Answering Protestantism from the Bible 17 Hour Lecture Set: seraphimhamilton.substack.com/p/answering-protestantism-from-the Become a patron: www.patreon.com/kabane Subscribe to my Substack: seraphimhamilton.substack.com/ Exclusive content by Patreon & Membership Tiers (each tier includes all content from lower tiers) Tier 1: DAILY Scripture reflections ranging from 2-5 pages per day, six days a week. Tier 2: Weekly half hour video, featuring a topic relating to Biblical studies, church history, apologetics, and related subjects. Tier 3: An exclusive course (ultimately over ten hours long) on the Old Testament, with new installments of over an hour each uploaded weekly. Tier 4: A monthly 1 on 1 call or voice chat where we can discuss any topic of your choosing. Join our Discord: discord.gg/fGNNB8P6CJ Answering Protestantism from the Bible in 17 Hour Lecture Set: buy.stripe.com/5kA2bz6Y467K4JaaEJ Sample lecture: ruclips.net/video/spQOreW8EDk/видео.html Bundle with "Answering Calvinism from the Bible" for a discount (23 hours total): buy.stripe.com/9AQ8zX4PWeEg1wYeUY To just get "Answering Calvinism from the Bible" buy.stripe.com/aEUeYl4PW0Nq5Ne7su To schedule a one-time one hour call, simply send $50 to the following link with your email address: www.paypal.com/paypalme/seraphimhamilton
What I find has truly ended this debate is how quickly protestants changed their entire polemic on this issue. Protestants used to argue that the mere construction of images constituted idolatry, and that placing them in churches during worship constituted a grave sin that would have been unthinkable to the early church. Now, they casually admit that not only were icons everywhere in the pre nicene church, but that churches were regularly decked out in images which were obviously part of worship. This whole argument of "they had images but didn't venerate them" is absurd on its face. Firstly, just because we don't have any sources that explicitly mention people bowing to or kissing icons, doesn't mean they didn't do it. That's an argument from silence, which is a fallacy. Secondly, why are protestants like ortlund here still strict iconoclasts if he's now admitting that iconography was extremely common and perfectly acceptable in the early church? That poses a major contradiction to what his own "tradition" has taught for centuries, and yet, he's made no acknowledgement of this. He's offered no explanation for this radical change in theology. He's just quietly shifted the goalposts and pretended that nothing happened.
Actually to argue that the presence of images meant that they must have also bowed down and kissed them is actually an argument from silence. The burden of proof is on the iconodules to show that there was more happening in practice associated with the presence of images. This is especially true when the purpose of the images is mentioned without including the semiotic use of images. Here is the quote from S. Gregory of Nyssa when read closely. “The pictures located on the walls are eloquent by their silence 👉and offer significant testimony👈” This is not an argument from silence. He literally tells us what those images are meant to convey without any reference to Nicea II's theology.
@@ElvisI97 Does anyone make images of things they're attitudinally neutral to? Is it in the slightest bit believable that anyone makes a positive image of something or someone without some veneration towards it? The whole point of the Orthodox argument is that it's arbitrary to separate forms of veneration. If just making images is an expression of veneration and permissible, on what non arbitrary grounds could anyone stop a grandmother from kissing an image of the living Christ the way she would an image of her son? Is her son more deserving of veneration and of more varied expressions of veneration than God Himself? If you draw the line at expressing veneration towards images, then how is this not an arbitrary, superstitious "works damnation" theology that paints God as a tyrant who tests the loyalty of His creatures with arbitrary rules? the very thing the Protestant criticism of the superstition of "works salvation" is meant to critique?
Gavin on Icon Veneration: strong evidence, clear points, definitive proof. Also Gavin on Baptism: linguistic complexity, nuance meanings, personal experiences, vagueness in meaning, accretion
A few people have asked questions about the quote from St Gregory of Nyssa at the beginning. Seraphim is not simply moving from mention of any images immediately to "this was veneration." Here is why: 1. The location of Christ in the image is significant. The upper register in an image is generally associated with the "place of honor," and in this light it is very significant that Christ is depicted as "presiding over all." This essentially portrays him in a location that would be similar to portrayals of the emperor in Roman monuments (and we know the emperor's likeness was venerated with a kiss basically wherever it was shown, per Marcus Cornelius' Fronto's testimony). There are many such early depictions of Christ in the place of honor to which focus and attention would be given in a space ritually dedicated to Him, for prayer to Him. 2. The placement of these images up on the wall of a holy building in a space dedicated to honoring the martyr depicted is not insignificant. Roman wall mosaics and paintings were often meant for ritual interaction--even if they were depicting a narrative (see the Villa of the Mysteries at Pompeii). Beat Brenk points out the significance of where some early Christian images were placed in his book "The Apse, The Image, and The Icon": "Mosaics and frescoes in the apses of cult rooms generated very particular effects, evoking in the viewer respect, admiration, awe and maybe even veneration..." Additionally, in our next video we will provide a quote from Dr. Richard Price about how the very placement of an image is a mode of veneration. 3. Immediately after the quote Seraphim gives, Saint Gregory makes clear that the image is meant to evoke veneration and prayer: "These spectacles strike the senses and delight the eye by drawing us near to [the martyr's] tomb which we believe to be both a sanctification and blessing." By approaching the image and coming to the tomb, "In this way one implores the martyr who intercedes on our behalf and is an attendant of God for imparting those favors and blessings which people seek." So the whole point of the image is that it leads you to pray to him in front of his tomb with the image directly overhead. Looking at an image of a Saint while praying to that Saint is what we mean by "praying through" an image. 4. The description of the Saint's images connects to the request for his intercession at the end. His images "glorify the temple with resplendent beauty", a temple "brightly adorned with magnificence." Later, Saint Gregory says "But by the power of your intercession and those with you, oh marvelous and most bright among the martyrs." The visual reference (marvelous/bright, magnificence/brightly) is repeated and significant, so the prayer to the martyr is addressed with the martyr's image in mind. Additionally, the language of "the young shoot will return to you, the flourishing citizenship of Christians will endure to the end in the splendid, fruitful field of faith in Christ which always bears the fruit of eternal life" connects quite well to the earlier reference to "flowers made in the likeness of the martyr's virtues" (which the Christian onlooker is to imitate). So these were not just didactic images, they were venerated.
Demanding an explicit historical record of veneration of the images in the early centuries of repressed Christianity is like demanding to catch lightning in a bottle.
I don't really understand this "they had images but they didn't venerate them" argument that some people make. Having an image of Christ or a saint is in itself venerating Christ or the saint - we want to honor Christ or the saint, and do that by having their image. I'm a Swedish Lutheran and my church is filled with images and statues. We don't kiss or bow before them (although many actually do the sign of the cross and bow before the crucifix after recieving the Eucharist), but the reason that they're there is to honor and remember Christ and these saints. So sure the particular form of veneration may have changed and developed through the centuries, and done so differently in different areas. Perhaps the earliest Christians did not kiss icons, but the very idea of even having an image of Christ or the saints in the first place is to venerate the persons in the images. Having the image is itself an act of veneration, and kissing or not kissing it is more a difference in degree than in substance. This is why I find it strange to say that the early Christians had images but did not venerate them - surely the reason for having an image of Christ was to honor him.
@@smez doesn’t Nicea II state anyone who doesn’t bow and kiss the icons is anathema? Or even communicating with someone who speaks negatively of them. It became a requirement for salvation and not a choice
@@EpistemicAnthony wait so are you saying that if someone does NOT venerate images and are thus anathema that they can be saved after being anathematized? To say "You're anathema if you don't do this" and then saying "it's not required for salvation tho" legit makes no sense lol
Ortlund may be affable to some degree, but I find it far outweighed by his obstinacy. He goes on the attack to avoid defending his own presuppositions. Protestantism was born in ahistoricity, and the internet age is brutal to their assertions.
@@creepingsancy Why stop there? Why not bring down Hindus, Buddhists, Amish, JW, Assyrian Church of the East. What supreme version of Christianity do you believe is worthy of survival?
This is off topic. Dr Orland has a video about the Apostle's Creed, which he believes every word in the Creed . For example : "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH ) Then why has he not converted to Catholicism ?
MY 2 CENTS: Gavin Ortlund reminds me of my father. My dad a Wesleyan minister for 50 years, spent much of his time disputing against Calvinism. Ortlund is always trying to dispute against Orthodoxy, he seems desperate to discourage those skeptical of protestant heterdoxy from finding the church founded by Christ.
What? He says both Orthodox and Catholics have many Christians. He's looking at the data and I'm sure he'll be happy to look at the data these two mention too.
@@Roescoehe doesn’t even respond to the majority of the data presented. And, seeing how that’s his full-time job now, I’d be insulted if I was a Protestant viewer of his and THAT was his response. It’s honestly why I have far more respect for Dr. Jordan B. Cooper, other than his filioque defense video, he gives you some stuff to actually chew on.
It's a fake quote! You guys are so gullible. Why do the Cathodox always rely on fake quotes if they represent the truth? The Second Council of Nicaea was also fraught with fake quotes, which modern idolaters admit. "But the Holy Spirit still guided them."
@@thanevakarian9762 This quote pretending to be written by Gregory of Nyssa (In Praise of Theodore) is from a hagiography, which is a tradition that was added to over the centuries. It's in none of his extant writings. The original text was first published in the mid 1800s by Jacques Migne, a very respected Catholic translator. The text is marked by Migne as spurious.
I understand and really appreciate what you're trying to do with looking at all of this historically and making a pure (if complex) argument from history. But one of the things that really settled this matter for me as I was converting to Orthodoxy was asking myself: what churches still LOOK like these early churches, and how do people in those churches treat those images? Nobody in post-Reformation Christianity attends churches that look like Catholic or Orthodox churches while simultaneously denying the veneration of the saints and God through those images. The way protestant scholars like Ortlund argue implies that their position is the "default" position and somehow we have to come up with evidence to show that the default position is wrong. In fact, it's precisely the opposite. Early Christian Churches LOOK LIKE modern Orthodox Churches, as has been so clearly shown in archeological data (which you do a great job of addressing). The default, therefore, should be: how do Christians worship who are still attending churches that look like those ancient churches? We venerate the icons. We *also* have simple guidelines for how to do so without veneration becoming worship of those images. Ortlund is simply wrong to take "no icon veneration" as the default position that must be shown to be false.
The earliest “churches” were held in people’s homes. Some people met in caves. Much teaching was done in the synagogues. We know from acts people were selling all they had and giving it away, not covering it in gold. In Acts 19, Paul could have avoided the riot with Demetrius by suggesting he also make icons to sell to Christians. And by Revelation, the churches in Asia are already being critiqued for going astray. It’s just a little more complicated.
@@WeAreTheLucid going astray =/= the whole church apostasizing and reformation/restoration being required. The Saviour promised the church would prevail over the gates of hell, not immediately fall away. There's also extensive study done on early home churches, they were not free standing suburban boomer houses, "house churches" in the early church refer to largely rich converts who lived in what was closer to a palace/villa, and liturgical worship was performed in them.
I find it amusing that protestants would often scream about how can one anathematize someone who rejects Nicaea II while subscribing to Council of Hieria
The Coptic, Syriac, and Ethiopian traditions possess a rich iconographic heritage that evolved independently of Byzantine and Roman influences (and to a lesser extent the ACotE). This aspect appears to be a blind spot in Gavin's analysis. Furthermore, these ancient churches assert their apostolicity, claiming an equal stake and right as Rome and Constantinople. Interestingly, if Gavin's argument holds true, it only applies primarily to the unified Catholic Church (East and West before Nicea ii but after Chalcedon 451) Church and overlooks the churches of the Orient that experienced schism in the mid-5th century. This implies that the concept of icon veneration within the "Great Church" (encompassing Rome, Constantinople, and the Churches of the Orient) must have been deeply ingrained as a spiritual devotion and ethos throughout the entire church. This reality poses a significant challenge to Gavin's overall premise.
