraqi Muslims. Their ecclesiology is more like whoever is not against us is for us, unlike Papists and Nikonites.
@@Mygoalwogel It seems eastern orthodox are not open to ecumenism and are constantly calling the Ethiopian that found his way into a EO comment section a heretic. Which is strange because you would think there would be hard line oriental orthodox that believe EO are heretics but they don't seem to exist. The Asyrains practice open communion which is strange considering they are pre-protestatant.
@@obscuredictionary3263 That's one reason I'm attracted to OO. They're not defined by an identity crisis.
The Assyrian Church is not open communion to Protestants. Their position is not that the RC, EO, OO are heretics, but merely that Pope Celestine I excommunicated them wrongfully. Cyril of Alexandria was a good theologian but a nasty human, who not only wanted Nestorius dead, but didn't even wait for the Persian Empire Church to figure out what was going on. They barely gathered that Nestorius wasn't a raving Appolinarian (their main enemies at the time) when they suddenly found themselves anathematized.
St Basil "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)"
Just because St Basil said something doesn’t make it right. He’s not infallible.
The point you don't seem to understand is that men including Basil who is by the way misquoted here by means of a forgery, are fallible Scripture is NOT fallible
As a ex-Protestant, I kissed The Bible when I would feel extremely touched by something I read. I also used to kneel at the steps of the stage (that they called the “altar”) towards the cross behind the stage - in a moment of repentance during an “altar call”. No one there ever called me an idol worshipper for that. But now being an Orthodox Christian, I have constantly heard my family and old Protestant friends call us idol worshippers for showing honor to a holy image of Christ or His Saints. Also a notable point: One venerates an icon of a Saint because of Christ shining in them. You cannot understand the mysteries of Christ and His Church unless you participate in them.
I would actually have called that idolatry, as would all of the active members of my congregation. The Bible can become an idol to us when we see the book and not God, and the cross is not something we should be bowing to in any capacity.
Christ is present within the heart of every believer. If one believes we are honoring the shining of Christ in the icons, then we also should be bowing to one another.
@@Draezeth "we also should be bowing to one another". Actually, we do.
@@Draezeth the Bible can become an idol, but that is not what happens when you kiss your Bible. Idolatry is severing the worship ladder before reaching Christ, not just showing respect in front of a material object. Bible idolatry would be more similar to Sola Scriptura.
That's a completely untrue statement. You don't have to venerate icons to find Christ. The Orthodox pray to so called saints more than Jesus. No saint can save you. The Orthodox have many splinter groups. Which Orthodox Church are you talking about?
The point is that SCRIPTURE calls those that engage in venerating publicly in a CULT ANYTHING that is not God, IDOLATERS, and what they do IDOLATRY, friend.
Thank you so much! I knew about the Council of Hieria for some time, but I never knew just how brutal the history was. I also never knew about Frankfurt and just how lame some arguments where.
Thanks Dan, so glad it was helpful. Yeah, the history is really fascinating.
Having been raised in a protestant church, this subject has always been difficult and even troubling for me. However, where a protestant church might use a verse such as Romans 9: 5 "...Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.," in an Orthodox church, with Christ Pantocrator at the top of the dome, above the apostles, saints, Old Testament Patriarchs, early church fathers, and the congregants of the church - a picture is painted that is infinitely more effective (for me) of Christ's kingdom - here, today, right now...timeless.
I agree with the difficulties of veneration, adoration, etc. These strike me as dangerous. I appreciated Dr. Ortlund's comment: "Icons are acceptable for teaching and decoration." I was very much taught by the image of Christ's kingdom via the icons in the Orthodox church.
I would say that in my opinion an image of Christ who is God revealed in the flesh of man CANNOT EVER be an idol. Still other images venerated during liturgy is a big no. Thus I agree with Gavin almost 100% and feel he is doing Christ's work when he explains and defends the Protestant position which in this case is totally correct
Modern Christianity in a nutshell: All "know" (about) Christ but practice very little of what He did. Remember, those who know a lot will be held accountable for the things they knew but did not do.
Also, humility means accepting the fact that you do not know or understand everything, but do it in obedience to those who have experienced more of the divine grace, because they practiced their faith more than you have time to.
Maybe, Icons are wrong to venerate, but I know that people who witnessed their faith for Christ during the most dangerous times, without fear, and without stumble, who gave up their lives for Christ centuries/millennia ago also practiced what I practice today. That is enough proof that venerating and showing respect to those through who God worked are worthy of such veneration and respect.
And finally, who are we to judge how we choose to show our love and respect for those who served God unto death (or end of life)?!
Veneration and bowing down to an icon is not a requirement or a law in the Orthodox Church, it is a choice! Icons not only beautifies the Church, but it is a constant reminder of who we aim to become, images of Christ!
Well we EO are notorious not practising the religion but just being nominal. Many EO seem to be of the world most of the time bit sometimes go to church becouse it is good to have traditions. If all orthodox nations would really follow commandments of Christ the the whole world would be saved already
Now that I am done watching part 2 of the Baptismal Regeneration debate, I felt free to finally watch this! Lol
This was very much needed and appreciated, Dr. Ortland. I didn't realize that the early church fathers were very much against this practice.
The biggest reason I have struggled with possibly considering another Christian tradition is because of the Eucharist, but the veneration of icons practice in EO, makes it difficult to convert.
