In this video, I discuss the use of images in the Lutheran church, and their function. I differentiate between the Lutheran and Eastern Orthodox use of iconography.
I wish my fellow Calvinists agreed with you Lutherans on this. I left the Reformed Pub because I was called an idolater for using the Jesus Storybook Bible.
Yeah, I also belong to a reformed church. Their views on icons and the sacraments are really mixed up. But it's okay, folks like us can serve as a reformatory presence.
They seem to be out of step with the other reformed church teachings as many other reformed churches I've been to don't have that problem. They sound like they went down the road of legalism.
I am reformed and very seriously considering becoming Lutheran. My biggest motivator has been the Sacraments after starting a personal study into Patristics. Justin Martyr and Ignatius have really convicted me to see the elements of the Lord's Supper as literal flesh and blood of Jesus and Baptism as regenerational. This conviction has become overwhelming to me! Yet, what restrains me from becoming Lutheran has been iconography. I was a fierce iconoclast and seriously despised iconography. Patristic studies have actually strengthened my iconoclasm. I reject the second council of Nicaea. But my conviction over the Lord's Supper and Baptism is greater. I'm really struggling here. Thank you so much for this! It hasn't solved my dilemma but it has really helped put a better light onto the Lutheran position for me.
I thought about being reformed for a while, but I could never get with limited atonement (because Jesus died for ALL people). I thought I was iconoclastic until this video, but this really got me thinking.
Lutherans believe that baptism regenerates and in that moment. Reformed view is that the efficacy of baptism is not necessarily tied to the moment it is administered. Would this not better explain those that come to the faith later in life? This is one of the biggest reasons I have trouble becoming Lutheran.
I’m a Lutheran from Germany and until now I didn’t knew that there are Lutherans that are not against icons. Here in Germany Lutherans would consider it idolatry.
Wow, I didn't know Lutherans have icons/images, albeit I've never been a Lutheran before, or perhaps Lutherans are diverse. I'm Catholic and I like listening to your talk, sure there are differences but also similarities. When I was an Evangelical we had images too at home, such as the Lord's supper and maybe one or two on Jesus, but our churches were devoid of any image on biblical character but images of the members. I got a bit iconoclast at one point because I live around Muslims and was somewhat influenced by their view on images, which is ironic since the iconoclasm controversy had similar case. You're right, they're not necessary but helpful as teaching tools, and we can connect with Biblical stories better, some parishes have more images than others but that doesn't make it any more or less holier, but unfortunately it's largely misunderstood by other Christian groups. Anyway, thanks Ps Cooper! Keep up the good work, God bless.
I love attending the Episcopalian Church on Sundays the most. However during the week sometimes on Wednesday nights I do enjoy attending the assembly of church. I even went to a couple of breakthrough services.
Seventh Ecumenical Council (787 AD), Extracts from the Acts., Session I. - Anathema to those who apply the words of Holy Scripture which were spoken against idols, to the venerable images. - Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable images. - Anathema to those who say that Christians have recourse to the images as to gods. - Anathema to those who call the sacred images idols.
@@franknwogu4911 No. There are many Christians. And there are Christians in “The Church”. Very important that none judge another’s heart, which we cannot know. But we can determine where they are by observation.
As a former Baptist, I'm heavily considering the Lutheran Church. I LOVE icons in churches (coming from a church that had none) and I also love the Lutheran rosary, as it helps with focusing on prayer ✝
@@colepriceguitar1153 If Jesus Christ is fully human and fully Devine, then as we can depict other humans in art, we can depict the humanity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in art..
This was great in account that this forced me to be present to the moment as I have a problem focusing. Thank you for your presentation and subject area expertise.
As a committed Reformed guy, this is one area of the Confessions and Catechisms that I take slight and careful exception to. I think images in worship can be helpful, and I think even some images of Christ (CAREFULLY done) can be very beneficial.
whatever happened to the 2nd commandment that said "4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, " OR ANY LIKENESS OF ANYTHING you shouldn't even make any images of Christ
@@HIMYMTR yeah, therefore we don't need a priests anymore, we are all preists now and can go directly to God through Jesus we don't need Mary or the saints to intercede for us, we go straight to Jesus (who is both man and God)
I think images are useful as art draws upon our right brain and involves it in worship,and this is half of our brain power,so it is significant. I think it is part of what has made the Church so enduring.
@@tomtemple69 But it seems they believed the calf was actually going to protect them or was the actual presence of God. Ex 32:1- “…the people gathered themselves together to Aaron and said to him, “Up, make us gods who shall go before us. …” Exodus 32:6 [6] And they rose up early the next day and offered burnt offerings and brought peace offerings. And the people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play. I’m not EO, and I don’t know their heart, but family pictures aren’t wrong. If they start saying the Holy Spirit is not present without the icons, that’s a problem.
A more in-depth discussion of the 7th council and the Eastern theology and use of images would be great. It can get murky and confusing for me, especially since Orthodox are vague in explaning what they mean when they venerate any image. I find myself comfortable with some stuff (kissing the Gospel book for example or before the cross, understanding these as "stand-ins") and yet not being able to get behind the bowing or kissing of anyother image. I guess I'm looking for some scriptural, consistent standard to regulate the use of images. Thanks.
It is noted in St John Damascene's defense of icons that people were prostrating to Peter's shadow in Acts 5. I don't see how doing so to the full figure is worse.
The new covenant does lead to strange things (strange, not untrue). Apostolic teaching that humans are the Temple of God since Pentecost is shocking. Giving a holy kiss to the brethren doesn’t seem sinful to me anymore- it’s about your heart. If I disobeyed the Lord’s commands out of fear/reverence to a churchman, that’s when we’ve got a problem. I do worry that the rigorous use of icons adds an additional stumbling block to Jews believing in Christ. That should be enough for us to demote them even if it was beneficial to us. All things are lawful, but not all are profitable.
I make plenty of “icons” (just go through my community page here, you’ll see what I mean), and I see them as family photos- images of people I love and aspire to be like. I have always loved making artwork of Bible narratives, and I have had to face a bit of mild backlash from a few people, as a result of which I still feel very weird making such pictures. But I never stopped it, probably because deep down, I was not born or even raised believing that making a picture of Jesus was a bad thing.
That wasn't Luther, it was his successors. Luther sat and conferred with some Ethiopian Orthodox guy but (to my knowledge) never interacted with Eastern Orthodoxy.
This is a related two-part question that maybe you could cover in another video: What is the historical Lutheran view of propriety especially in regards to head covering for women and uncovering for men in 1 Cor 11? AND does the present day understanding and practice match that of the historical church? In short, has Lutheran theology and/or practice changed in regards to this teaching? Thanks for sharing your knowledge.
'The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."' - Acts 10:15 In my walk I have found the position of the 7th council that could be called a "cosmic atonement" of sorts really sorts out many of the seeming paradoxes that I've encountered when reading through the NT, especially in Acts.
It is to worship or to venerate(if you re on denial) images,but there is also a pernicious effect on people s subconscience like a subliminal effect to accept as true something that is false.Notice on that image from the beguinning of that video for instance, the way that the person that represent Christ place his fingers from his right hand,like those popes when they "bless", to make us believe that the Roman Catholic religion is the true church of Christ.Other painting and drawings shows a christ with a beautyfully round host in his hands,while in reality, He had a piece of bread without levin.Things like this.The Bible teach us that we do not need things that we see with our physical eyes to provoke faith or to reinforce it(1Cor.2:9,10),the Bible teach that faith comes by coming to knowledge of what the Bible say about salvation through Christ(Rom.10:17).Also, why accepting images,statues and icons while we perfectly know that some weak members of our church will be tempted to venerate these things,Paul in 1Cor.8:13 teach us that by love we should prevent those pernicious tendancies by simply not allow it .