Another thing worth mentioning is that the anti icon early fathers seem to make the claim that images interfere with noetic prayer, not that they are blasphemous. This perspective exists today in certain Roman Catholic monastic orders who single note chant the whole mass and have little to no images. One can also note similar practices in orthodox monasticism. And all of this is based on a perspective on prayer that doesn’t exist in the Protestant church which is okay with sensuality in worship so long as it is auditory
I'm beginning to see Gavin on the same level as Mormon apologist. Someone who wants to believe what they want to believe and is no longer really worth engaging with at this point. Seraphim is free to do what he wants but Gavin is oh so tiresome. His father's public endorsement of Kamala Harris and his attempts to get Meghan Basham book canceled shows his true colors. It's a family affair.
I am a Catholic and of course we Catholics get Ortlunds' views with that smirk look of him thinking deeply and then he does the same thing with the Catholic position as he does with the Orthodox. I think his father, brother are also pastors in 2 other protestant ecclesial communities that have roots in the British Isles in the 16th century. My theory is that he and his family are likely affiliated with the stone cutters.
@@PalermoTrapani I think it has more to do with their desires to stay close to family tradition as it shapes his core identity and personality flaws, which we all have, that blind him from common sense. His attempts to get bashams book canceled was childlike behavior and most likely was what he did as a child. Canceling out or correcting people as it gave him purpose, social approval, and the ability to make sense out of the world for him.
The Artificial Handicap in Ortlunds position: Protestants often argue that there is no evidence of icon veneration in the first century, and when traditional sects present evidence to the contrary, Protestants then shift the criteria by insisting, "But we don’t know if they bowed and kissed those icons." This represents a move from seeking general evidence to employing selective reasoning on the topic. Such an approach artificially handicaps the argument because it imposes a standard that excludes the type of evidence that could actually support icon veneration. As a result, the debate is rendered futile, as one side is predetermined to dismiss any evidence that does not fit within its pre-established framework. The problem is that this method disqualifies historical practices simply because they do not align with modern expectations for documentation or explicit detail. To highlight the flaw in this approach, consider an analogous atheist argument: "Prove to me that God exists using only the scientific method." Here, the demand for proof is artificially constrained by disqualifying any philosophical or metaphysical evidence from the outset. This tactic mirrors the Protestant approach to icons, where a preconceived standard dismisses relevant evidence, making the debate unwinnable. The flaw in this reasoning is that it places an unfair burden on the opposing side to meet criteria that are selectively chosen and that exclude historical context, tradition, and other forms of evidence that could legitimately support the practice. I think that by sprinkling more evidence on the discussion you have granted Ortlund the authority to frame the continuing conversation; standards which are now in his hands to reframe, again, wherever it is convenient for his bias. My point is, If the core of Ortlund's position is about reinforcing Protestant boundaries and retaining members rather than seeking genuine intellectual engagement with the evidence, then addressing the argument at a purely academic or evidential level might miss the deeper issue. In this case, it could be more effective to focus on questioning the motivations and assumptions driving the argument itself. (As I've seen in the past, Ortlund performs the Motte-and-Bailey fallacy when his selective reasoning is challenged, he retreats.) By shifting the discussion toward an exploration of Ortlund's intent-why the selective reasoning is being employed in the first place-might expose how the conversation is framed resulting in a more productive dialogue. A genuine inquiry was abandoned in the selective framing of Ortlund's argument. He superimposed a standard of evidence that I'm not sure is justified... If Ortlund’s argument relies on selectively framing the discussion to uphold Protestant boundaries, the Orthodox position doesn’t need to accept his terms of engagement. Engaging with the artificially constrained standard of evidence he presents may, in fact, validate the limits he has imposed, which shifts the conversation away from genuine inquiry and into a defensive posture. By questioning the motivations and assumptions behind Ortlund’s framework, rather than debating within it, you can expose the limitations and perhaps even the underlying intent of the argument, which (on Ortlund's part) might not be an honest intellectual exploration in the first place. Orthodox participants don't need to "play in the sandbox" that Ortlund has created because doing so concedes to a criteria that was never neutral to begin with.
To be more effective rhetorically and to make opponents squirm, specify that the Trinity would need to be treated the same, since early attestation is not the formulation of the councils. Anyway, excellent video. Very precise handling of the objections. May God bless you both.
Obviously we can’t actually know or read peoples hearts like Christ can but I’m of the opinion it won’t matter cos when it comes to Ortlund’s belief concerning this subject for him it isn’t necessarily about the veracity or empirical substantive thrust of any particular argument no rather it is the set of prescriptive lenses Gavin trusts to look through when he evaluates all of the information for said argument.
@@DeanBurrito he does that when he was discussing with Dr. Jordan B. Cooper, he basically just punted to, “I don’t see the passage saying that,” and not substantiating why.
46:18 This is also the same argument that Muslims and Unitarians make against the Trinity, as Fr Stephen De Young pointed out. I've heard Mohammed Hijab forcefully make this exact point against Nicea as a "defeater" for Christianity.
Is it not daming to think that modern man, 2000 years removed from Christ, can "discern" the truth through his own knowledge and understanding via the archetectual equivalent of "textual criticism". If you have to rebuild the "church," Christ is a liar. Because christ left a church, not scripture, and that church, by definition, has a Tradition
@TimothyAdams-ln2jr The son was the image of thr Father, who was also the image of man You worship the image of A man IN Christ. This is why jews reject Christ and proceeded to try and "righfully" stone Him. You fail that commandment by default, because to worship Christ, a man, you have to imagine an image. You worship a created image, ao youre no better But the bigger issue here, is you think that the type of "idolatry" you imagine actually exists within the Apostolic Tradition. I'm sorry, but I have never heard anybody breathing into their statues and then claiming here lies thr essence of a saint. Nor heard and seen thr ritual of binding via key lines to bind an essence to said statue that wasn't a legitimate occultist. Do you even know what an "idol" is? Or are you just saying things from ignorance? There's a reason why jews think your idea of Christianity is one degree less idolatrous than true Apostolic Christianity. You're judiazed and that should give you pause.
Here's another good quote that shows icon veneration dating from 4th-5th century "Whilst on my journey to the world's mistress, Rome, a hope sprang up within me, that Christ would be triumphant. I was lying prostrate on a tomb, which a sacred martyr, Cassian, with his body dedicated (to God) made beautiful. Whilst with tear I was considering within myself my wounds, and all the labors and bitter pains of life, I raised my face upwards; there was before me, painted in dark colors, the representation of the martyr, covered with countless wounds, lacerated in every limb, and with the skin minutely punctured. Around him, oh sad sight, there was a countless crowd of boys who with their pens pierced the wounded limbs. . . . The keeper of the building said, in answer to my inquiries, That which thou seest, stranger, is no empty or idle fable. The picture tells a history [after the well-known history, he continues:] These are the circumstances which, expressed in colors, have excited your wonder: This is Cassian's glory. If thou hast any just, or praiseworthy desire, if there be anything that thou hope for; if thou be inwardly troubled, but whisper it. The most glorious martyr hears, believe me, every prayer, and those which he sees deserving of approval, he renders effectual. I then ran through the list of my secret difficulties; I then murmur forth my desires, and my fears, my household left behind in hopes of future good. I am heard. I visit Rome; I am successful; I return to my home, and I loudly praise Cassian." Prudentius, Aurelius. Peristephanon, Hymn IX.
"Is Gavin right after all?" If you don't immediately say 'no' then roll credits for a 10 second video, I will be disappointed. *Update:* Seraphim, I am disappoint.
Gavin’s attack on Nicaea 2 does not hold weight to the reality of whether icon veneration existed, it is simply a red herring where he tries to argue the specific type of veneration outlined by Nicaea 2 cannot be retroactively applied in the past. Nicaea 2 does not even need to be addressed. Veneration, as mentioned, is simply bestowing the glory of prototype unto its image.. that specific practices regarding veneration are red herring to this fact, as the practices develop from the seed that is nourished in the life of the church. The plain fact is, that icon veneration exists in the oriental orthodox churches before Nicaea 2, considering the geographic isolation of the churches of Ethiopia, Armenia, and India, itself prove the living reality of icon veneration that has existed in the church..
@@sammytalluri1019 Iconoclasm was 100% a response to Islamic Aggressions. Not because of a long standing Aniconic Tradition. The Churches under Islam did not have the same issues with Iconoclasts in the Empire. And in the West the Pope defended the Icons against the Iberians who sought to placate Islam in the same way.
I still don't see how this refutes Dr. Orlund’s argument (and the scholarly consensus) against iconodulia in the early church. I read S. Gregory of Nyssa’s quote and it does not present a semiotic theory of veneration. That is, what given to image is transferred to the portrayed subject. Rather you see communication of grace being applied to the relic which is a completely different thing. In fact the benefits received in having images in S. Nyssa’s quote pertains to didactic reasons. “The pictures located on the walls are eloquent by their silence 👉and offer significant testimony👈” Dr. Ortlund has recognized that there is a range of views against icon use in the early church: didactic, commemorative, aniconic use to full blown iconoclasm. Just because images are present does not prove iconodulia.
Dr. Ortlund made a variety of distinct claims in his video. The reason I cited this one up front (though it does not prove everything we are contending) is that many of the passages which are set forth as least ambiguous are passages which seem to allege a complete absence of imagery in the church. However, we would add to this and argue that the distinction between the creation and honoring of imagery is very difficult to sustain (and we begin to develop this late in this video, though this is part of a lengthy series of videos, most of which will be released in the near future) and that the placing of images in an honorable position in the church is itself a mode of veneration.
@@ElvisI97 "The Scholarly Consensus" is 100% a product of modernity, not of Christ. The Church is Christ's Body. I am more inclined to trust Christ's Body in matters of Faith than a bunch of Scholars.
Seraphim is not simply moving from mention of any images immediately to "this was veneration." 1. He made the point that the location of Christ in the image is significant. The upper register in an image is generally associated with the "place of honor," and in this light it is very significant that Christ is depicted as "presiding over all." This essentially portrays him in a location that would be similar to portrayals of the emperor in Roman monuments (and we know the emperor's likeness was venerated with a kiss basically wherever it was shown, per Marcus Cornelius' Fronto's testimony). There are many such early depictions of Christ in the place of honor to which focus and attention would be given in a space ritually dedicated to Him, for prayer to Him. 2. The placement of these images up on the wall of a holy building in a space dedicated to honoring the martyr depicted is not insignificant. Roman wall mosaics and paintings were often meant for ritual interaction--even if they were depicting a narrative (see the Villa of the Mysteries at Pompeii). Beat Brenk points out the significance of where some early Christian images were placed in his book "The Apse, The Image, and The Icon": "Mosaics and frescoes in the apses of cult rooms generated very particular effects, evoking in the viewer respect, admiration, awe and maybe even veneration..." Additionally, in our next video we will provide a quote from Dr. Richard Price about how the very placement of an image is a mode of veneration. 3. Immediately after the quote Seraphim gives, Saint Gregory makes clear that the image is meant to evoke veneration and prayer: "These spectacles strike the senses and delight the eye by drawing us near to [the martyr's] tomb which we believe to be both a sanctification and blessing." By approaching the image and coming to the tomb, "In this way one implores the martyr who intercedes on our behalf and is an attendant of God for imparting those favors and blessings which people seek." So the whole point of the image is that it leads you to pray to him in front of his tomb with the image directly overhead. Looking at an image of a Saint while praying to that Saint is what we mean by "praying through" an image. 4. The description of the Saint's images connects to the request for his intercession at the end. His images "glorify the temple with resplendent beauty", a temple "brightly adorned with magnificence." Later, Saint Gregory says "But by the power of your intercession and those with you, oh marvelous and most bright among the martyrs." The visual reference (marvelous/bright, magnificence/brightly) is repeated and significant, so the prayer to the martyr is addressed with the martyr's image in mind. Additionally, the language of "the young shoot will return to you, the flourishing citizenship of Christians will endure to the end in the splendid, fruitful field of faith in Christ which always bears the fruit of eternal life" connects quite well to the earlier reference to "flowers made in the likeness of the martyr's virtues" (which the Christian onlooker is to imitate). So these were not just didactic images, they were venerated.