Unfortunately it remains a struggle.
I heard you say in another video that you believe in the real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, even though you are Baptist. Is there a particular kind of Baptist denomination that believes this? I'm at a difficult crossroad here!
I asked this question further down in the comment section too, so please ignore that one! Lol
Thanks so much for all you do. I truly believe that you are being led by the Holy Spirit to do this work, and that I'm less alone in this journey now.
Thanks so much. This comment means a lot! It's been likewise encouraging to see so many people out there interested in the same questions I am.
On the Eucharist, there are lots of individual Baptists who believe it, but I am not aware of any denominations. But there may be and I just don't know them. In the broader credobaptist world, there are some non-denom churches that would have a conception of real presence. However, this is admittedly not as common.
Another question that is raised is: do you have to go to a church/denomination that believes in real presence in order to enjoy and experience the real presence of Christ there? IOW, is Christ really present even when people are not thinking about that? I wouldn't want to say that our beliefs about this are unimportant; on the other hand, I don't want to limit our experience to our beliefs. So that is another layer of complexity to this. I personally feel that I have a rich experience of the Lord's Supper at my current church, despite the fact that most people probably don't know about the whole debate!
I pray you find a way to resolve this in your own pathway.
Thanks so much.
Those are some really good points to consider.
Perhaps you could do a video about what you specifically believe about the Eucharist? I mean, is it a belief more in the spiritual sense, or like the Lutherans believe: that it is truly the body and blood of Christ?
Also, if the pastor only believes it's a symbol, and presents it as such, then my conscience now thinks, " Is it right to take it at all?" Because now I'm consenting to a lesser view then it actually is and Christ might be dishonored.
This is so challenging, and I would greatly appreciate any counsel or even a video that might bring some resolution to this issue!
Thank you, again!
God bless!
@@wonderingpilgrim good idea! Will consider that for future videos!
Thank you, Dr. Ortland!
@Truth Unites
Just realized I was misspelling your name, Dr. Ortlund! Sorry about that!
The Jews hated Jesus because he claimed to be in the image of the Father. The understanding of icons comes down to the Incarnation. Either you see it or you don't.
How do Orthodox and Catholics define the difference between veneration and worship in practice?
They call one latria and the other dulia. Then they do the same words and actions for both. Right down to rewriting 150 Psalms to the Mother of God.
Bonaventure’s Psalter of the Blessed Virgin Mary
PSALM 53
O Lady, save me in thy name: and deliver me from my injustices.
That the craft of the enemy may not hurt me: hide me under the shadow of thy wings.
O my Lady, help me ! bestow thy grace upon my soul !
Willingly I will offer thee a sacrifice of praise: and I will give praise to thy name, for it is good.
For thou shalt deliver me from all tribulation: and my eye shall despise mine enemies.
"My Queen and my Mother, *I give myself entirely to you;* and to show my devotion to you, I consecrate to you this day my eyes, my ears, my mouth, my heart, *my whole being without reserve.* Wherefore, good Mother, as *I am your own, keep me, guard me, as your property and possession.* Amen."
The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which is an infinite form of adoration, is offered to God alone. All other veneration is finite by comparison.
There seems to be a desire for something physical to focus our attention and icon's can play a role to help us do that. This also seems to be a snare as seen in the OT. There is an idea from the celtic tradition of thin spaces a place where we feel nearer to God which I think is a good alternative.
Thank you for these videos, there are not that many great sources for protstatns explaining why we do not belive in these things. So thank you for taking the time to make them.
Actually it's not so much the veneration of icons it's the veneration of the people those icons represent.
I have a beautiful ikon of Our Lady of Kazan. She brings me much consolation.
You bow and kiss it? That it's a window into heaven?
@@raphaelfeneje486 Actually I don't bow and kiss it. But in the same way that the long and sophisticated icons of the Holy Bible (words and syntax) open up transcendent realities, so too do holy icons.
@@PaxMundi118 That's actually a terrible analogy. If this analogy was great, we'd see the early church fathers venerating icons
@@raphaelfeneje486 First sentence: 'That's a terrible analogy.' Second sentence: Does not provide any reason it's a terrible analogy.
If your 'counter-argument' was applied, what things should Christians have not believed in before the written recording of the Bible, before the canonization of the Bible and during the period in Church history (which lasted over a Millenia and a half) when almost no Christians could read?
If you want to make a historical argument against the nature of iconography, it would, in of itself, fail -- because it is besides the point...And on the other hand, this line if argumentation would strengthen the need for, and practice of, veneration, as a sacramental means of being in communion with transcendant (and historical) realities, as icons would have been more accessible to lay Christians and the veneration of icons is historically documented in the Christian East and West
@@PaxMundi118 Did the early Christians venerated icons or were opposed to the idea??
One thing I would mention is that the Orthodox typology is that Icons were not allowed in the old testament BECAUSE they would be appropriate after the incarnation and also the beginning of the restoration of human nature. Also the Orthodox position is that every icon is an image of Christ within the saint being depicted. There is also the support for icons that Christ's image was sent to King Abgar of Odessa, and a fairly early tradition that Luke painted images of Mary, and Peter and Paul to send with the apostles on their evangelical trips. I think that there was a protestant lead excavation that possibly found the home of Luke and that painting tools were found there, but I don't know the details.
