REVIEW of the Dr. Gavin Ortlund and Fr. Stephen De Young Discussion
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 08. 2024
- What about the Seventh Ecumenical Council? What did the Fathers actually say? To find out what the Fathers decreed, we read the Definition (Horus) in its entirety. Amongst other things, we play a part of a lecture by Gary Habermas and how he connects the Shroud of Turin to icons of Christ.
The quote from Deacon Epiphanios is from "The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787)" page 522.
I watched this discussion between Fr. Stephen and Dr. Ortlund and was frustrated that Ortlund ended up deflecting from the bigger discussion, which was Sola Scriptura.
That being said, your points here are super helpful in really understanding what the council said about icons. It would seem that besides going down a rabbit hole and definitely not proving Sola Scriptura, Dr. Ortlund also at least partially misrepresented the history of what the conflict was about and actual pronouncements from the 7th council. It’s one thing to be ignorant or mix up a detail, but for someone with his reputation I think people should continue to call him out on these kinds of issues.
Declaring an anathema isn't cursing someone per say its more akin to declaring them accursed.
Its the difference between a coroner declaring someone deceased and being the murder. Its the difference between a doctor diagnosing you with a disease and offering you treatment and someone who infected you with the disease to begin with.
It's Church discipline, the most severe form. In the first place, it could never apply to the non-Orthodox.
Good commentary! This needed to be done…thanks!
What’s most telling is the 30 minute exchange was not even remotely about sola scriptura. It was all about icons and Nicaea II. I think Dr. Ortlund started shifting when Fr. Stephen brought up the example of the biblical Unitarian and Dr. Ortlund could only muster a circular argument. He couldn’t defend his premise when he had time to. Fr. Stephen did excellent, even better than I expected since I’ve only seen a few things out of him.
☦️☦️☦️
So, I am going to ask you, how does Sola Scriptura bear fruit? Why is it that only the learned have this understanding of Sola Scriptura? Where does that leave the lay person whom both you and I would agree have this more fundamentalist understanding of Sola Scriptura?
The fruit it has born is division. That is the easiest seen fruit, but the lay person's understanding is also part of its fruit. And this separation between the lay person and the learned person is also part of that fruit.
💯
There is divisions in all churches.
@@Justas399 Should I be more explicit and say it causes sundering of the church into 2?
@@NdxtremePro Do you have some examples of church splitting over Sola Scriptura?
@@Justas399 I mean, the OG is the Reformation, however, where did you think denominations came from? They each read the Bible to mean what they believed and then ran with it. That is a complete separation. You have current day Baptists splitting over the conservative and liberal understanding in the Bible of the issues surrounding Homosexuality, and there are others as well, such as Christ Church going through similar dialog.
As you go further back, you see more of it.
What do you think of using the Centurion interaction with Jesus as a firmer basis for the prayer to Saints and Veneration of the Icons?
Hi John, I have addressed historical claims in the definition of Nicaea II in the second half of my video "Defending My Views on the Canon and Icons." See that for more info. Briefly, you are wrong about what is claimed in the definition of Nicaea 2. Just read through the definition. You find claims like this: "to these, as to the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross and to the Book of the Gospels and to the other holy objects, incense and lights may be offered according to ancient pious custom. For the honour which is paid to the image passes on to that which the image represents, and he who reveres the image reveres in it the subject represented. For thus the teaching of our holy Fathers, that is the tradition of the Catholic Church, which from one end of the earth to the other has received the Gospel, is strengthened. Thus we follow Paul, who spoke in Christ, and the whole divine Apostolic company and the holy Fathers, holding fast the traditions which we have received."
Here it is asserted that offering "incense and lights" to images is a matter of following "Paul, who spoke in Christ, and the whole divine Apostolic company."
Later on it reads: "This is the faith of the Apostles, this is the faith of the orthodox, this is the faith which has made firm the whole world. Believing in one God, to be celebrated in Trinity, we salute the honourable images! Those who do not so hold, let them be anathema. Those who do not thus think, let them be driven far away from the Church. For we follow the most ancient legislation of the Catholic Church. We keep the laws of the Fathers. We anathematize those who add anything to or take anything away from the Catholic Church."
Thus, the "faith of the apostles" involves kissing images, on the grounds that this is following the ancient legislation of the church.
As for Richard Price, the clip you showed is him contrasting 9th century claims from what Nicaea II claims. This does NOT mean Price is not saying icon veneration goes back to the apostles. Price in his book says this:
"The fathers of Nicaea II would have found this whole debate bizarre: their concern was not to argue that the veneration of images went back to the beginning rather than end of the seventh century, but that it had the support of the great church fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries and went back through them to the apostles themselves."
Here Price understands Nicaea II to assert that icon veneration itself "goes back to the apostles." He says this numerous times. I have not made it very far into your video yet but I wanted to set the record straight on these points.