@@Seraphim-Hamilton "many of the passages...seem to allege a complete absence of imagery in the church" Firstly, thanks for your response. I'm a fan of your work! I found that Dr. Ortlund was quite clear in his argumentation. He never just promoted the iconoclastic view as the only view in the early church. Rather he presented a range of early church views, even the aniconic ones, showing how none of them hold to Nicea II's conception of the semiotic use of images. What appears to be happening here is an expansion of the term 'veneration' to include different forms of honor found in the early church, in order to defend the broader and more sophisticated theological understanding of veneration, such as those seen in Nicea II. It is not difficult to see the distinction between creating images for didactic or commemorative purposes and using those same images as vehicles for communicating prayers, affection, and devotion to what they represent.
@@acekoala457 "The Church is Christ's Body. I am more inclined to trust Christ's Body in matters of Faith than a bunch of Scholars." This is a false dichotomy. It's not mutually exclusive; you can be a scholar and a Christian. Read Fr. Richard Price's critical edition of the Acts of the Second Council of Nicea. He is a catholic theologian. “The real problem for the iconophile case lay elsewhere - in the poverty of support for their cause even in the golden age of the fathers. The iconoclasts were in a somewhat stronger position… The iconoclast cause has few adherents nowadays, outside the heirs of John Calvin. But the iconoclast claim that reverence towards images did not go back to the golden age of the fathers, still less to the apostles, would be judged by impartial historians today to be simply correct. The iconophile view of the history of Christian thought and devotion was virtually a denial of history, in favour of a myth of a religion that had been perfect from the first and needed no addition or subtraction.” - The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), 40 & 43.
At risk of making a tu quoque fallacy, Dr. Ortlund is asking a very high standard for icon veneration(basically we'd need a step by step instruction manual in an Apostle's handwriting for him to accept it) but he certainly doesn't apply anywhere near that level of scrutiny to his own beliefs and practices. Unless he's using the Ctrl F method of research i don't understand how he can't see the difference between the early Church and Protestants.
To be fair to his view, he is claiming that the alleged aniconism of the early Church is an internal critique of Orthodoxy based upon our own presuppositions (1. Early tradition is authoritative and 2. II Nicaea is correct in teaching that image veneration is apostolic). He wouldn’t endorse the first presupposition or the 2nd
If a new convert to Christianity comes from a cultural background rampant in idol worship which leads them to refuse to venerate icons out of fear of committing idolatry, which a mature EO Christian might see as a "weakness" in their faith but cannot convince them otherwise, is that convert not fully saved?
Do not worry! just go to the EO Church and talk to a priest there! We converts all have different baggage. Just continue staying in the Church and everything will be clear a long the Path!
I think someone coming from a pagan background would immediately understand the Orthodox veneration vs worship distinction, especially since that’s the context in which this worship style came out of. Pagans were still converting to Christianity in St. Gregory of Nissa’s time and, as the video showed, icons clearly existed then. I think fear of icon veneration only makes sense in a context without sacrificial worship (including Eucharistic worship)
@21:00 to 25 we mention Eusebius’ testimony that honorific portraits (a venerated image type) of Christ and the Apostles date back to the Apostolic age. But I provide other evidence relating to this in the book
@@pigetstuck what do you mean by “Christian worship “? Given that we don’t worship icons, it would help to have clarification before I proceed with an answer And I’m curious what you mean by “important”. I think women being able to take communion is important but St Paul says nothing about this. Icons stick out to those opposed to them as pronounced. But to the Orthodox they are not at all the center of Christian practice.
@@pigetstuck A Gospel which proclaims the reign of Christ on earth as conqueror could not have its insignia treated with less honor than family portraits or civic monuments. So just as the audible proclamation that Jesus is Lord is necessary as a response to the Gospel, so likewise the signs of His power and rule must be visibly honored. This could be applied differently to different people depending on their level of understanding, commitment and possibly some kind of baggage from their past. But the normal attitude of someone who honors Christ will always be to honor the signs of His kingdom (whether those signs are people as with the Apostles, words as in the veneration of the written Scripture, places such as His tomb, or His insignia as with crosses and icons)
To Iconoclasts: Does anyone make images of things they're attitudinally neutral to? Is it in the slightest bit believable that anyone makes a positive image of something or someone without some veneration towards it? The whole point of the Orthodox argument is that it's arbitrary to separate forms of veneration. If just making images is an expression of veneration and permissible, on what non arbitrary grounds could anyone stop a grandmother from kissing an image of the living Christ the way she would an image of her son? Is her son more deserving of veneration and of more varied expressions of veneration than God Himself? If you draw the line at expressing veneration towards images, then how is this not an arbitrary, superstitious "works damnation" theology that paints God as a tyrant who tests the loyalty of His creatures with arbitrary rules? the very thing the Protestant criticism of the superstition of "works salvation" is meant to critique?
@@meganbohun1483 You're changing the subject, Megan. That's a separate issue, which it isn't unfair for you to bring up, but you didn't touch on any of the points I made at all
Check out his January 2023 video that kicked it all off. He expresses concern that icon veneration resembles idolatry, rejects the type-prototype connection, and alleges that the anathemas of the Council put constraints on the freedom afforded by the Gospel. Additionally on a historical level he says image veneration is a late accretion (I believe he says it only became normal in the 600s but please confirm for yourself) and that this makes the anathemas of 2 Nicaea illegitimate
Once protestants understand the difference between veneration and worship, and the implication of both the incarnation and ascension, these super deep dives are typically not necessary. Prots can scream accretion, Elvira, 2nd commandment all they want, it matters not. Denying icons (particularly of Christ) denies the incarnation, rejecting veneration spits on the memory of our loved ones via gnostic dualism/platonism, calls God a liar by reniging on His promise of sending the Holy Spirit and His never leaving, pulls a fast one on us by lying about it leading us to all truth, turns from His own Church being the ground and pillar of truth, and fully adheres to the Church having been conquered by the gates of Hades. But sure, keep wordsmithing and reading into the Church Fathers with a lens they would personally escort you out of a parish for, mutilating their words, and multiplying sectarian parachurches by some new "tradition of man" i.e. Calvin, Luther, Wesley, etc., and dividing yourselves all while calling the true Church "fallen". You're only adding insult to your own injury.
To be honest, these exchanges are discouraging, because I find it next to impossible to conceive of a scenario where Ortlund changes his mind. He is too dug in, captured by the incentive of appeasing the audience who enshrines him as its champion.
We’re happy to fight for the truth for any who are willing to listen. And I think Orthodox and Catholics who don’t know how to respond will walk away with their faith strengthened. Some people have reached out to me to say that they found my arguments convincing and it changed their minds about certain things too. I hope Dr O will eventually come around though.
So I’ll start by saying I’m neutral on icons, I think they’re beautiful but I’m indifferent to them being part of worship in the sense of God wants me to use them I’m happy to, if he doesn’t want me to I’ll gladly do without. I’ll also add I’m not a Baptist, I highly disagree with Calvinism and reformed theology on many many issues. Some I’d go so far to say are possibly heretical. That being said am I missing something here? Isn’t Ortlund making the case that icon veneration isn’t an apostolic practice and that it’s a development? Wasnt he pointing out that there were multiple early Christian writers who either were unaware of Icon veneration or outright spoke against it? Thats to say isnt the case that he’s making about icons shouldn’t be anathema tiered aspects of the faith and not that no one ever used images prior to the 400s? Again im happy to do with or without them if God wishes me to venerate icons sounds good to me if not that works for me too. I’m not a pastor or priest or theologian or teacher. Ask your Pastor/Priest and pray about the issue.
Thank you for watching, we are making a cumulative case for early image veneration with several parts. In the next 1-2 videos we’ll bring written evidence. But I would be curious what you made of the evidence we reviewed (Eusebius, Acts of John, Alexamenos Graffito, Catacomb Art, etc). I’m also interested in whether you have any opinions about the responses Catholic apologists published to the evidence Dr Ortlund alleges supports his view, if you’ve taken a look at it. I think Trent Horn, Suan Sonna, William Albrect etc covered this stuff pretty well.
It would seem to me the icons and faith are crucial. The first big change in the west was eliminating icons. Now we have a secular country falling fast. I believe that by removing images of Christ from our daily life was detrimental to our faith and even worse Protestants don’t have a problem with evil images. Or what about tv shows and movies. So many Protestants love The Chosen. Where the merchandise. Nothing about being iconoclast is sensible.
So I didn’t think Ortlund successfully defended his thesis. But I think the suggestion that he is not clear as between “they didn’t make images” and “they didn’t venerate them”-this is not accurate. Ultimately, his challenge to our side is asking us to defend Nicaea II. So we need to defend veneration and not just the permissibility of images. I think he is clear on this IMO, and we should engage on that assumption
I no longer believe that Christianity is a religion of antiquity, but a religion originating much later in Medieval Europe. My main evidence is that Christian morality isn't congruent (if that's the right word) with Biblical morality, especially morality found in the OT. Instead, Christian morality, as it has been practiced traditionally (I mean conservative Christian morality), is closer to Medieval Chivalry. Take, for example, the story of David and Abishag. In that story, there isn't any record of Israel protesting their unusual relationship. It looks like Israel had no issues with King David sharing a bed with a young lady (un-married) and even the author doesn't make any negative comment about it. In contrast, traditional conservative Christian morality would have a big problem with that relationship. All Christian societies would not permit their political leaders to keep their position while sharing their bed with a young lady.
The Bible tells stories. Folks like to say that the Bible doesn't condemn polygamy (in fact, it does, but let's just say they are right, that there isn't an outright condemnation). if you read the stories about polygamous marriage, you see that the lives of those families are extremely dysfunctional. The fighting between Jacob, Rachael, Leah, and their sons is clearly evidence thru story that polygamy is not acceptable. The lack of outright condemnation of David isn't evidence that the Bible says his relationships are okay. Rather, you see in the life of David that as he acquires more wives and strays from God's ideal, he falls into sin after sin.
@JohnMaximovich-r8x What is Gods ideal as related in the contents of the writings specific to Moses, Abraham and David? Solomon was explicitly told that gathering wives would lead him astray (this is just from memory), but it was specific to women who were raised in foreign societies (again, that is also from memory). I think my point still has validity. You are saying that God did have a problem with David's relationship with Abishag. I don't see any evidence for that, from the scriptures. I am not convinced that, the reason why David had a bad family experience, is a direct result of having multiple wives, though I agree that contributed to his miserable family life, I don't think it's the main cause. I think the main cause was ego and the lust for power e.g. Absolom.