I practiced Vodou for years. I had an ancestral altar in my home with pictures of deceased relatives. I prayed to them and left offerings of water for them, bowed before them and kissed their photos. It was pure witchcraft. There is no biblical basis for venerating inanimate objects in a religious sense. What the orthodox do during veneration is no different from the Dahomean Vodou priest.
Icons used as a teaching tool are great, especially in the ancient world since most people could not read. As an attendee of an Orthodox Church, I am very uncomfortable with the icon veneration. They are beautiful to look at and can help keep the mind focused, but nothing more, IMO. Although I will say, the huge Pantocrator looking down from above is comforting.
In the City of God, Augustine talks about how pagan idols weep or bleed. That was particularly eye-opening to me. If weeping and bleeding have been traits of idols from ancient times, what does it mean when, after about AD 1000, we suddenly begin to have weeping and bleeding icons? Would God imitate demons?
Demons aren't able to see through time, so they couldn't be trying some sort of discrediting end-around on God.
@@toomanymarys7355 Interesting point! My Catholic father always likes to point to a personal anecdote where he saw and felt a statue of Mary weep.
@@toomanymarys7355 If you were around in Moses's day, you'd be arguing that the serpent was the reason Adam & Eve sinned and was the deceiver, and therefore it was ludicrous to put a bronze serpent on a staff and have the people look at it.
Things which are consecrated to God are not evil. Sins, not objects, are what are evil in their essence and cannot be consecrated to God (ie. you cannot commit adultery in God's name. However, you can dedicate an icon of a saint to God, or a bronze serpent on a staff)
@@CHURCHISAWESUM
Moses was told by God to make the serpent. This is a typology of Christ and us looking to him to be saved.
No ware did Jesus or any of the disciples say anything about icons. This to me is a big hurdle to get past. If it’s so important for worship and the Christian life why not one mention of it.
The examples I’ve heard from my orthodox brothers and sister to justify icons I feel are weak arguments.
FYI I still love you guys and have learnt lots from many orthodox teachers.
@@jamesb6818 I mean.. icon means image, so the serpent on a pole was an icon for sure. You are also an icon as one made in God’s image. I love how the icon causes us to remember our Christian history and the great cloud of witnesses that surround us, pointing us to Christ.
4:15 , 4:43
5:15 - John of Damascus
7:54 - Exodus 20:4-5, Leviticus 26:1
9:32, 16:48 - Where Ortlund is coming from
10:26 - church history
11:22, 11:44, 12:02 - Origen’s debate with a pagan philosopher
13:05, 13:27 - Lactantius
13:57 - Council of Elvira Canon 36
14:22 - Ortlund’s summary of “phase 1” in church history
14:37, 17:45 - Ortlund begins with “phase 2”
15:40 - objects enter the scene
17:11 - icons in the Old Testament
18:37 - Epiphanius on images
19:27, 19:47 - Gregory the Great on images
20:11 - images used as a teaching tool for the illiterate
20:39 - Gregory’s position: veneration vs worship, or teaching vs adoration?
21:16 - Basil
21:39 - “phase 2” summary
21:50 - begins with “phase 3”
24:17 - power struggle
25:28 - “wave of iconoclasm after Nicaea ll”
26:24, 32:30 - Charlemagne and Council of Frankfurt
27:30, 27:55 - Elaborating on Nicaea ll
33:04 - Only talking about abuses?
Thank you!
Is the ruling of the Second Council of Nicean heresy?
Gavin, I Strongly recommend you read St Theodore the Studite and his comment on the difference between icons and idols. Also read St John of Damascus and his defense of icons. Basically to deny the use of icons in worship is to deny the Incarnation of Christ. All of this was sorted out by the 7th Ecumenical Councils. Christ came to us in human form and since he could be seen and even touched there is nothing wrong with making representations of Him.
Great video, I like how you mentioned the historic support for the Reformed position here as this is often overlooked.
Thanks! Yeah, the first 300 years of church seems like a very powerful testimony, in my estimation. Even the later centuries, to some extent.
Yeah, I have just always been skeptical when. I see Catholics kissing statues and paintings.
If our friend must defend himself against Orthodoxy or Catholicism, then the inference is that they are stronger than he, which begs the question of why that is so. Ultimately the Holy Spirit is most strongly evident wherever He has most strongly prevailed over the longest time. Protestantism is still trying to work things out, which is why these videos exist in the first place, I humbly submit.
I agree.
There are Catholic videos that defend their faith as well against Protestantism though...so...?
This isn't defence. It is considering evidence and seeking truth. Allowing his faith to be scrutinised, not merely looking for supporting evidence for what he believes.
There are plenty of defensive Catholics out there
Great work and continue to be blessed in your ministry.
One of the most concerning aspects I have always faced once I converted in my early 20s is just this.
I truly feel that many false professors have infiltrated the church and have confused many issues like this
I currently read a prayer to Mary from the glories of Mary book that quiet frankly scared me.
"I shall fear nothing; not my sins, for thou wilt obtain for me their pardon and remission; not the evil spirits, for thou art mightier than all the powers of hell; not even Jesus, my Judge, for He is appeased by a single prayer from thee. I fear only that through my own negligence I may forget to recommend myself to thee and so I shall be lost'
Just to be clear this is addressed to Mary. Why in the world should I fear Christ in this context? Fearing Christ is always meant to be understood as obeying his command as it is written: work out your faith in fear and trembling.