Jordan, great job! I enjoy hearing your opinions as a non-Lutheran Protestant myself (with some Lutheran tendencies (consubstantiation, for example)!). I've tuned into various videos of your's, despite respectful and cordial disagreement on certain issues. On this specific video, I do not have any disagreements yet (I'm still watching), but I'm reminded of my current reading of J.I. Packer's "Knowing God" and his strong objection to the use of images. Thankfully, I haven't stopped reading this book despite my strong disagreement with his view on the use of images breaking the second commandment and being inherently idolatrous. Personally, Packer seems obviously Calvinist Reformed and yet his view on images comes off as Zwinglian (or from the views of some other radical reformer). I'd be curious about your views on his objection if you are familiar. Understanding an icon as a teaching tool is exactly right in my estimation and to deny images their functioning in this way has negative (and perhaps unjust) consequences for the disabled who need alternative resources to know and understand the Gospel according to their needs. Thanks!
It seems to me that no mention of the use of a crucifix is complete unless this verse from Galatians 3 (NKJV) is referenced: 1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? It seems to me that this portrayal of Jesus being crucified must have been Christian art of some sort that was a type of crucifix.
I wonder about this. What I heard is that the use of images started because during the early days a lot of the congregation was illiterate. In some of the more recent denominations (newer Baptist and Pentacostal churches) they won't have any images in the sanctuary, but will still have them in the children's section of the church, where classes and such are. Some of the older churches will still have stained glass windows. I know Lutheran churches make use of a crucifix in the sanctuary. If you're praying to the images it's dead wrong. I think the complete stripping away of images is an artifact from Puritan times. Their whole MO seemed to be to err on the side of caution.
@DrJordanBCooper What is the Lutheran position on the wearing of medallions such as the St. Benedict medal? Is it ok? Or is it viewed as giving glory or prayer to a man?
I think that if someone is violating their own conscience in using images, then something is wrong in their personal case. I think it’s okay for a reformed Christian to avoid the use of images for the sake of avoiding idolatry, but if someone is in trouble with their church for teaching children with a picture book, I think that’s a little too far.
I think that's a reasonable assessment. A comparison might be something like alcohol. If an individual struggles with alcoholism and avoids drinking it entirely due to it tempting them to abuse it, that is not only OK but is the right thing for them to do. But if they then say that drinking alcohol is sinful in and of itself and condemn others for their use of it then they are going against the biblical evidence and sound moral theology.
Question - Why do you use icons? Answer - To give you someone to look at. To drive home the feeling that this person actually existed. Like looking at an old photo of someone you lost,It evokes emotion.
Some points from the other side of the debate since it wasn’t brought up: 1. Even if you took a picture with our technology today it wouldn’t be an accurate portrayal of Jesus because it separates the humanity from the deity. 2. Jesus is a perfect human and we try to copy his inflection and tone and presence in videos, they will always be imperfect so we always create a false Jesus when we try to make something look like Jesus. So when we think of Jesus we can have the incorrect picture in our heads. 3. It’s wrong because it’s not Jesus. I don’t want to have a picture in my head of a Jesus that’s not Jesus. I don’t want any of my adoration or worship going to something not Jesus. 4. Either you see an image of God that is false but stirs up worship in you which is wrong, but if the thing is an image of Jesus then actually seeing Jesus should trigger such emotions thus you are either breaking the 2nd or 3rd commandment. Last here is a quote from Calvin’s Institutes: “We think it unlawful to give a visible shape to God, because God himself has forbidden it, and because it cannot be done without, in some degree, tarnishing his glory. And lest any should think that we are singular in this opinion, those acquainted with the productions of sound divines will find that they have always disapproved of it. If it be unlawful to make any corporeal representation of God, still more unlawful must it be to worship such a representation instead of God, or to worship God in it. The only things, therefore, which ought to be painted or sculptured, are things which can be presented to the eye; the majesty of God, which is far beyond the reach of any eye, must not be dishonored by unbecoming representations. Visible representations are of two classes-viz. historical, which give a representation of events, and pictorial, which merely exhibit bodily shapes and figures. The former are of some use for instruction or admonition. The latter, so far as I can see, are only fitted for amusement. And yet it is certain, that the latter are almost the only kind which have hitherto been exhibited in churches.”
Where's a good place to study the first seven councils? I know I could look online, but any good resources this community, or Dr. Cooper, would recommend?
Exactly. I'm not gonna say people who do that are idolaters or aren't Christians. But I do take issue with that. But I also take issue with my fellow Presbyterians who usually say any images (of Christ in particular) are sinful.
Pastor, something said by the Orthodox is that joshua bend down before the ark. And not always the presence of God was there. I think they have a good a point. What do you think about it?
As an orthodox priest, I would recommend the historically definitive text for the orthodox church which refutes Protestant iconoclasm. Treatise on divine images by John Damascene. The understanding of honor is akin to spitting on a flag. No one would de sacra te, make common, the flag, but show honor. The honor is given not to a piece of clothe but the thing referenced. Protestantism iconoclasm has historic roots in UNChristian history. Muslim influence on the apostolic tradition. www.amazon.com/Treatises-Vladimirs-Seminary-Popular-Patristics/dp/0881412457/ref=asc_df_0881412457/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312050264297&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=3874828198216653434&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=1024254&hvtargid=pla-620870884477&psc=1&tag=&ref=&adgrpid=61316180559&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvadid=312050264297&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=3874828198216653434&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=1024254&hvtargid=pla-620870884477
@@FrMoody Clement of Alexandria (193-217/220 A.D.) "And if Moses commanded men to make not an image to represent God by art, ..." The Instructor book 3 ch.2 p.274 This one is not the one I was looking for. Cant find it now, but Im sure you are familiar with this one, it has Clement saying that cherubim on the ark were not cherubims and that was imposible for Moses to have done something like that. What it tells me is 2 things: 1 Clement was missreading the old testament 2 There was some stream of christianity against depictions in such a way that brought clement to say that.
Yeah, but Clement of Alexandria was an Arian though. One of the calling cards of the Arians was that they took a hyper literal interpretation of the creature-creator distinction because the Arians have no concept of the incarnation. As a result, Christ is only an image of the father in so far as he conforms to a perfect obedience to the Will of the Lord and not God who has come down and United man’s nature with his own.
Nobody worships a statue of Lincoln or interprets honoring a statue of Lincoln as worship. Same with litirgical Christians and their images, icons, and statues.
@Space Organism We kiss the icon or image or statue as a way of kissing the person it represents, for instance we kiss the figure of Jesus on the cross before saying the rosary as a way of kissing the real Jesus. It is similar to a person kissing pictures of a spouse or of their children.
"Nobody" Well, I do say that. I was not in favor of any of the recent destruction of American statues by far leftist groups, but I wasn't specifically torn up by the loss of them. I found the lawlessness and anachronistic moralizing to be a greater concern. And I'm not really the only one that feel uncomfortable with the level of reverence people show for statues and similar things. pulpitandpen.org/2017/09/26/flag-worship-and-the-rise-of-american-patriotic-christianity/
If you deny the authority of one ecumenical council, isn't that a slippery slope? If you pick and choose which councils you recognize, aren't you setting yourself up in judgement over the authority of the church?
Talk to the Assyrian Church of the East and Oriental Orthodox Church. Not every "ecumenical" council was actually ecumenical. That's not setting themselves up in judgement. That's just refusing to lie about word definitions.
@@Mygoalwogel Dr.Cooper was referring to Nicea2, the 7th ecumenical council, which he does not recognize as ecumenical, though both the Roman and Orthodox churches recognize it to be so.
@@williamfarmer5154 Oriental Orthodox only accept the first 3. Assyrian Church of the East only accept the Nicaea I and Constantinople I. So the rest aren't as fully ecumenical.
@@Mygoalwogel Thanks for the information. I suppose that, as a Lutheran, Dr. Peterson is under no obligation to accept any of the councils, although maybe he is simply obligated to accept the first six, but not the seventh.