Separate question: Could canonized saints have apostatized without our knowing? Is that possible? If not, why not? If so, mightn't you be venerating those who are, for all we know, actually apostates?
@@rhedrich3 It's important to understand that included in the "our" pronoun built into your first question is the Holy Spirit, which guides the body of Christ. The canonization of a saint is a corporate action, action that follows attestation, reflection and prayer over years. To suggest that a saint has been wrongly canonized in the Orthodox Church is to suggest, really, that the Church has been abandoned by the Holy Spirit. It hasn't been, though, so your final question is without merit.
@ericlammerman2777 Well, every faith group makes appeal to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I was wondering if there was any other justification. That is, are there any what you would call dogmatic statements to the effect that the Holy Spirit guides each canonization process, or is this just an inference you have made from consideration of the implications of a contrary supposition? Separately, canonization would, for you, effectively constitute new, divine revelation, right?
@@rhedrich3 Not every faith group does appeal to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, though (looking at you, cessationists), and not every faith group can make this claim with the authority of the one holy, catholic and apostolic church. As I mentioned above, canonization is a corporate action that typically involves a lengthy period of prayer, reflection and plenty of attestation concerning the holiness of the person in question. Concerning your final question: Does the Council of Jerusalem (documented in Acts 15) constitute divine revelation for you? In other words, when the Holy Spirit guides a group of fallible men into truth (already found in scripture)...is this divine revelation? Because when the Church canonizes a saint, it is largely just affirming something the Body of Christ already knew (with the Holy Spirit guiding her into the truth). It's not like the vision given to St. John at Patmos at any rate, is it? I hope this makes sense.
@@ericlammerman2777 We are getting afield of the intent behind my initial question. If you have any dogmatic statement to the effect that canonization is an infallible process, I would like to see it. If not, let me know. If we're speaking of authority, then - to be frank - I want to know what your authorities say, not what your opinion is about how the Holy Spirit works.
@@Jy3pr6 further on in this passage it ends with: Moses, having been taught in every city--indicating the standard is set by the already established teaching from the old covenant--(since we are discussing here what part of the old covenant new Christians were to be bound by)--No image, means just what Deuteronomy meant when it said: no image.
@@TimothyAdams-ln2jr Then I have two questions for you: Why does God command the Ark of the Covenant and the temple to be adorned with images of "things on earth and things in heaven"? Do you have pictures of anything and watch movies?
@@Jy3pr6 and Nadab and Abihu offered strange fire unto the Lord and died by fire in the presence of the Lord before the tent of meeting...Moses and Aaron were tasked with offerings to the Lord, by your logic, why shouldn't others be able to do the same?
It’s so hard not to see you reading your desired meaning into the Greggory of Nyssa passage. Nothing in it has to do with the use of these images in acts of veneration, bowing, etc. But these are explicitly said to be visual TESTIMONY! That is, they are a form of instruction, not objects of worship. This is the same use as the images in the OT temple. Such are congruent with the law against bowing in a worshipful manner to paintings or other object-objects which serve a function in worship but are not the object of worship (example: alters, musical instruments, incense, mosaics, etc,). There is NO evidence at all in this passage that these items were the objects of worship, much less that they were so only to pass the worship through to God the Father or the Son.. If they were to act in this way, well, that is the pagan practice. What in the passage proves veneration at all. The objects of testimony are obviously there, but the use of veneration is completely invented. If not, please explain.
We talk about this a lot in the video. But many of Gavin’s arguments have to do with patristic texts alleged to prohibit even the making of images. So we address both sets of claims, along with the relationship between them.
@@Seraphim-Hamilton, but the overton window on images was clearly between: 1) not having any images of the saints in church. This is supported by the synod of Elvira (AD 306), the council of Laodicea (AD 363-364), and the synod of Hieria (754), And 2) Churches that had such images, but were limited to the use of instruction (Testimony as in Gregory of Nyssa). You seem to be attempting to convert the mere presence of such images, mosaics, and the mere placement location of them in the sanctuary, into positive evidence of veneration. This is an illogical and unjustified leap. I’m not trying to offend, but the movement from mere mention of the existence of images to an inference of the practice of veneration is wild. The description of such a practice, which would require a lot of hair splitting to separate it from pagan use of idols is simply absent from the written record. And it can’t be conjured from the mere presence of images (especially in light of strong teaching against such use). If I’m in error please point me straight. But where in the Nyssa quote was there anything that indicated the practice of veneration of the pictures described?
@@jrhemmerichThe fact that they were there lends credence to there veneration. As in the Old Testament Temple. Imagery has always had theological significance. Even a reverent gaze is veneration. As when the Israelites gazed upon the bronze serpent. God does nothing by happenstance. Imagery was always used in Temple, synagogue, and church worship from the very beginning. Orthodox adamantly opposes worship of imagery, not veneration. That’s such a hard thing for us Americans. However, we put pictures of loved ones on our walls, have beautiful photo albums of our cherished, and often keep “momentos” to help us reflect and remember them. This is all from our nature and the way God created us. Bless you, brother.
Your problem is one you don’t understand the difference between respect and worship. And 2 you think worship is an external action . Worship is an act of the heart. Kissing my wife is not worship. Kissing a picture is not worship. Bowing to my boss is not worship just like bowing to my priest is not worship. Go learn more and think about more stuff.
@@thomasmyers3808, thanks for the examples and distinctions. I agree that a gaze might be a very simple beginning of veneration. I don’t think looking at the bronze serpent had anything to do with veneration. It was a visual form of recognizing the need to identify the source of sin’s poison. It’s a word picture that teaches about repentance. Imagery in temples is not the problem. Directing worship (e.g. bowing) to them was a problem under the 2nd commandment. Things to remember loved ones is not problematic either. Nor are pictures or art depicting the saints. But to direct acts of worship to them. We don’t do that with family pictures. Reverence for a creature-parent, king, etc.-is not at all in the same category as worship directed to God. There can be an overlap in form (we bow to a ruler, and we bow in worship) but the intent and context distinguish the acts as unique. The veneration of icons places the worship of God among the object of things. This is what is why it breaks the 2nd commandment. Blessings to you also. God is so gracious to us as we learn from each other.
If one thinks they would be caused to stumble because of images and ornate vestments in worship and so on, they are welcomed in the Churches of Christ where we have no such traditions, where our worship is austere and our singing is a cappella. It is so that all be made to feel at home and no one need be offended. Catholics, Baptists, Anabaptists, Protestants and Orthodox all are welcomed. In my pew, nearly every Sunday, I have a Roman Catholic brother to my right and an Orthodox brother with a prayer rope around his wrist to my left. Worship is plain and simple and communion is every Sunday and not held back to anyone who believes that Christ is LORD and claim to be baptized into His Kingdom. Have your ornaments, that is fine. Your churches are elaborate and beautifully decorated. It excites the senses and makes for a powerful experience, it has its place. Some churches have rock music which is quite rousing; there’s a place for it too...each to his own but for me, I like the ordinary and simple.
What motivates this level of concern for the feelings of others, to the extent that questions of how God is to be worshiped and approached is decided on this basis of what is found palatable or upsetting? [Mat 11:6 KJV] 6 And blessed is [he], whosoever shall not be offended in Me.
What you essentially are doing is bringing a bunch of people together who all have a friend named Jesus and you all assume you are talking about the same Jesus. That’s has never been allowed. I hope you would agree that all through history Christ established and ordered church. From OT to NT. It has always been this way and we actually see punishment for those who think they can just do whatever they want “to each his own”? That’s demonic dude.
Look at God's creation, is it too complicated and luxurious for your taste? Do you in your heart of hearts consider the complexity and beauty of creation to be witnesses, as St Paul and Scripture in general attest, to the glory of God? How can worship and God's house possibly not reflect the richness of God and His works? Or are His works supposed to, in contradiction of Scripture, outshine His house? It's clear that by getting rid of the richness of Orthodoxy the "simple" denominations haven't become more pious but have only sceded the territory of the God created senses to the devil. The account of St Vladimir's emissaries is one of the best proofs of Orthodoxy
I'd encourage OrthoBros on the fence to consume less wound-licking reaction videos and to peruse, for themselves, the primary and secondary sources e.g. The Cult of Images in the Age before Iconoclasm Ernst Kitzinger. The Eastern churches will doom you to a path of embarrassing retconning and mental gymnastics.
There are plenty of videos circulating that respond to allegedly aniconic quotes., Kitzinger is worth reading but if the quotes don’t support the whole early Church being aniconic, then the aniconist interpretation seems unjustified (and I don’t think they support this). Which of Kitzingers quotes do you find most persuasive?
Answering Protestantism from the Bible 17 Hour Lecture Set: seraphimhamilton.substack.com/p/answering-protestantism-from-the
Become a patron: www.patreon.com/kabane
Subscribe to my Substack: seraphimhamilton.substack.com/
Exclusive content by Patreon & Membership Tiers (each tier includes all content from lower tiers)
Tier 1: DAILY Scripture reflections ranging from 2-5 pages per day, six days a week.
Tier 2: Weekly half hour video, featuring a topic relating to Biblical studies, church history, apologetics, and related subjects.
Tier 3: An exclusive course (ultimately over ten hours long) on the Old Testament, with new installments of over an hour each uploaded weekly.
Tier 4: A monthly 1 on 1 call or voice chat where we can discuss any topic of your choosing.
Join our Discord: discord.gg/fGNNB8P6CJ
Answering Protestantism from the Bible in 17 Hour Lecture Set:
buy.stripe.com/5kA2bz6Y467K4JaaEJ
Sample lecture: ruclips.net/video/spQOreW8EDk/видео.html
Bundle with "Answering Calvinism from the Bible" for a discount (23 hours total):
buy.stripe.com/9AQ8zX4PWeEg1wYeUY
To just get "Answering Calvinism from the Bible"
buy.stripe.com/aEUeYl4PW0Nq5Ne7su
To schedule a one-time one hour call, simply send $50 to the following link with your email address: www.paypal.com/paypalme/seraphimhamilton
You never miss, great video.
What I find has truly ended this debate is how quickly protestants changed their entire polemic on this issue. Protestants used to argue that the mere construction of images constituted idolatry, and that placing them in churches during worship constituted a grave sin that would have been unthinkable to the early church.
Now, they casually admit that not only were icons everywhere in the pre nicene church, but that churches were regularly decked out in images which were obviously part of worship.
This whole argument of "they had images but didn't venerate them" is absurd on its face. Firstly, just because we don't have any sources that explicitly mention people bowing to or kissing icons, doesn't mean they didn't do it. That's an argument from silence, which is a fallacy.
Secondly, why are protestants like ortlund here still strict iconoclasts if he's now admitting that iconography was extremely common and perfectly acceptable in the early church? That poses a major contradiction to what his own "tradition" has taught for centuries, and yet, he's made no acknowledgement of this. He's offered no explanation for this radical change in theology. He's just quietly shifted the goalposts and pretended that nothing happened.
Actually to argue that the presence of images meant that they must have also bowed down and kissed them is actually an argument from silence. The burden of proof is on the iconodules to show that there was more happening in practice associated with the presence of images. This is especially true when the purpose of the images is mentioned without including the semiotic use of images. Here is the quote from S. Gregory of Nyssa when read closely.
“The pictures located on the walls are eloquent by their silence 👉and offer significant testimony👈”
This is not an argument from silence. He literally tells us what those images are meant to convey without any reference to Nicea II's theology.