This then is how a Christian should pray to God. To him directly, for this is putting emphasis and trust in the one who dies judge us as it is written: do not fear this life or those who can put you to death, rather fear the one who can condemn you and send you to death in spirit.
Also, God wants us to go to him and reflect on him and him alone. Adding other external influences i fear that we are adding the Gosoel and overly complicating our walk with God!
Go in peace to love and serve God and all his people. May the love of God bless you and keep you!
God is an Incarnate God. Going to a barren church and looking up at the white roof while you pray is going to lead you into gnostic ideas about the spiritual being superior to the physical. When in reality, man is both, Christ is both, and the church is both. Iconoclasm denies the physical, palpable side of things and has a gnostic heart. The iconoclasts killed thousands of monks, smashed historical artifacts and items that helped us remember much from the early days of the church (can you imagine yourself picking up an icon of Jesus Christ and smashing it, in a church?), and left the churches ugly and bereft of the theological statements that come with iconography.
I'm working on a theory that, in church efforts to ensure Jesus was treated as fully divine, they increasingly downplayed his humanity (in practice, if not in theology), until, to fill the void left by this imbalance, people started using Mary to "approach" Jesus the way the epistles describe approaching the Father through Jesus (particularly in Medieval Catholicism, with a few echoes in its contemporary form).
There's a lot to explore in this idea, I'll have to research it further and would love anyone's recommendations.
Imagine if my kids looked at a picture of me and talked to it, or pictures of say their dead grandparents in order to please me. Instead of visiting or calling me. Just seems crazy
That’s not anywhere near the same thing
Well, my little daughter took Daddy’s picture with her when her dad was deployed. She kissed it good night. She told “him” how much she missed him.
Where was he? Alive, but far away.
Where are our brothers who have passed? Alive with Christ. Far away. But still alive.
It was watching her that REALLY made me see icons as a normal way to remember those you love, who have moved on.
@@CarolineJoyAmico fair point. Thank you.
Does it make a difference that she has an actual picture of her Daddy? We don't know what Jesus actually looks like. And I agree, I sometimes think it would be easier to have good intimate prayer time if I knew what Jesus looked like. And I do catch myself trying to imagine Him.
Could it go too far? If she built a shrine to her Daddy with pictures and flowers, would that feel different?
@@ProfYaffle I think a lot of it has to do with what’s motivating the person. And since we can’t read hearts, that’s a fine line to judge. So I just try not to. Judge, I mean.
On the other hand, I try not to make my brother stumble. So it may also be important to know your circle of friends, and not go further than they would understand, in their presence. But that’s another fine line, because that could possibly get close to bowing to peer pressure.
I really like the scripture about praying in secret, as I mull this over.
Back to motivation… a shrine… I don’t know. Is the person worshipping the image itself? Maybe. But I would hate to judge. I just have to make my own choices.
Also, for ME, it’s not hugely important to know exactly how Jesus looked, or the saints.
But as far as Jesus, perhaps there’s something to be said about the shroud of Turin, and the holy napkin. If you haven’t heard of the story of the holy napkin, it’s an intriguing possibility. You should look it up. Maybe we do know a bit more of how Jesus looked, than some realize. But if those turn out to be embellished stories, I can still live in faith, not knowing for sure how Jesus looked.
I really appreciate your respectful discussion.
Sorry it took me so long. I didn’t get notified of your comment. I just FOUND it.
@@CarolineJoyAmico yes you are right.
If someone is using a focus to help them get closer to God, then brilliant. It it us a barrier, then sad.
If they don't know they can come into the throne room, then the teachers should be teaching them that they can, I think.
We don't need to kiss pictures of our daddy because our daddy should be right there. But if our depth of relationship is not strong and pictures help, who am I to criticise?
I for one do not take advantage of the closeness I could have with Him, and maybe a focal point would help me
If bowing isn't worship then why does Peter rebuke Cornelius in Acts 10, and the angel rebuke John in Rev 22?
that was prostration, on the hands and face, not a simple bow
Also... seeing as the issue is idolitry... don't some protestants have the same problem when erecting the graven image of Starbucks in their narthex?
Lol 😂
Without being flippant of the other side's case, isn't a good bit of it a ex post facto justification for what they already embraced? It doesn't seem to be a "we're doing icons because of X reasons," at least not historically.
However they attempt to reconcile whether it be Orthodox or Roman Catholic, much seems to be ex post facto and incorporated in the doctrinal development schema.
Shocker, Baptist claims the implementation of statist-driven theological error following the edict of Milan.
The following was never addressed concerning the theological precept underpinning icon veneration in Orthodoxy: that it is the collective lives of the saints (and not any single individual saint) over time that reveals truth in theology. This includes but is not limited to the veneration of icons.
Also funny that the “phase 1” Christians he cited were Origen and Lactantius. Not exactly slam dunk witnesses.
I don't think there is a valid distinction between religious veneration and religious worship. I think there is a distinction between civil respect and religious worship. I would recommend A Reformed Catholic by William Perkins.
I don't have a problem w/ icons and artwork in churches. That presentation at 3:19 that you tactfully called, "an icon corner", looks like a shrine to me. No different really than buddhist or hindu home shrines, only the trapping are Christian related.