@@Mygoalwogel since the Oriental Orthodox Church has an incorrect understanding of the nature of Christ, I would listen to Eastern Orthodox councils because they gave us a clear understanding of the Trinity. All 7 are necessary.
9 Those who make an image, all of them are useless, And their precious things shall not profit; They are their own witnesses; They neither see nor know, that they may be ashamed. 10 Who would form a god or mold an image That profits him nothing? (Isa 44:9-10 NKJ)
Interesting dichotomy you have at the end between crucifixes (and by extension other holy images) and the Eucharist. Catholics and Orthodox think both are necessary. A lot of Protestants think both are optional. And the practice of many Protestant groups marginalise the Eucharist. I think physical aspects of worship are absolutely the essential. The other thing in support of icons that I find absolutely compelling is the stance of the Oriental Orthodox Churches - Copts, Armenians and so on. They separated from the then combined East and West Church in the 5th century. And so they were not party to the later iconoclastic controversy. If protestants were correct and icons were not central in the early Church, we'd expect Oriental Churches to be mostly bare, and certainly there'd be no veneration of icons. But we actually find not only lots of iconography in Oriental churches, but also a theology of icons that is almost identical to the Orthodox position. That should give Dr Cooper, and other protestants who question the importance of icons, some pause.
The Catholic Church does not teach that a crucifix, statue, or icon must be present t for a valid Mass to be offered or a valid prayer to be said. On battlefields priests offer Mass without crucifixes, statues, or icons.
Images of angels and saints seem ok in worship, but not images of God. In the OT the Israelites left the places where God would be empty, they did not make an image of God. Making an image of God would have been breaking the 2nd commandment. This would be the one reason I don't think I could be Lutheran, other than that Lutheran doctrine is great as far as I can tell. Thanks for your work and your videos.
I'm a lifelong Lutheran. The only pictures of God the Father I can think of are from generic protestant children's story books. Certainly icons of Jesus, God the Son, are acceptable to you? The icon of God the Holy Spirit that Scripture provides is a descending dove. Could you please send me a timestamp of the portion of this video that concerned you?
@@Mygoalwogel there was nothing concerning in the video at all, it's educational and that's good. I don't think artistic images of Jesus, The Holy Spirit, and even maybe The Father outside of the worship service are bad. Having them in the worship service may be against the 2nd commandment. This is why reformed and other protestant traditions have an empty cross in worship or on or near the church building rather than a crucifix. I'm not saying Lutherans aren't Christian, I just think there may be an error in using specifically images of God(any person of The Trinity) in worship. Hope that helps, peace be with you.
What you are saying here seems spot on. And yes we are not iconoclasts. Yet how is it that Exodus 20:4,5 is still left out of the Commandments in the Lutheran Church if we are Sola Scriptura? “You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them".
He literally mentions this in the video as “the second half of the first commandment”. There are many different ways of numbering the 10 Commandments. See also how some folks will have different 9th and 10th commandments.
That's not what he was saying. Nowhere did he say to disrespect pictures or icons. Is it mandatory in Orthodox churches for every member to kiss or bow down to icons? I'm not saying that everyone who does that is making an idol in their hearts, but I think it should be optional according to the person's conscience.
@@Logos_Unveiled Are you Eastern Orthodox? Is it optional in that the person who doesn't kiss or bow to them would still be looked down on if they don't? That would be a huge reason why I couldn't become Orthodox.
It is not only that Lutherans use icons or images but they have deleted the second commandment. To arrive at ten commandments they have subdivided the tenth commandment in the most unnatural way. What does that tell us?
KJV exodus 20:4 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth" There are so many scriptures not only saying to not worship idols, but it's literally telling us not to make any images. It's simple, pick up the Bible and read it.
Gold cherubs, wood cherubs, stone cherubs, embroidered curtain cherubs, embroidered veil cherubs, palms, open flowers, horns, [edit]oxen, lions, and a bronze serpent. Guess Moses and Solomon didn't know how to read the bible right.
@@Mygoalwogel God ordered Moses to make the serpent and put it on the stick. God ordered Moses on how the arch is to be built, including the cherubs. The images in the temple were God instruction. Now, You mentioned bull, It was called the Golden calf, and the Israelites made that on their own accord without any order to do so, that's when God became angry. Solomon created the statues in his own accord and just like before God wasn't pleased, hence why the Bible says in 1 Kings 11:6 "So Solomon did what the Lord considered evil. He did not wholeheartedly follow the Lord as his father David had done. 7 Then Solomon built an illegal worship site on the hill east of Jerusalem for Chemosh (the disgusting idol of Moab) and for Molech". So all in all, regardless of what anyone in the Bible did, God said do not create images, and the only time it was allowed was when it was ordered by God himself. Imagine being young, if your father told you "do not go in the fridge to eat the cake" would it be wrong if you ate the cake? Indeed it would be wrong. Now if your father later said "Go in the fridge and cut yourself a slice of cake" would it be wrong for you to do so? Of course not, because that's the command that he gave which only applies to that moment. And in this case God didn't tell any of the people in this age to make Christ statues, saint images or angel images, people made that on there own accord, and by doing that they went against the command that has been established foundational. Which is the command you attempted to explain away.
The Bible uses different words for "idol” images and “skillful” images. Ex 26:1 “You SHALL make skillful figures (maaseh) Ex 20: 4-5 “You shall NOT make idols (p̄e·sel) … nor bow down” Num 21:8 “Make a serpent” 2 Kgs 18:4 Hezekiah broke Nehushtan 1 Kgs 6:18 cedar “carvings" (miqlaath) Deut 29:17 “abominations” of wood 1 Kgs 6:32 "figures" (miqlaath) cherubim, open flowers, palm trees 1 Kgs 7:19 "shapes" (maaseh) of lilies 1 Kgs 7:20 “patterns” (sebakah) of pomegranates 1 Kgs 7:24 “casting” (yetsuqah) of gourds 1 Kgs 7:29 Lions, Cherubs, Oxen “figures" (maaseh) 1 Kgs 10:20 Twelve gold and ivory lions “made” (asah) God did not disapprove, nor did God command, any of the figures made in 1 Kgs 6-7, 10. Solomon was condemned later for worshiping other gods.
I wonder if it’s a maturity thing, too. For me, growing up Protestant, I don’t have a conception that icons are necessary. It might be different if that’s all you ever knew and your conscience is weak.
If you are going to say sola scriptura then you did not get this from Scripture itself and some guy said it so. To not take into account what the early church fathers said or how the early christian community was is absolutely stupid.
What about the first and second commandments, I wouldn’t be so quick to take any, let alone the ones God made first and foremost to fall by the wayside. Please brothers, I plead with you do not so rashly turn aside from the way to live in darkness our country is ripe for the Lord’s judgment as it is. Do not ad thereto calling yourself by the name of Christians.
The use of Icons is NOT ok either way. The theology of Icons teaches the proper theology of the Incarnation! You reject the 7th Ecumenical council, sadly putting you at odd with the Church of Christ. And to quote the council of Elvira just plainly show your lack of knowledge of eastern Christianity. Did you actually investigate that supposed canon? Did you know that both Iconoclasts and Iconodules both claimed it as support, making it meaningless. Did you know that it was just a local council and that canon was not followed by any other council? Please dont use deception against us Orthodox.
"What profiteth the graven image that the maker thereof hath graven it; the molten image, and a teacher of lies, that the maker of his work trusteth therein, to make dumb idols?" (Hab 2:18)
@@GeorgePenton-np9rh, the prescribed images of cherubim upon the cover / mercy seat of the ark of the covenant lend no legitimacy to the idolatrous practices of some to make visual representations of the Lord of glory.
@@RenatIlyasov If it's okay with God to make images of cherubim it must be okay with God to make images of Jesus. It is images of demons and false gods that God objects to.