@@ElvisI97 Does anyone make images of things they're attitudinally neutral to? Is it in the slightest bit believable that anyone makes a positive image of something or someone without some veneration towards it? The whole point of the Orthodox argument is that it's arbitrary to separate forms of veneration. If just making images is an expression of veneration and permissible, on what non arbitrary grounds could anyone stop a grandmother from kissing an image of the living Christ the way she would an image of her son? Is her son more deserving of veneration and of more varied expressions of veneration than God Himself? If you draw the line at expressing veneration towards images, then how is this not an arbitrary, superstitious "works damnation" theology that paints God as a tyrant who tests the loyalty of His creatures with arbitrary rules? the very thing the Protestant criticism of the superstition of "works salvation" is meant to critique?
@@Firebreath56 I think you’re referring to the Puritanical Movement. Lutheran’s and Anglican’s don’t reject icons.
There is a biblical precedence and principal for bowing and veneration of imagery. See Psalm 5:7 and Joshua 7:6.
@@ElvisI97
You're misunderstanding Protestants. The first claim is not one historic Protestant churches made.
Gavin on Icon Veneration: strong evidence, clear points, definitive proof.
Also Gavin on Baptism: linguistic complexity, nuance meanings, personal experiences, vagueness in meaning, accretion
A few people have asked questions about the quote from St Gregory of Nyssa at the beginning. Seraphim is not simply moving from mention of any images immediately to "this was veneration." Here is why:
1. The location of Christ in the image is significant. The upper register in an image is generally associated with the "place of honor," and in this light it is very significant that Christ is depicted as "presiding over all." This essentially portrays him in a location that would be similar to portrayals of the emperor in Roman monuments (and we know the emperor's likeness was venerated with a kiss basically wherever it was shown, per Marcus Cornelius' Fronto's testimony). There are many such early depictions of Christ in the place of honor to which focus and attention would be given in a space ritually dedicated to Him, for prayer to Him.
2. The placement of these images up on the wall of a holy building in a space dedicated to honoring the martyr depicted is not insignificant. Roman wall mosaics and paintings were often meant for ritual interaction--even if they were depicting a narrative (see the Villa of the Mysteries at Pompeii). Beat Brenk points out the significance of where some early Christian images were placed in his book "The Apse, The Image, and The Icon": "Mosaics and frescoes in the apses of cult rooms generated very particular effects, evoking in the viewer respect, admiration, awe and maybe even veneration..." Additionally, in our next video we will provide a quote from Dr. Richard Price about how the very placement of an image is a mode of veneration.
3. Immediately after the quote Seraphim gives, Saint Gregory makes clear that the image is meant to evoke veneration and prayer: "These spectacles strike the senses and delight the eye by drawing us near to [the martyr's] tomb which we believe to be both a sanctification and blessing." By approaching the image and coming to the tomb, "In this way one implores the martyr who intercedes on our behalf and is an attendant of God for imparting those favors and blessings which people seek." So the whole point of the image is that it leads you to pray to him in front of his tomb with the image directly overhead. Looking at an image of a Saint while praying to that Saint is what we mean by "praying through" an image.
4. The description of the Saint's images connects to the request for his intercession at the end. His images "glorify the temple with resplendent beauty", a temple "brightly adorned with magnificence." Later, Saint Gregory says "But by the power of your intercession and those with you, oh marvelous and most bright among the martyrs." The visual reference (marvelous/bright, magnificence/brightly) is repeated and significant, so the prayer to the martyr is addressed with the martyr's image in mind. Additionally, the language of "the young shoot will return to you, the flourishing citizenship of Christians will endure to the end in the splendid, fruitful field of faith in Christ which always bears the fruit of eternal life" connects quite well to the earlier reference to "flowers made in the likeness of the martyr's virtues" (which the Christian onlooker is to imitate).
So these were not just didactic images, they were venerated.
Mike cuando y a donde saldrá tu libro a la venta?
Let's go!! ☦️🔥🔥
Demanding an explicit historical record of veneration of the images in the early centuries of repressed Christianity is like demanding to catch lightning in a bottle.
I don't really understand this "they had images but they didn't venerate them" argument that some people make. Having an image of Christ or a saint is in itself venerating Christ or the saint - we want to honor Christ or the saint, and do that by having their image.
I'm a Swedish Lutheran and my church is filled with images and statues. We don't kiss or bow before them (although many actually do the sign of the cross and bow before the crucifix after recieving the Eucharist), but the reason that they're there is to honor and remember Christ and these saints.
So sure the particular form of veneration may have changed and developed through the centuries, and done so differently in different areas. Perhaps the earliest Christians did not kiss icons, but the very idea of even having an image of Christ or the saints in the first place is to venerate the persons in the images. Having the image is itself an act of veneration, and kissing or not kissing it is more a difference in degree than in substance. This is why I find it strange to say that the early Christians had images but did not venerate them - surely the reason for having an image of Christ was to honor him.
@@smez doesn’t Nicea II state anyone who doesn’t bow and kiss the icons is anathema? Or even communicating with someone who speaks negatively of them. It became a requirement for salvation and not a choice
@meganbohun1483 Anathema doesn't mean "required for salvation."
@@meganbohun1483Are you trying to refute HIS point
@@EpistemicAnthony wait so are you saying that if someone does NOT venerate images and are thus anathema that they can be saved after being anathematized? To say "You're anathema if you don't do this" and then saying "it's not required for salvation tho" legit makes no sense lol
@@EpistemicAnthony what does it mean then?
Ortlund may be affable to some degree, but I find it far outweighed by his obstinacy. He goes on the attack to avoid defending his own presuppositions. Protestantism was born in ahistoricity, and the internet age is brutal to their assertions.
Exactly. It was the internet age that brought me to orthodoxy. It is the internet age that will bring down Muslims, Mormons, protestants and Romans
@@creepingsancy Why stop there? Why not bring down Hindus, Buddhists, Amish, JW, Assyrian Church of the East. What supreme version of Christianity do you believe is worthy of survival?
This is off topic. Dr Orland has a video about the Apostle's Creed, which he believes every word in the Creed . For example :
"I believe in the Holy Spirit, the HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH ) Then why has he not converted to Catholicism ?
@@ninjason57 Orthodoxy isn't just the correct version of Christianity, it is Christianity.
Bro stop it you guys fight and anathemize each other over calendar use
Since when has modern man truly corrected the ancient preserved faith? Yet they keep trying.
MY 2 CENTS: Gavin Ortlund reminds me of my father. My dad a Wesleyan minister for 50 years, spent much of his time disputing against Calvinism. Ortlund is always trying to dispute against Orthodoxy, he seems desperate to discourage those skeptical of protestant heterdoxy from finding the church founded by Christ.
@@stevobear4647 he's also obsessed with anti-catholic doctrine
What? He says both Orthodox and Catholics have many Christians. He's looking at the data and I'm sure he'll be happy to look at the data these two mention too.
@@Roescoehe doesn’t even respond to the majority of the data presented. And, seeing how that’s his full-time job now, I’d be insulted if I was a Protestant viewer of his and THAT was his response. It’s honestly why I have far more respect for Dr. Jordan B. Cooper, other than his filioque defense video, he gives you some stuff to actually chew on.
The quote from St. Gregory of Nyssa is a game changer. Definitely buying Michael’s books on this topic.
@@deadalivemaniac me too
Same. The subject of icons is one of my favorites.
It's a fake quote! You guys are so gullible. Why do the Cathodox always rely on fake quotes if they represent the truth? The Second Council of Nicaea was also fraught with fake quotes, which modern idolaters admit. "But the Holy Spirit still guided them."
@@pontificusmaximussource that it’s fake?
@@thanevakarian9762 This quote pretending to be written by Gregory of Nyssa (In Praise of Theodore) is from a hagiography, which is a tradition that was added to over the centuries. It's in none of his extant writings. The original text was first published in the mid 1800s by Jacques Migne, a very respected Catholic translator. The text is marked by Migne as spurious.
I understand and really appreciate what you're trying to do with looking at all of this historically and making a pure (if complex) argument from history. But one of the things that really settled this matter for me as I was converting to Orthodoxy was asking myself: what churches still LOOK like these early churches, and how do people in those churches treat those images? Nobody in post-Reformation Christianity attends churches that look like Catholic or Orthodox churches while simultaneously denying the veneration of the saints and God through those images. The way protestant scholars like Ortlund argue implies that their position is the "default" position and somehow we have to come up with evidence to show that the default position is wrong. In fact, it's precisely the opposite. Early Christian Churches LOOK LIKE modern Orthodox Churches, as has been so clearly shown in archeological data (which you do a great job of addressing). The default, therefore, should be: how do Christians worship who are still attending churches that look like those ancient churches? We venerate the icons. We *also* have simple guidelines for how to do so without veneration becoming worship of those images. Ortlund is simply wrong to take "no icon veneration" as the default position that must be shown to be false.
The earliest “churches” were held in people’s homes. Some people met in caves. Much teaching was done in the synagogues. We know from acts people were selling all they had and giving it away, not covering it in gold. In Acts 19, Paul could have avoided the riot with Demetrius by suggesting he also make icons to sell to Christians. And by Revelation, the churches in Asia are already being critiqued for going astray. It’s just a little more complicated.
@@WeAreTheLucid going astray =/= the whole church apostasizing and reformation/restoration being required. The Saviour promised the church would prevail over the gates of hell, not immediately fall away.
There's also extensive study done on early home churches, they were not free standing suburban boomer houses, "house churches" in the early church refer to largely rich converts who lived in what was closer to a palace/villa, and liturgical worship was performed in them.
I find it amusing that protestants would often scream about how can one anathematize someone who rejects Nicaea II while subscribing to Council of Hieria
Here we go ☦️
The Coptic, Syriac, and Ethiopian traditions possess a rich iconographic heritage that evolved independently of Byzantine and Roman influences (and to a lesser extent the ACotE). This aspect appears to be a blind spot in Gavin's analysis. Furthermore, these ancient churches assert their apostolicity, claiming an equal stake and right as Rome and Constantinople. Interestingly, if Gavin's argument holds true, it only applies primarily to the unified Catholic Church (East and West before Nicea ii but after Chalcedon 451) Church and overlooks the churches of the Orient that experienced schism in the mid-5th century. This implies that the concept of icon veneration within the "Great Church" (encompassing Rome, Constantinople, and the Churches of the Orient) must have been deeply ingrained as a spiritual devotion and ethos throughout the entire church. This reality poses a significant challenge to Gavin's overall premise.
Another thing worth mentioning is that the anti icon early fathers seem to make the claim that images interfere with noetic prayer, not that they are blasphemous. This perspective exists today in certain Roman Catholic monastic orders who single note chant the whole mass and have little to no images. One can also note similar practices in orthodox monasticism. And all of this is based on a perspective on prayer that doesn’t exist in the Protestant church which is okay with sensuality in worship so long as it is auditory
God bless you both! This content is very much needed, and I'm glad you two have put so much effort into this topic
Thank you, lots more to come (LOTS)
Our boys look good on the tube! Good stuff guys.
I'm beginning to see Gavin on the same level as Mormon apologist. Someone who wants to believe what they want to believe and is no longer really worth engaging with at this point. Seraphim is free to do what he wants but Gavin is oh so tiresome. His father's public endorsement of Kamala Harris and his attempts to get Meghan Basham book canceled shows his true colors. It's a family affair.