Gavin should study the first 7 Ecumenical Councils of the Church. It spells out the difference between veneration and worship.
How many Orthos or Caths has he asked, kneeling or bowing to a crucifix.. are you worshiping this object or respecting it.
For the love of God do a podcast with Jonathan Pageau about this topic.
I'd be happy to talk to him sometime.
Nice, substantive, critique, Douglas. ⁴
And even before the premier of the video? Nice
@@TruthUnites I would love to see a conversation between the two of you. I would love to hear what you think of Jonathan Pageau take on Paradise and how he takes from Ephreim the syrian and Maximus the confessor.
I’m in the reformed tradition. However, I don’t know if “there is a long tradition of dissent” is a good argument against an ecumenical council. The entire Oriental Orthodox Church has a 15 century long dissent to Chalcedon, but that doesn’t legitimize Monophysitism (though I understand that issue is complicated and they might say they are miaphysite in the style of Nazianzen and Cyril). However, Arianism also had widespread acceptance at the time of the council of Nicaea and had a long life after in many permutations and evolutions. It seems an ecumenical council would only be needed in the case where both sides are powerfully attested to, attractive, and have some legitimate traction in the tradition.
Icons are not artistic representations. I'm Orthodox and an iconographer. Icons are considered to be written rather than painted because they are considered the Gospel in paint.
In the latest Equalizer film number 3 (set in Sicily) just about all the town folk parade from the church with representations of saints, Jesus's mom, etcetera,I imagine some people might worry that some people might reverence the images too much, and be distracted from being a disciple of Jesus and respecter of his mom first and foremost!
It's idolatry for sure. They are making void the command of God for the sake of tradition, teaching doctrines of men as commands from God, Isaiah 29:13, Matthew 15, Mark 7. What I don't understand are the Baptist churches that pledge allegiance to Christian flags and Bibles in their churches, yet they accuse Catholics and Orthodox of idolatry.
Every time someone puts their hand on their heart and pledges allegiance to a flag, it’s literally idol worship.
One additional thought came to me as I was watching a video on St. John of Damascus. The rise of Islam caused Christians to reassess their beliefs about icons. All of the issues internally were not in a vacuum. Islam was denying the divinity of Christ and the final verdict after 200 years of struggle was that because Christ was Incarnate, He could be depicted. Juxtapose that with Islam's anti-image approach. The two natural responses under persecution would be to 1) uphold the traditions of depicting Christ, the Theotokos and the Saints 2) agree with the persecutors and remove the images. The more rebellious or at least brave choice was finally chosen.
Why do you think that when the Romans persecution of Christians happened before 300, and Christians tried to protect the Holy Scriptures, and called those who handed them over as traitors, why is there no evidence of them protecting Holy Icons?
2. Why don't the Romans mention that the Christians have Holy Images?
3. If the historical Apostles believing in venerating images, why didn't they make any or arrange to have them made?
4. Why didnt the Christian apologists, if the Christian churches had Holy Icons in the 2nd century, use the Holy Icons made by the Apostles as proof against the heretical Gnostics, esp those who denied that Jesus had a real human body?
5. When there is drawings in a church building from the 200s, why aren't there any Holy Icons in the main central gathering worship area?
6. Why would the Frankfort Synod condemn veneration of images, if all churches had always done that?
@@truthisbeautiful7492 This is a good historical presentation detailing the progressive development of iconography. czcams.com/video/tbWpQMvfCg0/video.html
Just as making the sign of the cross started small (directly on forehead and heart) and got bigger as persecution ended, so, too, did the holy icons. It would not have been wise to put large portraits in conspicuous locations. The first person to make an icon was God, when he created man in His image and likeness. If we can kiss our relatives, we can kiss 2D icons. We are all icons (image in Greek). Another image made by God was the Shroud of Turin. The radiation and power of the resurrection made a burned-in image into the very fibers of the Shroud. It's a negative, like photography. If God didn't want images, He wouldn't have allowed that image to be made. It was called the mandillion, and was folded up and placed in a frame in Constantinople. Then it disappeared during the crusades and appeared again in Turin, unfolded. To be not hypocritical, you need to give up all images. The Amish do this, not even taking photos of their family. We believe Christ revealed Himself incarnated, so since we could see Him in person had we lived then, so now we can depict Him. The reason I am no longer Baptist is 1) once saved always saved is a lie from the pit of hell 2) no real pursuit of holiness/very little discipleship. 3) my old pastor said communion was "just a cracker". It hit me so hard. I knew he was faithless. My mind said, then baptism is just water and praying a prayer of salvation is just words. I went all the way to the other extreme and decided to worship in a way that all of Christian history would recognize. Even the disciples would recognize the Liturgy, the Psalms, Eucharist. The word Liturgia is in the new testament. Icons have developed over time, but I see them as reminders that those depicted are not dead, but alive, and worshipping with us.
So, because muslims rejected icons its okay for Christians to embrace them just to be different? Even if its against scripture?