Sola scriptura had no basis at all Protestantism has a absolutely no foot to stand on. You just continue in the error of your ways unfortunately. If scripture alone was sufficient we wouldn’t have 30k denominations all that preach all you need is the Bible it laughable to say scripture alone has any basis. For one there wasn’t a Bible around for 400 years, secondly most people couldn’t even read, those are just some practical things hence icons are not paintings but writings as they tell a story. I don’t see how anyone with half an education can follow Protestantism or Baptist teachings and somehow believe they have the same faith as the apostles and the first Christians it’s definitely not. There are 61 denominations just within the baptist traditions!!! Yet they all say all you need is a Bible but yet they all point the finger at one another saying he’s wrong no their wrong well our way of under the Bible is better! I’ve been there i have talked to these pastors it’s quite ridiculous!
This is what Sola Scriptura means: Luke 1:4 Scripture is what gives certainty of doctrine. John 5:39 We have eternal life from the Scriptures only because they bear witness about Christ. John 10:35 Scripture cannot be broken or invalidated. John 15:20 No one may contradict or neglect the Apostles and be a Christian. John 17:20 The word of the Apostles is the source of true faith. John 20:31 The Gospel of John alone is enough to tell us what to believe so that we can have life in Jesus' name. John 22:24 The Gospel of John is a true testimony. No authority may contradict it. Acts 17:11 We are to examine the Scriptures daily to see if anything taught as doctrine is true. Acts 24:14 We are to believe everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets. Romans 15:4 Scripture was written for our instruction to encourage us and give us hope. 1 Corinthians 12:28 All other teachers and servants in the Church come after the apostles in priority. 1 Corinthians 14:37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he must acknowledge that the things Paul wrote to us are a command of the Lord. 2 Corinthians 1:13 Paul did not write anything other than what lay people of Corinth and Achaia could read and understand. Some partially understand; some fully understand. Paul will boast of all on the day of the Lord. Galatians 1:8 No one may contradict what the Apostles preached. Galatians 1:20 Paul did not lie in what he wrote. Galatians 3:22 The Scripture imprisoned everything else under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Eph 2:20 The Apostles and Prophets are the foundation of the Church and the faith with Christ as cornerstone. All other authorities must build on that foundation and no other. 1 Timothy 3:15 This letter tells us who may and may not become overseers and deacons. 1 Timothy 4:13 We are to devote ourselves to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching. 2 Timothy 3:15 The scriptures are able to make us wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. 2 Timothy 3:16 Scripture is profitable for correction in righteousness. No doctrine that isn't supportable by scripture may correct scripture or render it unprofitable. 2 Timothy 3:17 Scripture makes preachers (men of God) complete. Scripture fully equips preachers for every good work. 1 Peter 5:12 This letter is the true grace of God. We must stand firm in it. 2 Peter 3:2 We are to obey the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through his apostles. 2 Peter 3:16 The ignorant and unstable who twist the scriptures do so to their own destruction. Paul's Epistles are Scripture. 1 John 1:3-4 The eye-wittness writings of the Apostles are what give us fellowship with the Apostles, with the Father, and with His Son. James 2:8 Love of neighbor as taught by scripture is enough to keep us busy for the rest of our lives.
Should we bow down or pray to images, pictures, or symbols in our worship? NO!Exodus 20:4:”You must not make for yourself a carved image or a form like anything that is in the heavens above or on the earth below or in the waters under the earth.” 1 John 5:21:”Little children, guard yourselves from idols.” The first two commandments required the Israelites to devote themselves exclusively to God and warned against idol worship. Those seeking to serve God must worship Him with Spirit and Truth! (John 4:24)
It is so hard to listen to you,you are so wrong.the church was eastern, and western Christianity with no understanding of real history,has tried to rewrite doctrine.
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17
@Ioannis Grivas the Israelites were not worshiping the ark or the tabernacle furniture unlike the idolatry of icon worship. That is the simple answer. That is what the commandment forbids - worship of any man-made item. Second, God says not to do stuff and then later He commands certain people to things. For example do not kill. Yet God told Israel to kill canaanites.
The use of Icons is NOT ok either way. The theology of Icons teaches the proper theology of the Incarnation! You reject the 7th Ecumenical council, sadly putting you at odd with the Church of Christ. And to quote the council of Elvira just plainly show your lack of knowledge of eastern Christianity. Did you actually investigate that supposed canon? Did you know that both Iconoclasts and Iconodules both claimed it as support, making it meaningless. Did you know that it was just a local council and that canon was not followed by any other council? Please dont use deception against us Orthodox.
I wish my fellow Calvinists agreed with you Lutherans on this. I left the Reformed Pub because I was called an idolater for using the Jesus Storybook Bible.
I'm Anglican lol I really understand you
Yeah, I also belong to a reformed church. Their views on icons and the sacraments are really mixed up. But it's okay, folks like us can serve as a reformatory presence.
LOL
Yeah, the Reformed pub is over the top, Calvin and Vermigli allowed for images of Christ outside of Church but not inside.
They seem to be out of step with the other reformed church teachings as many other reformed churches I've been to don't have that problem. They sound like they went down the road of legalism.
I wear a crucifix and also cross myself remembering my baptism but they are tools not objects of my worship. Peace
You are not reformed...
You are lutheran lol..
Maybe he's not reformed. But actually a Lutheran.
@@piusaditya5206He has LCMS in his RUclips name (LCMS=Lutheran Church Missouri Synod), which makes him most likely Lutheran.
I am reformed and very seriously considering becoming Lutheran. My biggest motivator has been the Sacraments after starting a personal study into Patristics. Justin Martyr and Ignatius have really convicted me to see the elements of the Lord's Supper as literal flesh and blood of Jesus and Baptism as regenerational. This conviction has become overwhelming to me! Yet, what restrains me from becoming Lutheran has been iconography. I was a fierce iconoclast and seriously despised iconography. Patristic studies have actually strengthened my iconoclasm. I reject the second council of Nicaea. But my conviction over the Lord's Supper and Baptism is greater. I'm really struggling here. Thank you so much for this! It hasn't solved my dilemma but it has really helped put a better light onto the Lutheran position for me.
Same lol
I was reformed too. My convictions on Holy Baptism and Holy Communion also brought me to lutheranism.
I thought about being reformed for a while, but I could never get with limited atonement (because Jesus died for ALL people). I thought I was iconoclastic until this video, but this really got me thinking.
Lutherans believe that baptism regenerates and in that moment. Reformed view is that the efficacy of baptism is not necessarily tied to the moment it is administered. Would this not better explain those that come to the faith later in life? This is one of the biggest reasons I have trouble becoming Lutheran.
I’m a Lutheran from Germany and until now I didn’t knew that there are Lutherans that are not against icons. Here in Germany Lutherans would consider it idolatry.
Wow, I didn't know Lutherans have icons/images, albeit I've never been a Lutheran before, or perhaps Lutherans are diverse.
I'm Catholic and I like listening to your talk, sure there are differences but also similarities. When I was an Evangelical we had images too at home, such as the Lord's supper and maybe one or two on Jesus, but our churches were devoid of any image on biblical character but images of the members. I got a bit iconoclast at one point because I live around Muslims and was somewhat influenced by their view on images, which is ironic since the iconoclasm controversy had similar case.
You're right, they're not necessary but helpful as teaching tools, and we can connect with Biblical stories better, some parishes have more images than others but that doesn't make it any more or less holier, but unfortunately it's largely misunderstood by other Christian groups.
Anyway, thanks Ps Cooper! Keep up the good work, God bless.
I'm a assembly of God and I still love and appreciate Christian artwork and symbols, images/icons, crosses
I love attending the Episcopalian Church on Sundays the most. However during the week sometimes on Wednesday nights I do enjoy attending the assembly of church. I even went to a couple of breakthrough services.
Seventh Ecumenical Council (787 AD), Extracts from the Acts., Session I.