"Here it is asserted that offering "incense and lights" to images is a matter of following "Paul, who spoke in Christ, and the whole divine Apostolic company." "
They don't claim that incense and lights are an apostolic custom. They claim that those are done according to ancient pius custom. Not even "THE ancient pius custom"
The Council Father are clearly quoting 2 Thessalonians 2:15 to say that tradition is authoritative, not to argue that Paul specifically burned incense or lit lights in front of images.
I think it is entirely possible Paul did do that, i mean he would have burnt incense as part of his jewish faith. But if he didn't do it in front of a Christian image I guess it doesn't really matter to me, he never read the Gospel of John or Probably most of the books of the NT that he didn't write either. A plain reading of the text doesn't claim that he did so.
But regardless, no the text does not claim that Paul burnt incense or lit lights in front of icons, that just isn't in the actual text.
"Thus, the "faith of the apostles" involves kissing images, on the grounds that this is following the ancient legislation of the church. "
The passage you quoted said "Salute" not "Kiss" What does the greek say? Why did they pick the work Salute? According to Websterr:
Salute
transitive verb
1
a
: to address with expressions of kind wishes, courtesy, or honor
b
: to give a sign of respect, courtesy, or goodwill to : GREET
2
: to become apparent to (one of the senses)
3
a
: to honor (a person, a nation, an event, etc.) by a conventional military or naval ceremony
b
: to show respect and recognition to (a military superior) by assuming a prescribed position
c
: to express commendation of : PRAISE
Does anyone have access to the greek word used here? If its the word for "Kiss" I'll take my complaint up with Fr Price and Henry R Percival for not translating it more precisely.
As for the church fathers, yes, of course, they believed that Icon Veneration was Apostolic, they say as much in the council.
They also believed that Exodus was a literal historical event, that David was a real person, that Moses was a real person.
There is a lot more historical evidence that Iconography goes back to the beginning of the church than secular historians find for those historical parts of the OT.
I personally think that hanging a picture of someone in a place of honor in your home is a type of veneration, so the fact that all the earliest examples of Christian Worship Space have images shows that the practice is very old, apostolic even.
Pretty much everyone venerates Icons to some degree at this point in time, my FIL had a picture of John Calvin in his house along with a collection of crosses. Its just that some people are icked out when we are more affectionate with our veneration or when we ask the Saints for their prayers...but I would argue that is a separate (although related) issue.
If "icons" is defined as only a dipiction of Christ or of the Saints, then that seems to be a narrow view of imagery. For example, the practice of kissing the Torah is a practice of Judaism and carried over to the Christian faith.
The reason why I mention this is because the biblical principle is the same for the written text and an icon. Here are a couple quotes that reflect this mindset of the Church:
"That which the word communicates by sound the painting shows silently by representation" St. Basil the Great
"Through these two mediums which accompany each other we acquire the knowledge of the same realities." (The two mediums being the written word and icon.) The Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council
This is important because Protestants often argue that icons/imagery=idolatry with no nuance, which is very narrow minded especially when the scriptures don't do this.
Gavin, the premise of your issue with icons rests on your assertion that icon veneration is idolatry. The problem for you is that you cannot prove it is idolatry. In fact, it has been explained to you many times how it is not idolatry (including in your recent video with Fr De Young), and almost as if you never heard anything, you double down on your position without retort. This is why you come across as bad faith when it comes to this issue, no matter how softly you make these assertions about icons.
@@Journey_of_Abundancethat is not the premise of my argument. You should listen to my historical claims and then respond to those, rather than assume I am in bad faith.
@@TruthUnites Let me break this down for you. Your rock band worship team at your church is not historical, yet I'm sure you will argue that it's fine in principle. You have a completely different (double) standard with icons, and it is because you continue to insist it's idolatry in spite of being told over and over how it is not. Once again, this is why it's becoming more obvious to more people you are not engaging honestly in good faith.
Gavin made so many false claims.
Scholarship is on Gavins side.
@@jwatson181scholarship is the problem.
@@jwatson181 Fallacious
@@Lord_Have_MercyX3 agreed. History is a major problem for your view.
@@jwatson181 the irony from someone in tradition a few hundred years old at best
❤☦️
Its false to claim that the Bible is the only authorities. Only the Scriptures are the ultimate authority for the Christian and Christian church because the Scriptures ALONE are the inspired-inerrant Word of God. No higher authority than that.
Fr de young is weak debater. How on can lose to Ortlund is beyond me. He should stick to writing books.
You think he "lost"?
To be fair, I don't believe debate was the purpose of this video. Charitable discussion, which the two excelled in doing, was.
He wasn't really debating but came at it as a conversation. Gavin wanted more to "discredit" Orthodoxy. Fr Stephen W
It wasn't a debate
@@elijah613 calling icon veneration idolatry is not charitable, no matter how softly Gavin says it.
☦️☦️☦️