Because there were many professing Christians that were anti-image long before Islam, and also those who tolerated images for the illiterate but did not offer any kind of worship to them. The beliefs and practices of Iconodules like John of Damascus are not found in the New Testament or in the earliest ancient writers. In fact, they they didn't even invoke anyone in prayer expect for God, which includes His Son Jesus Christ
@@truthisbeautiful7492 Just like now Protestants reject images mostly (except for decorations or Sunday School books) there were early Christians who came from a Jewish or at least anti-Pagan perspective that thought people would worship the images so they had none, just like during prohibition many Christians rejected wine entirely, even in communion, when they switched to grape juice. All I know is that Jesus was incarnate and because He was not incomprehensible, but presented Himself in human form, He allowed himself to be "photographed" in both the image not made with hands and the Shroud. The Shroud of Turin exists because He allowed his radiation to burn into the fabric during his resurrection. Why would He leave an image if all images were bad? Search for the word icon is a Greek New Testament. Just like an angel swings a censer of incense in the book of Revelation, there are a lot of things that don't make sense until you live it. I just skipped over things I didn't understand before, like John 6:21 and following.
Dr Ortland, I'm an Inquirer at an Orthodox Church. I'm from a Baptist background, and when I read Contra Celsus I had a big crisis, wondering if I was completely going the wrong direction. So much of Orthodoxy unifies everything I've ever liked - especially Messianic Judaism and studying the ancient Temple and wishing I was there. When the priest came around with the gifts and people were reaching out to touch his robe and kiss their hands, it reminded me exactly of the Torah procession. Jews kiss a Bible if it drops on the floor. They also kiss the mezzuzah going in and out their doors. I feel a deep hunger for the Eucharist. My old church, by comparison, seems so shallow. If you think about how men kiss a lady's hand, which stems from the earlier tradition of kissing any ruler's hand (which you alluded to) it doesn't seem a far stretch to kiss an icon as a greeting- those saints are alive, not dead. I think of it in relation to "greeting each other with a holy kiss." I know in my rational mind that it doesn't make sense, but I really feel there must have been older documents or actual icons that were destroyed during the iconoclasm. I can't picture Peter or John kissing a picture, but they did greet each other with a holy kiss. I just have this feeling that all the saints on the walls are right there with us, alive, worshipping God with us from across the veil. I see them as literal windows into heaven. Have you ever seen a myhrr streaming icon? One was at my church before I came there, and people were allowed to touch it and lift it out of the case. They said the oil just comes out of the surface. If people were pouring it on, wouldn't it ruin any normal paint and wood? I don't know what to make of it.
I've been looking for a comment addressing this. In regards to Contra Celsus, how did you come out of your crisis in light of Origen's historical witness that Christians of his time rejected all images and statues?
@@jmanuel3944 Origen may have been a genius, but he is actually not considered a Saint because of his own heretical views. I can only think that the "judaizers" were more anti-image and the gentiles were possibly more pro-image. This world is so bad right now that I decided that instead of trying to understand what the people in the early church argued about, I would listen to the Holy Spirit and find out directly from Him if He found icons objectionable. I don't get that feeling. I kiss icons like they are a member of my extended heavenly family, not in "worship," so whether Peter and Paul or Origen or Ireneus would be shocked doesn't even concern me anymore. Any of them would be shocked if they saw my Baptist church's female worship lead wearing tight jeans singing emotionally charged worship music (sorry for the mental image, but it bothered me and I'm a woman). I don't have anything against their heart for God, I just think all of it is a performance and entertainment and not really about worship, it's about creating an emotionally charged atmosphere, which is a far cry from actual worship. I love so much about Protestantism, but I really think they (Zwingli, especially) threw the baby out with the bath water, and if Orthodoxy has strayed from the "original" slightly because of too much emphasis on icons, I think it's the lesser of two evils. Thinking certain things are very holy is better than thinking nothing physical is holy. The protestant view of nothing tangible being holy doesn't match up with what is found in the old testament - the temple, the ark, even people (Elisha's bones, etc). I hunger for the Eucharist, the ability to go to confession and all the other experiences the early church would recognize wholeheartedly and I don't want to be Anglican, Lutheran, or Catholic based on theological differences. Blessings on your journey!
Seems like all the smells and bells and pomp and circumstance are for your own benefit? It's just as much entertainment as rock concert worship lead by a woman in jeans, if not moreso because at least contemporary worshippers don't claim that all the modern stuff is intrinsic to worshipping God.
It's not. Neither is all the old timey fluff from the EO and RCC. None of these things existed in the early Christian home churches.
@@FalconOfStorms This is a house church. It blew my mind when I realized that they converted houses into churches, they weren't actually necessarily meeting in a person's house. Note the alter area - which looks very much like a modern iconostasis - and the baptistry. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dura-Europos_church
🕯☦🕯
“...the devil led the enemies of the church from one extreme to the other, from worshiping the images of men and animals in paganism to destroying the images of Christ and the saints in iconoclasm.”-Jaroslav Pelikan
“Sight, as the primary sense, was hallowed through the visible appearing of God in Christ, just as hearing was hallowed through the word of God. The icon served as a means for this hallowing of sight, combined as it was with the hearing of the word.