- Anathema to those who apply the words of Holy Scripture which were spoken against idols, to the venerable images.
- Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable images.
- Anathema to those who say that Christians have recourse to the images as to gods.
- Anathema to those who call the sacred images idols.
Very interesting video and I believe your description of your perspective is well done.
Your Orthodox brother in Christ.
I thought the EO disregards all other non-EO branches as non-Christians? Is that a niche view?
@@franknwogu4911
No. There are many Christians.
And there are Christians in “The Church”.
Very important that none judge another’s heart, which we cannot know.
But we can determine where they are by observation.
@@ZZZELCH I am glad that you believe that.
As a former Baptist, I'm heavily considering the Lutheran Church. I LOVE icons in churches (coming from a church that had none) and I also love the Lutheran rosary, as it helps with focusing on prayer ✝
Then join it brother!
where are you now? :-)
It is idolatry, no way around it.
@@colepriceguitar1153 If Jesus Christ is fully human and fully Devine, then as we can depict other humans in art, we can depict the humanity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in art..
@@RedsoxXx09 sure you can. But bowing before and kissing these images is paganism.
This was great in account that this forced me to be present to the moment as I have a problem focusing. Thank you for your presentation and subject area expertise.
As a committed Reformed guy, this is one area of the Confessions and Catechisms that I take slight and careful exception to. I think images in worship can be helpful, and I think even some images of Christ (CAREFULLY done) can be very beneficial.
whatever happened to the 2nd commandment that said "4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, "
OR ANY LIKENESS OF ANYTHING
you shouldn't even make any images of Christ
@@tomtemple69Are the Cherubim beings in heaven ?
@@HIMYMTR how many people saw the ark of the covenant and how often were they allowed to see it?
@@tomtemple69 The veil was torn when Jesus died. Everyone now has direct access to God through Jesus Christ.
@@HIMYMTR yeah, therefore we don't need a priests anymore, we are all preists now and can go directly to God through Jesus
we don't need Mary or the saints to intercede for us, we go straight to Jesus (who is both man and God)
I think images are useful as art draws upon our right brain and involves it in worship,and this is half of our brain power,so it is significant. I think it is part of what has made the Church so enduring.
As Presbyterian, I use icons because you😅
Based.
as a lutheran i find it extremely beneficial to have icons, its much easier to connect to jesus or mary when i have a picture of them infront of me
just like how the Israelites found it easier to worship when they could see a golden calf or bronze serpent...
@@tomtemple69cope
@@tomtemple69 But it seems they believed the calf was actually going to protect them or was the actual presence of God.
Ex 32:1- “…the people gathered themselves together to Aaron and said to him, “Up, make us gods who shall go before us. …”
Exodus 32:6
[6] And they rose up early the next day and offered burnt offerings and brought peace offerings. And the people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play.
I’m not EO, and I don’t know their heart, but family pictures aren’t wrong. If they start saying the Holy Spirit is not present without the icons, that’s a problem.
What do you mean connect to Mary?
@@DrGero15Luther highly revered the Blessed Virgin Mother of God and there is a place for a qualified Marian piety within Protestantism.
Can you do a video on your eastern icons and interview Jonathan Pageau?
This is great. This is has been on my mind and I found this video today. Thank you.
Thank you very much. I consider myself a Lutheran, and for me, icons are very helpful. They serve as reminders of a heavenly dimension.
Thank you for this important insight.
A more in-depth discussion of the 7th council and the Eastern theology and use of images would be great. It can get murky and confusing for me, especially since Orthodox are vague in explaning what they mean when they venerate any image. I find myself comfortable with some stuff (kissing the Gospel book for example or before the cross, understanding these as "stand-ins") and yet not being able to get behind the bowing or kissing of anyother image. I guess I'm looking for some scriptural, consistent standard to regulate the use of images. Thanks.
It is noted in St John Damascene's defense of icons that people were prostrating to Peter's shadow in Acts 5. I don't see how doing so to the full figure is worse.
@@johnlardas3221 sure, but elsewhere they are rebuked for just that, like later in acts when St Peter went before Cornelius.
@@TPizzle96 You make a valid point. And if venerate means merely looking at something then I guess I too venerate many images.
The new covenant does lead to strange things (strange, not untrue). Apostolic teaching that humans are the Temple of God since Pentecost is shocking. Giving a holy kiss to the brethren doesn’t seem sinful to me anymore- it’s about your heart. If I disobeyed the Lord’s commands out of fear/reverence to a churchman, that’s when we’ve got a problem.
I do worry that the rigorous use of icons adds an additional stumbling block to Jews believing in Christ. That should be enough for us to demote them even if it was beneficial to us. All things are lawful, but not all are profitable.
I make plenty of “icons” (just go through my community page here, you’ll see what I mean), and I see them as family photos- images of people I love and aspire to be like. I have always loved making artwork of Bible narratives, and I have had to face a bit of mild backlash from a few people, as a result of which I still feel very weird making such pictures. But I never stopped it, probably because deep down, I was not born or even raised believing that making a picture of Jesus was a bad thing.
That is why Lutherans easily convert to Orthodoxy... Luther himself tried to reconcile with The Church but sadly failed.
He tried to reconcile to RCC
That wasn't Luther, it was his successors. Luther sat and conferred with some Ethiopian Orthodox guy but (to my knowledge) never interacted with Eastern Orthodoxy.
@@Procopius464 Please google the following "Luther Had His Chance".... and read the article having that title. Thank you.
This is a related two-part question that maybe you could cover in another video: What is the historical Lutheran view of propriety especially in regards to head covering for women and uncovering for men in 1 Cor 11? AND does the present day understanding and practice match that of the historical church? In short, has Lutheran theology and/or practice changed in regards to this teaching? Thanks for sharing your knowledge.
Fir Deleate I would love to know as well!
All churches stopped the practice of head covering for woman in the 1960's with the advent of second wave feminism.
'The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."' - Acts 10:15
In my walk I have found the position of the 7th council that could be called a "cosmic atonement" of sorts really sorts out many of the seeming paradoxes that I've encountered when reading through the NT, especially in Acts.
I appreciate the balance that this guy does with the early church history. I disagree with his position but respect where he is coming from.
Yama hama, I 100% affirm the 7th ecumenical council. However, I really like what you have to say here about Icons
It is to worship or to venerate(if you re on denial) images,but there is also a pernicious effect on people s subconscience like a subliminal effect to accept as true something that is false.Notice on that image from the beguinning of that video for instance, the way that the person that represent Christ place his fingers from his right hand,like those popes when they "bless", to make us believe that the Roman Catholic religion is the true church of Christ.Other painting and drawings shows a christ with a beautyfully round host in his hands,while in reality, He had a piece of bread without levin.Things like this.The Bible teach us that we do not need things that we see with our physical eyes to provoke faith or to reinforce it(1Cor.2:9,10),the Bible teach that faith comes by coming to knowledge of what the Bible say about salvation through Christ(Rom.10:17).Also, why accepting images,statues and icons while we perfectly know that some weak members of our church will be tempted to venerate these things,Paul in 1Cor.8:13 teach us that by love we should prevent those pernicious tendancies by simply not allow it .
Jordan, great job! I enjoy hearing your opinions as a non-Lutheran Protestant myself (with some Lutheran tendencies (consubstantiation, for example)!). I've tuned into various videos of your's, despite respectful and cordial disagreement on certain issues. On this specific video, I do not have any disagreements yet (I'm still watching), but I'm reminded of my current reading of J.I. Packer's "Knowing God" and his strong objection to the use of images. Thankfully, I haven't stopped reading this book despite my strong disagreement with his view on the use of images breaking the second commandment and being inherently idolatrous. Personally, Packer seems obviously Calvinist Reformed and yet his view on images comes off as Zwinglian (or from the views of some other radical reformer). I'd be curious about your views on his objection if you are familiar. Understanding an icon as a teaching tool is exactly right in my estimation and to deny images their functioning in this way has negative (and perhaps unjust) consequences for the disabled who need alternative resources to know and understand the Gospel according to their needs. Thanks!