I am a Catholic and of course we Catholics get Ortlunds' views with that smirk look of him thinking deeply and then he does the same thing with the Catholic position as he does with the Orthodox. I think his father, brother are also pastors in 2 other protestant ecclesial communities that have roots in the British Isles in the 16th century. My theory is that he and his family are likely affiliated with the stone cutters.
@@PalermoTrapani I think it has more to do with their desires to stay close to family tradition as it shapes his core identity and personality flaws, which we all have, that blind him from common sense. His attempts to get bashams book canceled was childlike behavior and most likely was what he did as a child. Canceling out or correcting people as it gave him purpose, social approval, and the ability to make sense out of the world for him.
This is going to be awesome 👏
The Artificial Handicap in Ortlunds position:
Protestants often argue that there is no evidence of icon veneration in the first century, and when traditional sects present evidence to the contrary, Protestants then shift the criteria by insisting, "But we don’t know if they bowed and kissed those icons." This represents a move from seeking general evidence to employing selective reasoning on the topic. Such an approach artificially handicaps the argument because it imposes a standard that excludes the type of evidence that could actually support icon veneration. As a result, the debate is rendered futile, as one side is predetermined to dismiss any evidence that does not fit within its pre-established framework. The problem is that this method disqualifies historical practices simply because they do not align with modern expectations for documentation or explicit detail.
To highlight the flaw in this approach, consider an analogous atheist argument: "Prove to me that God exists using only the scientific method." Here, the demand for proof is artificially constrained by disqualifying any philosophical or metaphysical evidence from the outset. This tactic mirrors the Protestant approach to icons, where a preconceived standard dismisses relevant evidence, making the debate unwinnable.
The flaw in this reasoning is that it places an unfair burden on the opposing side to meet criteria that are selectively chosen and that exclude historical context, tradition, and other forms of evidence that could legitimately support the practice. I think that by sprinkling more evidence on the discussion you have granted Ortlund the authority to frame the continuing conversation; standards which are now in his hands to reframe, again, wherever it is convenient for his bias.
My point is,
If the core of Ortlund's position is about reinforcing Protestant boundaries and retaining members rather than seeking genuine intellectual engagement with the evidence, then addressing the argument at a purely academic or evidential level might miss the deeper issue. In this case, it could be more effective to focus on questioning the motivations and assumptions driving the argument itself. (As I've seen in the past, Ortlund performs the Motte-and-Bailey fallacy when his selective reasoning is challenged, he retreats.) By shifting the discussion toward an exploration of Ortlund's intent-why the selective reasoning is being employed in the first place-might expose how the conversation is framed resulting in a more productive dialogue. A genuine inquiry was abandoned in the selective framing of Ortlund's argument.
He superimposed a standard of evidence that I'm not sure is justified... If Ortlund’s argument relies on selectively framing the discussion to uphold Protestant boundaries, the Orthodox position doesn’t need to accept his terms of engagement. Engaging with the artificially constrained standard of evidence he presents may, in fact, validate the limits he has imposed, which shifts the conversation away from genuine inquiry and into a defensive posture. By questioning the motivations and assumptions behind Ortlund’s framework, rather than debating within it, you can expose the limitations and perhaps even the underlying intent of the argument, which (on Ortlund's part) might not be an honest intellectual exploration in the first place.
Orthodox participants don't need to "play in the sandbox" that Ortlund has created because doing so concedes to a criteria that was never neutral to begin with.
@@JacobVashchenko Protestantism and Atheism do share the same rationalistic mindset, it's no coincidence that modern Atheism came from the West.
@@0utc4st1985 I edited my message to clarify where I'm going with that example
Ortlund is a walking example of moving the goalposts.
Thanks you both ☦️☦️☦️💪👊
To be more effective rhetorically and to make opponents squirm, specify that the Trinity would need to be treated the same, since early attestation is not the formulation of the councils.
Anyway, excellent video. Very precise handling of the objections. May God bless you both.
Have Gavin interviewed after he watches this
Obviously we can’t actually know or read peoples hearts like Christ can but I’m of the opinion it won’t matter cos when it comes to Ortlund’s belief concerning this subject for him it isn’t necessarily about the veracity or empirical substantive thrust of any particular argument no rather it is the set of prescriptive lenses Gavin trusts to look through when he evaluates all of the information for said argument.
@@DeanBurrito in other words, he's bias.
@@larryjake7783 👌 thnx
@@DeanBurrito he does that when he was discussing with Dr. Jordan B. Cooper, he basically just punted to, “I don’t see the passage saying that,” and not substantiating why.
@@deadalivemaniac hey brotha could you hook it up with the title of the video where Gavin says this?
Greetings Seraphim, I am Roman Catholic, I send you a hug from Costa Rica
46:18 This is also the same argument that Muslims and Unitarians make against the Trinity, as Fr Stephen De Young pointed out. I've heard Mohammed Hijab forcefully make this exact point against Nicea as a "defeater" for Christianity.
@@billcynic1815 then Ortlund, very tellingly, stopped defending sola scriptura.
Is it not daming to think that modern man, 2000 years removed from Christ, can "discern" the truth through his own knowledge and understanding via the archetectual equivalent of "textual criticism".
If you have to rebuild the "church," Christ is a liar. Because christ left a church, not scripture, and that church, by definition, has a Tradition
That tradition, passed down by the apostles and not some later "religious" was an absolute absence of idolatry.
@TimothyAdams-ln2jr
Define "idolatry"
Edit: actually, tell me what IS idolatry and how it MANIFESTED in thr "religion"
@@damnmexican90 Create no image...
@TimothyAdams-ln2jr
The son was the image of thr Father, who was also the image of man
You worship the image of A man IN Christ. This is why jews reject Christ and proceeded to try and "righfully" stone Him. You fail that commandment by default, because to worship Christ, a man, you have to imagine an image. You worship a created image, ao youre no better
But the bigger issue here, is you think that the type of "idolatry" you imagine actually exists within the Apostolic Tradition.
I'm sorry, but I have never heard anybody breathing into their statues and then claiming here lies thr essence of a saint. Nor heard and seen thr ritual of binding via key lines to bind an essence to said statue that wasn't a legitimate occultist.
Do you even know what an "idol" is? Or are you just saying things from ignorance?
There's a reason why jews think your idea of Christianity is one degree less idolatrous than true Apostolic Christianity. You're judiazed and that should give you pause.
Here's another good quote that shows icon veneration dating from 4th-5th century
"Whilst on my journey to the world's mistress, Rome, a hope sprang up within me, that Christ would be triumphant. I was lying prostrate on a tomb, which a sacred martyr, Cassian, with his body dedicated (to God) made beautiful. Whilst with tear I was considering within myself my wounds, and all the labors and bitter pains of life, I raised my face upwards; there was before me, painted in dark colors, the representation of the martyr, covered with countless wounds, lacerated in every limb, and with the skin minutely punctured. Around him, oh sad sight, there was a countless crowd of boys who with their pens pierced the wounded limbs. . . . The keeper of the building said, in answer to my inquiries, That which thou seest, stranger, is no empty or idle fable. The picture tells a history [after the well-known history, he continues:] These are the circumstances which, expressed in colors, have excited your wonder: This is Cassian's glory. If thou hast any just, or praiseworthy desire, if there be anything that thou hope for; if thou be inwardly troubled, but whisper it. The most glorious martyr hears, believe me, every prayer, and those which he sees deserving of approval, he renders effectual. I then ran through the list of my secret difficulties; I then murmur forth my desires, and my fears, my household left behind in hopes of future good. I am heard. I visit Rome; I am successful; I return to my home, and I loudly praise Cassian."
Prudentius, Aurelius. Peristephanon, Hymn IX.
Thank you I’ll have to look into this
"Is Gavin right after all?"
If you don't immediately say 'no' then roll credits for a 10 second video, I will be disappointed.
*Update:* Seraphim, I am disappoint.
Seraphim has a good soul, but perhaps is too nice with a bad actor like Ortlund.
@@RudyCarrera "bad actor like Ortlund." Interesting assertion.
Last comment: I’m glad Michael caught that exact words criterion Ortlund tried to smuggle into his presentation! Good eye.
Well done. Superb.
Thank you, please stay tuned for the next installments
Looking forward for the upcoming craig truglia video on icons!
Gavin’s attack on Nicaea 2 does not hold weight to the reality of whether icon veneration existed, it is simply a red herring where he tries to argue the specific type of veneration outlined by Nicaea 2 cannot be retroactively applied in the past. Nicaea 2 does not even need to be addressed. Veneration, as mentioned, is simply bestowing the glory of prototype unto its image.. that specific practices regarding veneration are red herring to this fact, as the practices develop from the seed that is nourished in the life of the church. The plain fact is, that icon veneration exists in the oriental orthodox churches before Nicaea 2, considering the geographic isolation of the churches of Ethiopia, Armenia, and India, itself prove the living reality of icon veneration that has existed in the church..
@@sammytalluri1019
Iconoclasm was 100% a response to Islamic Aggressions. Not because of a long standing Aniconic Tradition.
The Churches under Islam did not have the same issues with Iconoclasts in the Empire. And in the West the Pope defended the Icons against the Iberians who sought to placate Islam in the same way.
I still don't see how this refutes Dr. Orlund’s argument (and the scholarly consensus) against iconodulia in the early church.
I read S. Gregory of Nyssa’s quote and it does not present a semiotic theory of veneration. That is, what given to image is transferred to the portrayed subject. Rather you see communication of grace being applied to the relic which is a completely different thing. In fact the benefits received in having images in S. Nyssa’s quote pertains to didactic reasons.
“The pictures located on the walls are eloquent by their silence 👉and offer significant testimony👈”
Dr. Ortlund has recognized that there is a range of views against icon use in the early church: didactic, commemorative, aniconic use to full blown iconoclasm. Just because images are present does not prove iconodulia.
Dr. Ortlund made a variety of distinct claims in his video. The reason I cited this one up front (though it does not prove everything we are contending) is that many of the passages which are set forth as least ambiguous are passages which seem to allege a complete absence of imagery in the church. However, we would add to this and argue that the distinction between the creation and honoring of imagery is very difficult to sustain (and we begin to develop this late in this video, though this is part of a lengthy series of videos, most of which will be released in the near future) and that the placing of images in an honorable position in the church is itself a mode of veneration.
@@ElvisI97
"The Scholarly Consensus" is 100% a product of modernity, not of Christ.
The Church is Christ's Body. I am more inclined to trust Christ's Body in matters of Faith than a bunch of Scholars.
Seraphim is not simply moving from mention of any images immediately to "this was veneration."
1. He made the point that the location of Christ in the image is significant. The upper register in an image is generally associated with the "place of honor," and in this light it is very significant that Christ is depicted as "presiding over all." This essentially portrays him in a location that would be similar to portrayals of the emperor in Roman monuments (and we know the emperor's likeness was venerated with a kiss basically wherever it was shown, per Marcus Cornelius' Fronto's testimony). There are many such early depictions of Christ in the place of honor to which focus and attention would be given in a space ritually dedicated to Him, for prayer to Him.
2. The placement of these images up on the wall of a holy building in a space dedicated to honoring the martyr depicted is not insignificant. Roman wall mosaics and paintings were often meant for ritual interaction--even if they were depicting a narrative (see the Villa of the Mysteries at Pompeii). Beat Brenk points out the significance of where some early Christian images were placed in his book "The Apse, The Image, and The Icon": "Mosaics and frescoes in the apses of cult rooms generated very particular effects, evoking in the viewer respect, admiration, awe and maybe even veneration..." Additionally, in our next video we will provide a quote from Dr. Richard Price about how the very placement of an image is a mode of veneration.