When they put such an emphasis on the role of the senses in worship, the iconophiles were affirming the role of the body in salvation-of the physical body of Christ as the means of achieving it and of the physical body of man as a participant in it together with the soul. The iconoclasts claimed to worship the invisible God in a purely spiritual and mental way, disdaining the use of visual aids such as images. But "how do you, as someone who is visible, worship the things that are invisible?" Of course the soul could adore the one God, invisible and immaterial, but to do so it required the aid of visible means. Only through such means could one proceed to the worship in spirit and truth. The biblical law and the patterns of Christian worship were material things, but "they lead us through matter to the God who is beyond matter." Man was body as well as soul, and the means of grace were accommodated to this condition; therefore there was a baptism in water as well as in the Spirit, and therefore man also needed to see the divine represented in images. Or, as it was put by [Saint] John of Damascus, from whom much of this argumentation came, "Perhaps you are sublime and able to transcend what is material...but I, since I am a human being and bear a body, want to with holy things and behold them in a bodily manner.” The spiritualism of the iconoclasts seemed to put them into the same class with the ancient Gnostics, who claimed that the body of Christ was not physical but heavenly, and despised the physically minded believers as less spiritual than they. Such statements accorded with the interest of the iconophiles in the use of images as a substitute for books in the instruction of illiterate believers.
On the basis of these convictions about doctrine and worship, iconophiles replied indignantly to the charge of idolatry: “The truth is not error, nor are we running back to idolatry.” The accusation against them was based on a failure to make some fundamental distinctions. Because the iconoclasts did not distinguish between the sacred and the profane, they did not understand that there could not be any relation between the temple of the true God and the worship of idols. “What person with any sense does not comprehend the distinction between an idol and an icon?” An idol was the representation of persons or things that were devoid of reality or substance, while an icon represented real persons; those who failed to observe this distinction were the ones who should be charged with idolatry. Ultimately, the distinction between the two was this: the images of heathen worship were devoted to the service of the devil, but the icons of Christian worship were dedicated to the glory of the true God. As Theodore of Studios said in one of his acrostic poems, the representation of Christ in an icon was a way of dispelling idolatry, not of reinstating it. The tree of the cross had replaced the wood of pagan worship, and the eucharistic sacrifice had come in place of heathen rituals; so also the holy memorials of the Savior had overthrown the various unclean monuments of the Gentiles. Was it fair to accuse the entire church, including the faithful departed, of a shameful complicity in idolatry? For "if I worshiped idols, why would I honor the martyrs, who destroyed idols?" It was not accurate to describe the worship of icons as idolatry, for "to make a god" meant to worship something that was not divine as though it were. The true worshipers of the Holy Trinity had excluded and put aside all idolatry in the service of the true God. Their orthodoxy was a via media between the false spiritualism of the iconoclasts and the false materialism of the idolaters. Every remnant of the "heathen and mortal mind” had been set aside in their orthodox confession and purified worship.
Because such was the true state of orthodox worship, it was a distortion of Scripture for the iconoclasts to apply to it biblical passages that prohibited making and worshiping false gods, or for them to ask, "Where is it written [in Scripture] that the icon of Christ is to be worshipped?” The answer to this rhetorical question was: “Wherever it is written that Christ is to be worshiped.” In support of their attack on the icons, the iconoclasts were falsely interpreting the statements of Scripture and the “sayings of the mystagogues of the church," the fathers.
By "applying to the icon of Christ” those “scriptural statements directed against the idolatrous representations of the Greeks,” they were misconstruing the intent of Scripture. The coming of Christ, whose image the orthodox church worshiped, had put an end to idolatry; when Scripture prophesied that the idols of Egypt will tremble at his presence," this was a prediction of the flight of the Christ child to Egypt. Passages such as Isaiah 63:7-14 (LXX), which had been used by earlier defenders of the faith to prove the identity of essence between the Father and the Son, were useful to the orthodox as proof that they were not guilty of idolatry. In fact, according to Scripture, God himself had been the first to have images of himself. First was the eternal Son of God as "the image of the invisible God"; then came Adam, made in the image of God.
The most important proof text in the iconoclast arsenal was the prohibition of graven images in the Decalogue, delivered to Israel through Moses. Yet the same Second Book of Moses that contained this prohibition also contained, a few chapters later, the account of his building the tabernacle, complete with images of cherubim. When one made images of cherubim, these could not be, as were the cherubim themselves, incorporeal, but, as the language also of the New Testament showed, had to be "holy images of them," which were nevertheless referred to as "cherubim." It was evident, then, that the cherubim were depicted in human form. In addition to the cherubim, there also were in the temple the blood and ashes of sacrificed animals, these had now been replaced by the images of the saints, as the rational took the place of the irrational. The saying of Jesus about giving to Caesar what was Caesars and to God what was God’s meant, as the context made clear, that one gave the image of Caesar to Caesar; so also one was to give the image of God to God. The very law that prohibited images was, according to the New Testament, itself only a "shadow" and not yet the “image” of the things to come. In the account of Abraham on the plain of Mamre, he was said to have worshiped an angel. But if God had taken on himself not the form of an angel but that of man in Christ, was not this human form to be worshiped even more? By reading the biblical evidence differently and, in effect, reinterpreting the law of the Old Testament in the light of the incarnation taught in the New Testament, the iconophiles rejected the argumentation of the iconoclasts from Scripture and laid claim to the authority of Scripture for themselves.