You seem like a good and knowledgeable person. Please debate Jay Dyer already and shake hands afterwards. It's all good ✌
Please release a book on Icons yourself and/or books written by other Lutheran scholars on Icons.
It seems to me that no mention of the use of a crucifix is complete unless this verse from Galatians 3 (NKJV) is referenced:
1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified?
It seems to me that this portrayal of Jesus being crucified must have been Christian art of some sort that was a type of crucifix.
For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. John 3:17😎
If the Bible says that the idolaters will not inherit the kingdom of God I do not want anything to do with something that looks like idolatry.
I find a cross in my prayer time aids me in remembering the cross before I think about my problems.
The kids books being idolatry is wild. It's art.
I wonder about this. What I heard is that the use of images started because during the early days a lot of the congregation was illiterate. In some of the more recent denominations (newer Baptist and Pentacostal churches) they won't have any images in the sanctuary, but will still have them in the children's section of the church, where classes and such are. Some of the older churches will still have stained glass windows. I know Lutheran churches make use of a crucifix in the sanctuary. If you're praying to the images it's dead wrong. I think the complete stripping away of images is an artifact from Puritan times. Their whole MO seemed to be to err on the side of caution.
@DrJordanBCooper
What is the Lutheran position on the wearing of medallions such as the St. Benedict medal? Is it ok? Or is it viewed as giving glory or prayer to a man?
I think that if someone is violating their own conscience in using images, then something is wrong in their personal case. I think it’s okay for a reformed Christian to avoid the use of images for the sake of avoiding idolatry, but if someone is in trouble with their church for teaching children with a picture book, I think that’s a little too far.
I think that's a reasonable assessment. A comparison might be something like alcohol. If an individual struggles with alcoholism and avoids drinking it entirely due to it tempting them to abuse it, that is not only OK but is the right thing for them to do. But if they then say that drinking alcohol is sinful in and of itself and condemn others for their use of it then they are going against the biblical evidence and sound moral theology.
I appreciate your knowledge on these topics. But throwing in an advertisement on an 8 minute video is rough.
Question - Why do you use icons?
Answer - To give you someone to look at. To drive home the feeling that this person actually existed.
Like looking at an old photo of someone you lost,It evokes emotion.
you can not depict the uncreated with something created... it's insulting to God
we worship in spirit and truth, not statue and image...
@@tomtemple69 All depends.
What are the issues with the 7th ecumenical council that you can't fully embrace?
Some points from the other side of the debate since it wasn’t brought up:
1. Even if you took a picture with our technology today it wouldn’t be an accurate portrayal of Jesus because it separates the humanity from the deity.
2. Jesus is a perfect human and we try to copy his inflection and tone and presence in videos, they will always be imperfect so we always create a false Jesus when we try to make something look like Jesus. So when we think of Jesus we can have the incorrect picture in our heads.
3. It’s wrong because it’s not Jesus. I don’t want to have a picture in my head of a Jesus that’s not Jesus. I don’t want any of my adoration or worship going to something not Jesus.
4. Either you see an image of God that is false but stirs up worship in you which is wrong, but if the thing is an image of Jesus then actually seeing Jesus should trigger such emotions thus you are either breaking the 2nd or 3rd commandment.
Last here is a quote from Calvin’s Institutes: “We think it unlawful to give a visible shape to God, because God himself has forbidden it, and because it cannot be done without, in some degree, tarnishing his glory. And lest any should think that we are singular in this opinion, those acquainted with the productions of sound divines will find that they have always disapproved of it. If it be unlawful to make any corporeal representation of God, still more unlawful must it be to worship such a representation instead of God, or to worship God in it. The only things, therefore, which ought to be painted or sculptured, are things which can be presented to the eye; the majesty of God, which is far beyond the reach of any eye, must not be dishonored by unbecoming representations. Visible representations are of two classes-viz. historical, which give a representation of events, and pictorial, which merely exhibit bodily shapes and figures. The former are of some use for instruction or admonition. The latter, so far as I can see, are only fitted for amusement. And yet it is certain, that the latter are almost the only kind which have hitherto been exhibited in churches.”
Wait do we?
Where's a good place to study the first seven councils? I know I could look online, but any good resources this community, or Dr. Cooper, would recommend?
Have you seen Dr. Ortlund's discussion about icons?
No problem, until you start kissing, bowing, and praying to them. Then it gets weird.
Exactly. I'm not gonna say people who do that are idolaters or aren't Christians. But I do take issue with that. But I also take issue with my fellow Presbyterians who usually say any images (of Christ in particular) are sinful.
For me its weird you western "christians" practice christianity. I was in a protestant and a catholic church and i had a culture/faith shock
Would the Orthodox say they worship the image of an icon?
Pastor, something said by the Orthodox is that joshua bend down before the ark. And not always the presence of God was there. I think they have a good a point. What do you think about it?
As an orthodox priest, I would recommend the historically definitive text for the orthodox church which refutes Protestant iconoclasm. Treatise on divine images by John Damascene. The understanding of honor is akin to spitting on a flag. No one would de sacra te, make common, the flag, but show honor. The honor is given not to a piece of clothe but the thing referenced. Protestantism iconoclasm has historic roots in UNChristian history. Muslim influence on the apostolic tradition.
www.amazon.com/Treatises-Vladimirs-Seminary-Popular-Patristics/dp/0881412457/ref=asc_df_0881412457/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312050264297&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=3874828198216653434&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=1024254&hvtargid=pla-620870884477&psc=1&tag=&ref=&adgrpid=61316180559&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvadid=312050264297&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=3874828198216653434&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=1024254&hvtargid=pla-620870884477
@@FrMoody
Clement of Alexandria (193-217/220 A.D.) "And if Moses commanded men to make not an image to represent God by art, ..." The Instructor book 3 ch.2 p.274
This one is not the one I was looking for. Cant find it now, but Im sure you are familiar with this one, it has Clement saying that cherubim on the ark were not cherubims and that was imposible for Moses to have done something like that.
What it tells me is 2 things:
1 Clement was missreading the old testament
2 There was some stream of christianity against depictions in such a way that brought clement to say that.
Yeah, but Clement of Alexandria was an Arian though. One of the calling cards of the Arians was that they took a hyper literal interpretation of the creature-creator distinction because the Arians have no concept of the incarnation. As a result, Christ is only an image of the father in so far as he conforms to a perfect obedience to the Will of the Lord and not God who has come down and United man’s nature with his own.
Nobody worships a statue of Lincoln or interprets honoring a statue of Lincoln as worship. Same with litirgical Christians and their images, icons, and statues.
@Space Organism We kiss the icon or image or statue as a way of kissing the person it represents, for instance we kiss the figure of Jesus on the cross before saying the rosary as a way of kissing the real Jesus. It is similar to a person kissing pictures of a spouse or of their children.
"Nobody" Well, I do say that. I was not in favor of any of the recent destruction of American statues by far leftist groups, but I wasn't specifically torn up by the loss of them. I found the lawlessness and anachronistic moralizing to be a greater concern. And I'm not really the only one that feel uncomfortable with the level of reverence people show for statues and similar things. pulpitandpen.org/2017/09/26/flag-worship-and-the-rise-of-american-patriotic-christianity/
Tldr; you personally like icons.
Icons are venerated, not worshipped - BIG difference!
If you deny the authority of one ecumenical council, isn't that a slippery slope? If you pick and choose which councils you recognize, aren't you setting yourself up in judgement over the authority of the church?
Talk to the Assyrian Church of the East and Oriental Orthodox Church. Not every "ecumenical" council was actually ecumenical. That's not setting themselves up in judgement. That's just refusing to lie about word definitions.