3. Immediately after the quote Seraphim gives, Saint Gregory makes clear that the image is meant to evoke veneration and prayer: "These spectacles strike the senses and delight the eye by drawing us near to [the martyr's] tomb which we believe to be both a sanctification and blessing." By approaching the image and coming to the tomb, "In this way one implores the martyr who intercedes on our behalf and is an attendant of God for imparting those favors and blessings which people seek." So the whole point of the image is that it leads you to pray to him in front of his tomb with the image directly overhead. Looking at an image of a Saint while praying to that Saint is what we mean by "praying through" an image.
4. The description of the Saint's images connects to the request for his intercession at the end. His images "glorify the temple with resplendent beauty", a temple "brightly adorned with magnificence." Later, Saint Gregory says "But by the power of your intercession and those with you, oh marvelous and most bright among the martyrs." The visual reference (marvelous/bright, magnificence/brightly) is repeated and significant, so the prayer to the martyr is addressed with the martyr's image in mind. Additionally, the language of "the young shoot will return to you, the flourishing citizenship of Christians will endure to the end in the splendid, fruitful field of faith in Christ which always bears the fruit of eternal life" connects quite well to the earlier reference to "flowers made in the likeness of the martyr's virtues" (which the Christian onlooker is to imitate).
So these were not just didactic images, they were venerated.
@@Seraphim-Hamilton "many of the passages...seem to allege a complete absence of imagery in the church"
Firstly, thanks for your response. I'm a fan of your work!
I found that Dr. Ortlund was quite clear in his argumentation. He never just promoted the iconoclastic view as the only view in the early church. Rather he presented a range of early church views, even the aniconic ones, showing how none of them hold to Nicea II's conception of the semiotic use of images.
What appears to be happening here is an expansion of the term 'veneration' to include different forms of honor found in the early church, in order to defend the broader and more sophisticated theological understanding of veneration, such as those seen in Nicea II. It is not difficult to see the distinction between creating images for didactic or commemorative purposes and using those same images as vehicles for communicating prayers, affection, and devotion to what they represent.
@@acekoala457 "The Church is Christ's Body. I am more inclined to trust Christ's Body in matters of Faith than a bunch of Scholars."
This is a false dichotomy. It's not mutually exclusive; you can be a scholar and a Christian. Read Fr. Richard Price's critical edition of the Acts of the Second Council of Nicea. He is a catholic theologian.
“The real problem for the iconophile case lay elsewhere - in the poverty of support for their cause even in the golden age of the fathers. The iconoclasts were in a somewhat stronger position… The iconoclast cause has few adherents nowadays, outside the heirs of John Calvin. But the iconoclast claim that reverence towards images did not go back to the golden age of the fathers, still less to the apostles, would be judged by impartial historians today to be simply correct. The iconophile view of the history of Christian thought and devotion was virtually a denial of history, in favour of a myth of a religion that had been perfect from the first and needed no addition or subtraction.” - The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), 40 & 43.
This is top notch pal 🍻
Thank you sir
Really looking forward to reading that book showing clear evidence of ICON VENERATION in the first 300 years of the church.
You will get a preview of more of it in the second installment of this series. Thanks
At risk of making a tu quoque fallacy, Dr. Ortlund is asking a very high standard for icon veneration(basically we'd need a step by step instruction manual in an Apostle's handwriting for him to accept it) but he certainly doesn't apply anywhere near that level of scrutiny to his own beliefs and practices. Unless he's using the Ctrl F method of research i don't understand how he can't see the difference between the early Church and Protestants.
To be fair to his view, he is claiming that the alleged aniconism of the early Church is an internal critique of Orthodoxy based upon our own presuppositions (1. Early tradition is authoritative and 2. II Nicaea is correct in teaching that image veneration is apostolic). He wouldn’t endorse the first presupposition or the 2nd
That’s dishonest. He states very clearly in his videos that he’s just asking for ANY early source that shows icon VENERATION.
@@ora_et_labora1095that’s dishonest because there are many examples and he has been given them. Gavin is a snake at this point.
@@greghood1552 "Ctrl F method" gave me a chuckle, but you made a really good point
@@ora_et_labora1095 and he ignored pieces of evidence presented, such as Acts of John.
What are y’all’s opinions on St. Basil’’s letter 360? Authentic or no?
I'm just here for puggy
If a new convert to Christianity comes from a cultural background rampant in idol worship which leads them to refuse to venerate icons out of fear of committing idolatry, which a mature EO Christian might see as a "weakness" in their faith but cannot convince them otherwise, is that convert not fully saved?
@ninjason57 it's not an issue of salvation but their phronema is not illumined. They also probably need more time being catechized before converting.
No, because he doesn't place his faith in the Church Christ established, but in his own logic and presuppositions.
@@RudyCarrerait’s not that simple see comment above you.
Do not worry! just go to the EO Church and talk to a priest there! We converts all have different baggage. Just continue staying in the Church and everything will be clear a long the Path!
I think someone coming from a pagan background would immediately understand the Orthodox veneration vs worship distinction, especially since that’s the context in which this worship style came out of. Pagans were still converting to Christianity in St. Gregory of Nissa’s time and, as the video showed, icons clearly existed then.
I think fear of icon veneration only makes sense in a context without sacrificial worship (including Eucharistic worship)
Was icon veneration an important part of Christian worship in Paul’s day?
@21:00 to 25 we mention Eusebius’ testimony that honorific portraits (a venerated image type) of Christ and the Apostles date back to the Apostolic age. But I provide other evidence relating to this in the book
@@MichaelGarten was it an important part of Christian worship?
@@pigetstuck what do you mean by “Christian worship “? Given that we don’t worship icons, it would help to have clarification before I proceed with an answer
And I’m curious what you mean by “important”. I think women being able to take communion is important but St Paul says nothing about this. Icons stick out to those opposed to them as pronounced. But to the Orthodox they are not at all the center of Christian practice.
@@MichaelGarten Are they seen as a requirement in Orthodoxy? Could one be an Orthodox in good standing and take an "I'll abstain" position?
@@pigetstuck A Gospel which proclaims the reign of Christ on earth as conqueror could not have its insignia treated with less honor than family portraits or civic monuments. So just as the audible proclamation that Jesus is Lord is necessary as a response to the Gospel, so likewise the signs of His power and rule must be visibly honored.
This could be applied differently to different people depending on their level of understanding, commitment and possibly some kind of baggage from their past. But the normal attitude of someone who honors Christ will always be to honor the signs of His kingdom (whether those signs are people as with the Apostles, words as in the veneration of the written Scripture, places such as His tomb, or His insignia as with crosses and icons)
In case you just wanted the answer to the thumbnail: No
Where can we get the early icon book
Apologies for being unclear, it will be out before the end of next month
@@MichaelGarten well I’m super excited for it 😊
@@MichaelGarten is it possible to pre order it?
To Iconoclasts:
Does anyone make images of things they're attitudinally neutral to? Is it in the slightest bit believable that anyone makes a positive image of something or someone without some veneration towards it? The whole point of the Orthodox argument is that it's arbitrary to separate forms of veneration. If just making images is an expression of veneration and permissible, on what non arbitrary grounds could anyone stop a grandmother from kissing an image of the living Christ the way she would an image of her son? Is her son more deserving of veneration and of more varied expressions of veneration than God Himself? If you draw the line at expressing veneration towards images, then how is this not an arbitrary, superstitious "works damnation" theology that paints God as a tyrant who tests the loyalty of His creatures with arbitrary rules? the very thing the Protestant criticism of the superstition of "works salvation" is meant to critique?
@@Jy3pr6 they weren’t making it optional for grandma they were requiring it of everyone though
@@meganbohun1483 You're changing the subject, Megan. That's a separate issue, which it isn't unfair for you to bring up, but you didn't touch on any of the points I made at all
What are Ortlund’s primary theological objections to Nicaea 2?
Check out his January 2023 video that kicked it all off. He expresses concern that icon veneration resembles idolatry, rejects the type-prototype connection, and alleges that the anathemas of the Council put constraints on the freedom afforded by the Gospel. Additionally on a historical level he says image veneration is a late accretion (I believe he says it only became normal in the 600s but please confirm for yourself) and that this makes the anathemas of 2 Nicaea illegitimate
Yess
Once protestants understand the difference between veneration and worship, and the implication of both the incarnation and ascension, these super deep dives are typically not necessary.
Prots can scream accretion, Elvira, 2nd commandment all they want, it matters not. Denying icons (particularly of Christ) denies the incarnation, rejecting veneration spits on the memory of our loved ones via gnostic dualism/platonism, calls God a liar by reniging on His promise of sending the Holy Spirit and His never leaving, pulls a fast one on us by lying about it leading us to all truth, turns from His own Church being the ground and pillar of truth, and fully adheres to the Church having been conquered by the gates of Hades.
But sure, keep wordsmithing and reading into the Church Fathers with a lens they would personally escort you out of a parish for, mutilating their words, and multiplying sectarian parachurches by some new "tradition of man" i.e. Calvin, Luther, Wesley, etc., and dividing yourselves all while calling the true Church "fallen". You're only adding insult to your own injury.
To be honest, these exchanges are discouraging, because I find it next to impossible to conceive of a scenario where Ortlund changes his mind. He is too dug in, captured by the incentive of appeasing the audience who enshrines him as its champion.
We’re happy to fight for the truth for any who are willing to listen. And I think Orthodox and Catholics who don’t know how to respond will walk away with their faith strengthened. Some people have reached out to me to say that they found my arguments convincing and it changed their minds about certain things too. I hope Dr O will eventually come around though.
NO! Ortlund was not right ! LACTANTIUS RECORDED ICON USE IN THE CHURCH AT NICOMEDIA
So I’ll start by saying I’m neutral on icons, I think they’re beautiful but I’m indifferent to them being part of worship in the sense of God wants me to use them I’m happy to, if he doesn’t want me to I’ll gladly do without. I’ll also add I’m not a Baptist, I highly disagree with Calvinism and reformed theology on many many issues. Some I’d go so far to say are possibly heretical.
That being said am I missing something here? Isn’t Ortlund making the case that icon veneration isn’t an apostolic practice and that it’s a development? Wasnt he pointing out that there were multiple early Christian writers who either were unaware of Icon veneration or outright spoke against it? Thats to say isnt the case that he’s making about icons shouldn’t be anathema tiered aspects of the faith and not that no one ever used images prior to the 400s?
Again im happy to do with or without them if God wishes me to venerate icons sounds good to me if not that works for me too. I’m not a pastor or priest or theologian or teacher. Ask your Pastor/Priest and pray about the issue.
Thank you for watching, we are making a cumulative case for early image veneration with several parts. In the next 1-2 videos we’ll bring written evidence. But I would be curious what you made of the evidence we reviewed (Eusebius, Acts of John, Alexamenos Graffito, Catacomb Art, etc).
I’m also interested in whether you have any opinions about the responses Catholic apologists published to the evidence Dr Ortlund alleges supports his view, if you’ve taken a look at it. I think Trent Horn, Suan Sonna, William Albrect etc covered this stuff pretty well.
It would seem to me the icons and faith are crucial. The first big change in the west was eliminating icons. Now we have a secular country falling fast. I believe that by removing images of Christ from our daily life was detrimental to our faith and even worse Protestants don’t have a problem with evil images. Or what about tv shows and movies. So many Protestants love The Chosen. Where the merchandise. Nothing about being iconoclast is sensible.