In a similar way they laid claim to the authority of the practice of Christian worship-indeed, even to that of Jewish worship. To the Jewish attack on icons, the orthodox replied: "As you, in worshiping the Book of the Law, are not worshiping the nature of the parchment or of the ink, but the words of God in them; so I, when I worship the image of God, am not worshiping the nature of the wood and the colors (God forbid!), but, holding the lifeless portrait of Christ, I hope through it to hold and worship Christ himself." Such argumentation was even more pertinent in the discussion between Christian and Christian. If icons were not to be worshiped because they were products of human skill, what, if anything, could be worshiped? Specifically, could the altar or the Gospels or even the cross be the object of proper worship? The worship of the symbol of the cross appears to have been of special concern to the iconoclasts. While maintaining that there should be no distinction, the iconophiles, if pressed, would have to say that "the image of Christ is more deserving of honor and reverence than the symbol of the cross." If, as both iconoclasts and iconophiles taught, there was a special power in the symbol of the cross of Christ, how much more power must there be in the symbol of the Crucified himself, that is, in his icon? A demonstration of such power had come repeatedly in miraculous deeds ascribed to the icons. It was a general axiom that "no reasonable man dare accept any religion that is not founded on divine miracles, which are a proof that their worker truly comes from God." Precisely this was true of the icons, for by the relics and icons of the saints demons had been exorcised, miraculous appearances had been effected, and sinners had been converted. Defending the icons and attaching their arguments to the iconoclasts’ assertion of the real presence in the Eucharist, the iconophiles maintained that the doctrine of the real presence, which the faith and practice of the people appears to have validated beyond any refutation, led inescapably to a justification of the icons and of their worship.”-Historian Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition Volume 2: The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600 AD - 1700 AD)
“In the 1920s, archaeologists began to uncover a significant find: a garrison city that had been built on the banks of the Euphrates, at the eastern edge of the Roman Empire (today it’s in Syria). When the Persians attacked, around AD 256, Roman soldiers strengthened their defenses by packing earth and sand into several of the buildings that stood along the inside of the city wall. But the Persians conquered that city nevertheless, then abandoned it. This beleaguered city, known as Dura-Europos, then enjoyed a little posthumous good fortune: nothing was ever built on top of its ruins. When scientists began removing the centuries of sand, they found it perfectly preserved.
One of the buildings that had been preserved was a Christian house church-the earliest yet found. Its walls were decorated with paintings, and show many biblical scenes: Christ and St. Peter walking on the water, the healing of the paralytic, and the women coming to Christ’s tomb to anoint his body (Orthodox call them the “myrrh-bearing women”). Archaeologists also found scrolls bearing Eucharistic prayers in Hebrew. (They resemble the Eucharistic prayers in the Didache, an important early Christian text, written about AD 80, when the Gospels were being written).
This was clearly a church building. An Orthodox church built today, or at any point in history, could look much the same, with walls covered in icons (as at St. Felicity).
But something else was found in the ruins of that city. Another of the preserved buildings was a [Jewish] synagogue-and it, too, was covered with paintings of biblical scenes. Abraham and Isaac, Pharaoh’s daughter finding baby Moses, Ezekiel’s visions, narrative scenes, portraits of Bible characters-about a hundred images when the building was complete, of which fifty-eight remain. These paintings resemble the ones in the house church nearby. They look like icons.
Both Christians and Jews of Dura-Europos filled their worship spaces with images drawn from the Scriptures, and did not think this was idolatry. Greco-Roman homes had long been decorated with wall paintings and mosaics, and the custom may have passed over to religious buildings without a lot of debate.
But in the seventh century something happened that provoked a great deal of debate. The Muslim faith arose and swept through the region, and three of the Pentarchy cities-Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria-as well as many other Christian communities fell to the sword. Islam forbade the use of images, and some Christians wondered if God were permitting this destruction as punishment for idolatry.
Backed by the command of the Roman emperor in Constantinople, the iconoclasts (it means “icon smashers”) began destroying every icon in reach. Images were burned, crushed, hacked, thrown in the sea, and covered with paint or plaster. This is why so few early icons remain; the ones with a chance to survive were in remote locations, like the Roman catacombs, the St. Catherine Monastery on Mt. Sinai, or the buried church of Dura-Europos.
No doubt there had been excesses among those who loved icons, and it was right for the church to spend some time thinking through the question. What is an icon, and what is an idol? Does an image of a person relate or connect to that person in any real way? Does how we treat an image pass through it, so to speak, to the person himself?
You might think, “Of course not. That’s superstition.” But remember some years ago when the singer Sinéad O’Connor tore up a photo of the pope on live television? There was immediate and widespread outrage, and not only among those who liked the pope. It struck people as appallingly rude, and seriously damaged the singer’s career. But someone could well say, “Why all the fuss? She only tore up paper and ink. It didn’t actually hurt him.”
Yet we sense somehow that a photo is more than paper and ink; it connects with the person in some way. Think about how people react when a flag is burned, or how crowds rejoiced when a statue of Stalin or Saddam Hussein was pulled down. The honor or dishonor shown to an image is passed on to its prototype; that’s something we grasp instinctively.
A monk called St. Stephen the New (he was “New” in the eighth century) showed the iconoclast emperor Constantine that he himself knew this. St. Stephen was challenged to trample on an icon of Christ, to prove he agreed that it was merely wood and paint, and that such an action gave no disrespect to the Lord. Instead, he placed on the ground a coin bearing the emperor’s image. He then set his foot upon it-and was immediately executed.“-Frederica Mathewes-Green, Welcome to the Orthodox Church
Bible Study Apologetics Brod thank you