@@Mygoalwogel Dr.Cooper was referring to Nicea2, the 7th ecumenical council, which he does not recognize as ecumenical, though both the Roman and Orthodox churches recognize it to be so.
@@williamfarmer5154 Oriental Orthodox only accept the first 3. Assyrian Church of the East only accept the Nicaea I and Constantinople I. So the rest aren't as fully ecumenical.
@@Mygoalwogel Thanks for the information. I suppose that, as a Lutheran, Dr. Peterson is under no obligation to accept any of the councils, although maybe he is simply obligated to accept the first six, but not the seventh.
@@Mygoalwogel since the Oriental Orthodox Church has an incorrect understanding of the nature of Christ, I would listen to Eastern Orthodox councils because they gave us a clear understanding of the Trinity. All 7 are necessary.
The only image I use in worship, is Jesus himself, since he is described as the Visible image of the Invisible God etc.
9 Those who make an image, all of them are useless, And their precious things shall not profit; They are their own witnesses; They neither see nor know, that they may be ashamed.
10 Who would form a god or mold an image That profits him nothing?
(Isa 44:9-10 NKJ)
Interesting dichotomy you have at the end between crucifixes (and by extension other holy images) and the Eucharist. Catholics and Orthodox think both are necessary. A lot of Protestants think both are optional. And the practice of many Protestant groups marginalise the Eucharist. I think physical aspects of worship are absolutely the essential. The other thing in support of icons that I find absolutely compelling is the stance of the Oriental Orthodox Churches - Copts, Armenians and so on. They separated from the then combined East and West Church in the 5th century. And so they were not party to the later iconoclastic controversy. If protestants were correct and icons were not central in the early Church, we'd expect Oriental Churches to be mostly bare, and certainly there'd be no veneration of icons. But we actually find not only lots of iconography in Oriental churches, but also a theology of icons that is almost identical to the Orthodox position. That should give Dr Cooper, and other protestants who question the importance of icons, some pause.
The Catholic Church does not teach that a crucifix, statue, or icon must be present t for a valid Mass to be offered or a valid prayer to be said. On battlefields priests offer Mass without crucifixes, statues, or icons.
As long as they're not dogmatically mandatory.
Images of angels and saints seem ok in worship, but not images of God. In the OT the Israelites left the places where God would be empty, they did not make an image of God. Making an image of God would have been breaking the 2nd commandment. This would be the one reason I don't think I could be Lutheran, other than that Lutheran doctrine is great as far as I can tell. Thanks for your work and your videos.
I'm a lifelong Lutheran. The only pictures of God the Father I can think of are from generic protestant children's story books. Certainly icons of Jesus, God the Son, are acceptable to you? The icon of God the Holy Spirit that Scripture provides is a descending dove. Could you please send me a timestamp of the portion of this video that concerned you?
@@Mygoalwogel there was nothing concerning in the video at all, it's educational and that's good. I don't think artistic images of Jesus, The Holy Spirit, and even maybe The Father outside of the worship service are bad. Having them in the worship service may be against the 2nd commandment. This is why reformed and other protestant traditions have an empty cross in worship or on or near the church building rather than a crucifix. I'm not saying Lutherans aren't Christian, I just think there may be an error in using specifically images of God(any person of The Trinity) in worship. Hope that helps, peace be with you.
What you are saying here seems spot on. And yes we are not iconoclasts. Yet how is it that Exodus 20:4,5 is still left out of the Commandments in the Lutheran Church if we are Sola Scriptura? “You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them".
Jews leave it out too.
God objects to images of demons and false gods but loves statues and icons of Jesus, Mary, angels, and saints. See Exodus 25:18-20.
He literally mentions this in the video as “the second half of the first commandment”. There are many different ways of numbering the 10 Commandments. See also how some folks will have different 9th and 10th commandments.
Bowing down and worshipping is the problem, not the icon.
The Lords supper is the reminder of the death of Jesus, you don’t need the image on crucifix
Which is idolatry, representing so called image of Jesus.
Using icons is a modern fad; the actual Orthodox think that they're being used as accessories by non Orthodox, not as they use them.
Images and icons aren't idols
In your opinion, wold you say the Eastern Orthodox Worship the Icons, and or Mary?
No we do not. Would you spit on a picture of your mother? Same concept. Basic.
No. Bowing down or kissing is out of respect and love.
That's not what he was saying. Nowhere did he say to disrespect pictures or icons. Is it mandatory in Orthodox churches for every member to kiss or bow down to icons? I'm not saying that everyone who does that is making an idol in their hearts, but I think it should be optional according to the person's conscience.
@@bethanyann1060 Well,it is optional.
@@Logos_Unveiled Are you Eastern Orthodox? Is it optional in that the person who doesn't kiss or bow to them would still be looked down on if they don't? That would be a huge reason why I couldn't become Orthodox.
It is not only that Lutherans use icons or images but they have deleted the second commandment. To arrive at ten commandments they have subdivided the tenth commandment in the most unnatural way. What does that tell us?
KJV exodus 20:4 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth"
There are so many scriptures not only saying to not worship idols, but it's literally telling us not to make any images. It's simple, pick up the Bible and read it.
Gold cherubs, wood cherubs, stone cherubs, embroidered curtain cherubs, embroidered veil cherubs, palms, open flowers, horns, [edit]oxen, lions, and a bronze serpent. Guess Moses and Solomon didn't know how to read the bible right.
@@Mygoalwogel God ordered Moses to make the serpent and put it on the stick. God ordered Moses on how the arch is to be built, including the cherubs. The images in the temple were God instruction. Now, You mentioned bull, It was called the Golden calf, and the Israelites made that on their own accord without any order to do so, that's when God became angry. Solomon created the statues in his own accord and just like before God wasn't pleased, hence why the Bible says in 1 Kings 11:6 "So Solomon did what the Lord considered evil. He did not wholeheartedly follow the Lord as his father David had done. 7 Then Solomon built an illegal worship site on the hill east of Jerusalem for Chemosh (the disgusting idol of Moab) and for Molech". So all in all, regardless of what anyone in the Bible did, God said do not create images, and the only time it was allowed was when it was ordered by God himself. Imagine being young, if your father told you "do not go in the fridge to eat the cake" would it be wrong if you ate the cake? Indeed it would be wrong. Now if your father later said "Go in the fridge and cut yourself a slice of cake" would it be wrong for you to do so? Of course not, because that's the command that he gave which only applies to that moment. And in this case God didn't tell any of the people in this age to make Christ statues, saint images or angel images, people made that on there own accord, and by doing that they went against the command that has been established foundational. Which is the command you attempted to explain away.
The Bible uses different words for "idol” images and “skillful” images.
Ex 26:1 “You SHALL make skillful figures (maaseh)
Ex 20: 4-5 “You shall NOT make idols (p̄e·sel) … nor bow down”
Num 21:8 “Make a serpent”
2 Kgs 18:4 Hezekiah broke Nehushtan
1 Kgs 6:18 cedar “carvings" (miqlaath)
Deut 29:17 “abominations” of wood
1 Kgs 6:32 "figures" (miqlaath) cherubim, open flowers, palm trees
1 Kgs 7:19 "shapes" (maaseh) of lilies
1 Kgs 7:20 “patterns” (sebakah) of pomegranates
1 Kgs 7:24 “casting” (yetsuqah) of gourds
1 Kgs 7:29 Lions, Cherubs, Oxen “figures" (maaseh)
1 Kgs 10:20 Twelve gold and ivory lions “made” (asah)
God did not disapprove, nor did God command, any of the figures made in 1 Kgs 6-7, 10. Solomon was condemned later for worshiping other gods.
@@Mygoalwogel and Hezekiah had to destroy that serpent because people started burning incense and making offerings to it...
I wonder if it’s a maturity thing, too. For me, growing up Protestant, I don’t have a conception that icons are necessary. It might be different if that’s all you ever knew and your conscience is weak.