Got em in the first 6 minutes 😂
Yikes. Ortland is fighting a losing battle it would seem
Why is this comment section filled with ad hominem but no arguments?
I see some good arguments about the video here, but ad hominems are typically chock-full of relevant information.
So I didn’t think Ortlund successfully defended his thesis. But I think the suggestion that he is not clear as between “they didn’t make images” and “they didn’t venerate them”-this is not accurate. Ultimately, his challenge to our side is asking us to defend Nicaea II. So we need to defend veneration and not just the permissibility of images. I think he is clear on this IMO, and we should engage on that assumption
I no longer believe that Christianity is a religion of antiquity, but a religion originating much later in Medieval Europe. My main evidence is that Christian morality isn't congruent (if that's the right word) with Biblical morality, especially morality found in the OT. Instead, Christian morality, as it has been practiced traditionally (I mean conservative Christian morality), is closer to Medieval Chivalry. Take, for example, the story of David and Abishag. In that story, there isn't any record of Israel protesting their unusual relationship. It looks like Israel had no issues with King David sharing a bed with a young lady (un-married) and even the author doesn't make any negative comment about it. In contrast, traditional conservative Christian morality would have a big problem with that relationship. All Christian societies would not permit their political leaders to keep their position while sharing their bed with a young lady.
The Bible tells stories. Folks like to say that the Bible doesn't condemn polygamy (in fact, it does, but let's just say they are right, that there isn't an outright condemnation). if you read the stories about polygamous marriage, you see that the lives of those families are extremely dysfunctional. The fighting between Jacob, Rachael, Leah, and their sons is clearly evidence thru story that polygamy is not acceptable. The lack of outright condemnation of David isn't evidence that the Bible says his relationships are okay. Rather, you see in the life of David that as he acquires more wives and strays from God's ideal, he falls into sin after sin.
@JohnMaximovich-r8x What is Gods ideal as related in the contents of the writings specific to Moses, Abraham and David? Solomon was explicitly told that gathering wives would lead him astray (this is just from memory), but it was specific to women who were raised in foreign societies (again, that is also from memory). I think my point still has validity. You are saying that God did have a problem with David's relationship with Abishag. I don't see any evidence for that, from the scriptures. I am not convinced that, the reason why David had a bad family experience, is a direct result of having multiple wives, though I agree that contributed to his miserable family life, I don't think it's the main cause. I think the main cause was ego and the lust for power e.g. Absolom.
41:00
Separate question: Could canonized saints have apostatized without our knowing? Is that possible? If not, why not? If so, mightn't you be venerating those who are, for all we know, actually apostates?
@@rhedrich3 It's important to understand that included in the "our" pronoun built into your first question is the Holy Spirit, which guides the body of Christ. The canonization of a saint is a corporate action, action that follows attestation, reflection and prayer over years. To suggest that a saint has been wrongly canonized in the Orthodox Church is to suggest, really, that the Church has been abandoned by the Holy Spirit. It hasn't been, though, so your final question is without merit.
@ericlammerman2777 Well, every faith group makes appeal to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I was wondering if there was any other justification. That is, are there any what you would call dogmatic statements to the effect that the Holy Spirit guides each canonization process, or is this just an inference you have made from consideration of the implications of a contrary supposition? Separately, canonization would, for you, effectively constitute new, divine revelation, right?
@@rhedrich3 Not every faith group does appeal to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, though (looking at you, cessationists), and not every faith group can make this claim with the authority of the one holy, catholic and apostolic church.
As I mentioned above, canonization is a corporate action that typically involves a lengthy period of prayer, reflection and plenty of attestation concerning the holiness of the person in question.
Concerning your final question: Does the Council of Jerusalem (documented in Acts 15) constitute divine revelation for you? In other words, when the Holy Spirit guides a group of fallible men into truth (already found in scripture)...is this divine revelation? Because when the Church canonizes a saint, it is largely just affirming something the Body of Christ already knew (with the Holy Spirit guiding her into the truth). It's not like the vision given to St. John at Patmos at any rate, is it?
I hope this makes sense.
@@ericlammerman2777 We are getting afield of the intent behind my initial question. If you have any dogmatic statement to the effect that canonization is an infallible process, I would like to see it. If not, let me know. If we're speaking of authority, then - to be frank - I want to know what your authorities say, not what your opinion is about how the Holy Spirit works.
The council at Jerusalem gave 3 restrictions to gentile Christians, blood, sexual immorality, and IDOLS.
Exactly. Icons are not idols
@@Jy3pr6 further on in this passage it ends with: Moses, having been taught in every city--indicating the standard is set by the already established teaching from the old covenant--(since we are discussing here what part of the old covenant new Christians were to be bound by)--No image, means just what Deuteronomy meant when it said: no image.
@@TimothyAdams-ln2jr Then I have two questions for you: Why does God command the Ark of the Covenant and the temple to be adorned with images of "things on earth and things in heaven"? Do you have pictures of anything and watch movies?
@@Jy3pr6 You were never commanded to make anything...
@@Jy3pr6 and Nadab and Abihu offered strange fire unto the Lord and died by fire in the presence of the Lord before the tent of meeting...Moses and Aaron were tasked with offerings to the Lord, by your logic, why shouldn't others be able to do the same?
It’s so hard not to see you reading your desired meaning into the Greggory of Nyssa passage.
Nothing in it has to do with the use of these images in acts of veneration, bowing, etc.
But these are explicitly said to be visual TESTIMONY! That is, they are a form of instruction, not objects of worship.
This is the same use as the images in the OT temple. Such are congruent with the law against bowing in a worshipful manner to paintings or other object-objects which serve a function in worship but are not the object of worship (example: alters, musical instruments, incense, mosaics, etc,).
There is NO evidence at all in this passage that these items were the objects of worship, much less that they were so only to pass the worship through to God the Father or the Son..
If they were to act in this way, well, that is the pagan practice.
What in the passage proves veneration at all. The objects of testimony are obviously there, but the use of veneration is completely invented.
If not, please explain.
We talk about this a lot in the video. But many of Gavin’s arguments have to do with patristic texts alleged to prohibit even the making of images. So we address both sets of claims, along with the relationship between them.
@@Seraphim-Hamilton, but the overton window on images was clearly between:
1) not having any images of the saints in church. This is supported by the synod of Elvira (AD 306), the council of Laodicea (AD 363-364), and the synod of Hieria (754),
And
2) Churches that had such images, but were limited to the use of instruction (Testimony as in Gregory of Nyssa).
You seem to be attempting to convert the mere presence of such images, mosaics, and the mere placement location of them in the sanctuary, into positive evidence of veneration.
This is an illogical and unjustified leap.
I’m not trying to offend, but the movement from mere mention of the existence of images to an inference of the practice of veneration is wild.
The description of such a practice, which would require a lot of hair splitting to separate it from pagan use of idols is simply absent from the written record. And it can’t be conjured from the mere presence of images (especially in light of strong teaching against such use).
If I’m in error please point me straight. But where in the Nyssa quote was there anything that indicated the practice of veneration of the pictures described?
@@jrhemmerichThe fact that they were there lends credence to there veneration. As in the Old Testament Temple. Imagery has always had theological significance. Even a reverent gaze is veneration. As when the Israelites gazed upon the bronze serpent. God does nothing by happenstance. Imagery was always used in Temple, synagogue, and church worship from the very beginning. Orthodox adamantly opposes worship of imagery, not veneration. That’s such a hard thing for us Americans. However, we put pictures of loved ones on our walls, have beautiful photo albums of our cherished, and often keep “momentos” to help us reflect and remember them. This is all from our nature and the way God created us. Bless you, brother.
Your problem is one you don’t understand the difference between respect and worship. And 2 you think worship is an external action . Worship is an act of the heart. Kissing my wife is not worship. Kissing a picture is not worship. Bowing to my boss is not worship just like bowing to my priest is not worship. Go learn more and think about more stuff.
@@thomasmyers3808, thanks for the examples and distinctions.
I agree that a gaze might be a very simple beginning of veneration.
I don’t think looking at the bronze serpent had anything to do with veneration. It was a visual form of recognizing the need to identify the source of sin’s poison. It’s a word picture that teaches about repentance.
Imagery in temples is not the problem. Directing worship (e.g. bowing) to them was a problem under the 2nd commandment.
Things to remember loved ones is not problematic either. Nor are pictures or art depicting the saints. But to direct acts of worship to them. We don’t do that with family pictures. Reverence for a creature-parent, king, etc.-is not at all in the same category as worship directed to God.
There can be an overlap in form (we bow to a ruler, and we bow in worship) but the intent and context distinguish the acts as unique.
The veneration of icons places the worship of God among the object of things. This is what is why it breaks the 2nd commandment.
Blessings to you also. God is so gracious to us as we learn from each other.
If one thinks they would be caused to stumble because of images and ornate vestments in worship and so on, they are welcomed in the Churches of Christ where we have no such traditions, where our worship is austere and our singing is a cappella. It is so that all be made to feel at home and no one need be offended. Catholics, Baptists, Anabaptists, Protestants and Orthodox all are welcomed. In my pew, nearly every Sunday, I have a Roman Catholic brother to my right and an Orthodox brother with a prayer rope around his wrist to my left. Worship is plain and simple and communion is every Sunday and not held back to anyone who believes that Christ is LORD and claim to be baptized into His Kingdom. Have your ornaments, that is fine. Your churches are elaborate and beautifully decorated. It excites the senses and makes for a powerful experience, it has its place. Some churches have rock music which is quite rousing; there’s a place for it too...each to his own but for me, I like the ordinary and simple.
What motivates this level of concern for the feelings of others, to the extent that questions of how God is to be worshiped and approached is decided on this basis of what is found palatable or upsetting?
[Mat 11:6 KJV] 6 And blessed is [he], whosoever shall not be offended in Me.
What you essentially are doing is bringing a bunch of people together who all have a friend named Jesus and you all assume you are talking about the same Jesus. That’s has never been allowed. I hope you would agree that all through history Christ established and ordered church. From OT to NT. It has always been this way and we actually see punishment for those who think they can just do whatever they want “to each his own”? That’s demonic dude.
This is absurd. You are not communing with Orthodox and Roman Catholics. You are communing with apostates.
Look at God's creation, is it too complicated and luxurious for your taste? Do you in your heart of hearts consider the complexity and beauty of creation to be witnesses, as St Paul and Scripture in general attest, to the glory of God? How can worship and God's house possibly not reflect the richness of God and His works? Or are His works supposed to, in contradiction of Scripture, outshine His house? It's clear that by getting rid of the richness of Orthodoxy the "simple" denominations haven't become more pious but have only sceded the territory of the God created senses to the devil. The account of St Vladimir's emissaries is one of the best proofs of Orthodoxy
I'd encourage OrthoBros on the fence to consume less wound-licking reaction videos and to peruse, for themselves, the primary and secondary sources e.g. The Cult of Images in the Age before Iconoclasm
Ernst Kitzinger. The Eastern churches will doom you to a path of embarrassing retconning and mental gymnastics.
First the Masoretic OT, now this...
not really, we have our own treatises on images, we even had an ecumenical council on it - our tradition is that of the apostles.
St Symeon the stylite on the divine images
There are plenty of videos circulating that respond to allegedly aniconic quotes., Kitzinger is worth reading but if the quotes don’t support the whole early Church being aniconic, then the aniconist interpretation seems unjustified (and I don’t think they support this).
Which of Kitzingers quotes do you find most persuasive?
also it appears your didn't even watch the video, so that would be wound licking from you