Imagine Heathens splitting Important Hairs like this....
We have better things to do in this world.
Because idolatry.
If you are going to say sola scriptura then you did not get this from Scripture itself and some guy said it so. To not take into account what the early church fathers said or how the early christian community was is absolutely stupid.
There were no icons in the early church
Maybe just become Orthodox 🤔🤔☦️☦️☦️☦️
Why?
What about the first and second commandments, I wouldn’t be so quick to take any, let alone the ones God made first and foremost to fall by the wayside. Please brothers, I plead with you do not so rashly turn aside from the way to live in darkness our country is ripe for the Lord’s judgment as it is. Do not ad thereto calling yourself by the name of Christians.
The use of Icons is NOT ok either way. The theology of Icons teaches the proper theology of the Incarnation! You reject the 7th Ecumenical council, sadly putting you at odd with the Church of Christ. And to quote the council of Elvira just plainly show your lack of knowledge of eastern Christianity. Did you actually investigate that supposed canon? Did you know that both Iconoclasts and Iconodules both claimed it as support, making it meaningless. Did you know that it was just a local council and that canon was not followed by any other council? Please dont use deception against us Orthodox.
#teamCalvin
#teamBible
um... #teamJesus ? #teamTheKingdom ? #teamOneHolyCatholicandApostolicChurch #teamTheFaithWhichWasOnceForAllDeliveredToTheSaints (ok. I'm getting snarky now. I'll stop)
@Philip Andrew i am a Lutheran now. Thanks for pointing this old comment out to me. I will leave it as a testimony of my stupid past. :)
#teamBible
@Phil Andrew God Bless!
Why you have a orthodox cross as avatar then? @derek
"What profiteth the graven image that the maker thereof hath graven it; the molten image, and a teacher of lies, that the maker of his work trusteth therein, to make dumb idols?" (Hab 2:18)
An image doesn't become an idol until you worship and exalt it.
See Exodus 25:18-20.
@@GeorgePenton-np9rh, the prescribed images of cherubim upon the cover / mercy seat of the ark of the covenant lend no legitimacy to the idolatrous practices of some to make visual representations of the Lord of glory.
@@Lutheranjenkins a [lying] image of the Lord of glory IS an idol in virtue of its design to represent something or Someone it is not.
@@RenatIlyasov If it's okay with God to make images of cherubim it must be okay with God to make images of Jesus. It is images of demons and false gods that God objects to.
Sola scriptura had no basis at all Protestantism has a absolutely no foot to stand on. You just continue in the error of your ways unfortunately. If scripture alone was sufficient we wouldn’t have 30k denominations all that preach all you need is the Bible it laughable to say scripture alone has any basis. For one there wasn’t a Bible around for 400 years, secondly most people couldn’t even read, those are just some practical things hence icons are not paintings but writings as they tell a story. I don’t see how anyone with half an education can follow Protestantism or Baptist teachings and somehow believe they have the same faith as the apostles and the first Christians it’s definitely not. There are 61 denominations just within the baptist traditions!!! Yet they all say all you need is a Bible but yet they all point the finger at one another saying he’s wrong no their wrong well our way of under the Bible is better! I’ve been there i have talked to these pastors it’s quite ridiculous!
This is what Sola Scriptura means:
Luke 1:4 Scripture is what gives certainty of doctrine.
John 5:39 We have eternal life from the Scriptures only because they bear witness about Christ.
John 10:35 Scripture cannot be broken or invalidated.
John 15:20 No one may contradict or neglect the Apostles and be a Christian.
John 17:20 The word of the Apostles is the source of true faith.
John 20:31 The Gospel of John alone is enough to tell us what to believe so that we can have life in Jesus' name.
John 22:24 The Gospel of John is a true testimony. No authority may contradict it.
Acts 17:11 We are to examine the Scriptures daily to see if anything taught as doctrine is true.
Acts 24:14 We are to believe everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets.
Romans 15:4 Scripture was written for our instruction to encourage us and give us hope.
1 Corinthians 12:28 All other teachers and servants in the Church come after the apostles in priority.
1 Corinthians 14:37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he must acknowledge that the things Paul wrote to us are a command of the Lord.
2 Corinthians 1:13 Paul did not write anything other than what lay people of Corinth and Achaia could read and understand. Some partially understand; some fully understand. Paul will boast of all on the day of the Lord.
Galatians 1:8 No one may contradict what the Apostles preached.
Galatians 1:20 Paul did not lie in what he wrote.
Galatians 3:22 The Scripture imprisoned everything else under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
Eph 2:20 The Apostles and Prophets are the foundation of the Church and the faith with Christ as cornerstone. All other authorities must build on that foundation and no other.
1 Timothy 3:15 This letter tells us who may and may not become overseers and deacons.
1 Timothy 4:13 We are to devote ourselves to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching.
2 Timothy 3:15 The scriptures are able to make us wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.
2 Timothy 3:16 Scripture is profitable for correction in righteousness. No doctrine that isn't supportable by scripture may correct scripture or render it unprofitable.
2 Timothy 3:17 Scripture makes preachers (men of God) complete. Scripture fully equips preachers for every good work.
1 Peter 5:12 This letter is the true grace of God. We must stand firm in it.
2 Peter 3:2 We are to obey the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through his apostles.
2 Peter 3:16 The ignorant and unstable who twist the scriptures do so to their own destruction. Paul's Epistles are Scripture.
1 John 1:3-4 The eye-wittness writings of the Apostles are what give us fellowship with the Apostles, with the Father, and with His Son.
James 2:8 Love of neighbor as taught by scripture is enough to keep us busy for the rest of our lives.
i’d take this comment back bro the scripture actually ran the councils
Should we bow down or pray to images, pictures, or symbols in our worship? NO!Exodus 20:4:”You must not make for yourself a carved image or a form like anything that is in the heavens above or on the earth below or in the waters under the earth.”
1 John 5:21:”Little children, guard yourselves from idols.”
The first two commandments required the Israelites to devote themselves exclusively to God and warned against idol worship.
Those seeking to serve God must worship Him with Spirit and Truth! (John 4:24)
Icons aren't worshipped. They're not gods just like the Saints aren't worshipped nor are they demigods. 🤦♂️
I recommend you stop drinking so much soy milk!
It is so hard to listen to you,you are so wrong.the church was eastern, and western Christianity with no understanding of real history,has tried to rewrite doctrine.
You worry about icons and statues of Christianity when you guys worship a book rather than God??? Really????
Christians don't worship a book in any way.
LOOOL!
@@Lutheranjenkins I mean, Biblelatry is pretty prevalent among Evangelicals.
@@ljss6805
Unfortunately 😔
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
Idolatry.
What do you mean?
@@anyaforger8409 The use of icon is idolatry and direct sin against Exodus 20:4-5
@Ioannis Grivas They are NOT icons. They are symbols. Icons are idolatry forbidden by God. The temple /tabernacle were symbols demanded by God.
@Ioannis Grivas No obviously Ex 25:18 is not idolatry. God commanded the people to make the Cherubim.
@Ioannis Grivas the Israelites were not worshiping the ark or the tabernacle furniture unlike the idolatry of icon worship. That is the simple answer. That is what the commandment forbids - worship of any man-made item. Second, God says not to do stuff and then later He commands certain people to things. For example do not kill. Yet God told Israel to kill canaanites.
The use of Icons is NOT ok either way. The theology of Icons teaches the proper theology of the Incarnation! You reject the 7th Ecumenical council, sadly putting you at odd with the Church of Christ. And to quote the council of Elvira just plainly show your lack of knowledge of eastern Christianity. Did you actually investigate that supposed canon? Did you know that both Iconoclasts and Iconodules both claimed it as support, making it meaningless. Did you know that it was just a local council and that canon was not followed by any other council? Please dont use deception against us Orthodox.