The Case for Early Image Veneration w/ Michael Garten
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 июл 2024
- #orthodoxy #apologetics #churchhistory #christianity
Some apologists and scholars make sweeping claims that the veneration of Icons is an accretion that has no basis in the scriptures or early history of the Church. But is this true? Is there justification for the veneration of images in the early Church? In this episode of The Transfigured Life, we are met with Michael Garten who gets into the evidence for the veneration of images before the first council of Nicea.
0:00 - Intro
1:14 - Who is Michael Garten and the story of his research?
6:20 - Dr.Gavin Ortlund against image veneration
16:32 - The weakness of Dr.Ortlund's argument
23:30 - The scriptural distinction between veneration and idolatry
30:54 - Biblical evidence of Image veneration
41:27 - protestants mishandling patristic context
45:00 - More strong evidence for veneration in the Pre-Nicene era
56:25 - The type/prototype theology in scripture/history
1:04:23 - Evidence for veneration in an Apocryphal text
1:12:08 - Closing remarks
For more excellent research from Michael Garten. His substack can be found below ⬇️
michaelgarten.substack.com
Thank you Luther! People will probably enjoy especially my articles on “The Good Shepherd as Early Icon” and “Veneration of the Good Shepherd Image”
I have been praying a LOT, since being drawn toward the Orthodox faith!❤ Am a prior lifelong Pentecostal Protestant, but am hearing, seeing and feeling MUCH truth in your informative videos. I have began purchasing recommended reading material, as well. Yesterday, I received my 1st blessed icon of Christ from Holy Cross monastery in the mail. I feel so blessed and am BEYOND thankful to get to listen to your clips here!!! Thank you and God bless❤️🙏❤️
I grew up in the Pentecostal church, where my parents were both pastors. Now about half of my family are Orthodox converts (including one of my parents/former pastors)! 😊. May God guide you on your journey!
Also, not sure if you’ve found Fr. Barnabas Powell and his ministry, Faith Encouraged, yet…but he is a former Pentecostal pastor turned Orthodox convert and priest, and has some great content out there from that perspective.
Thank you…I will look up Fr Barnabas Powell’s work!!! Really appreciate your prayers🙏❤️
@@Demetra719All I can say is…WONDERFUL…Fr Powell!!!! I thank you so very much for telling me about him. I am listening right now to his sermon on “Repentance” (matanya) and it is tremendous❤️❤️❤️ I am so grateful he has several videos posted!
I also grew up Pentecostal. I read Unseen Realm by Dr Michael Heiser and then encountered Orthodoxy shortly thereafter. Within the same year I had visited my first Orthodox parish. Life changing! Continue to pray, fast and ask the Holy Spirit to lead you to be united to Christ ✝️🙏☦️
What helped me to accept icon veneration when I was Protestant (now Orthodox), was the realization that the Bible seems to speak of bowing and praying toward the Temple (see, e.g., Psalm 5:7 and Psalm 98:5,9 OSB/99:5,9 KJV. The verb in Hebrew שָׁחָה is the same verb found both in these verses and in Exodus 20:5), which was a type of Christ's body (John 2:21).
Yes, this is a very good point, and made all the stronger by the fact that the temple and its furnishings are identified as copies/shadows of the original heavenly pattern which God showed Moses on the mountain in Exodus 25:40 and Hebrews 8:5
Essentially they are symbolic images, even if only the cherubs would have some kind of facial likeness
Thank you for these scriptural references.
Thats good!
And Joshua 7:6
Exactly! The principle for the veneration of relics is the same for the veneration of icons. That the Early Church venerated the relics of the Saints is indisputable. Ironically, when the Reformation occurred, the Protestants would cease and burn all the relics they coud get ahold of claiming that it was idolatry to venerate the bones of dead men who can't pray for them who venerate them. This act is not only entirely antithetical to the mindset of the Early Church, it's the very foundation for the resurgence of iconoclasm.
Something constantly overlooked: relic veneration. Unarguably early, and the theology of relic veneration is identical to that of icon veneration
I have no clue why no one I’ve heard uses this line of argument. Early relic veneration is more evident!
Exactly! The principle for the veneration of relics is the same for the veneration of icons. That the Early Church venerated the relics of the Saints is indisputable. Ironically, when the Reformation occurred, the Protestants would burn those relics claiming that it was idolatry to venerate the bones of dead men who can't pray for them who venerate them. This act is not only entirely antithetical to the mindset of the Early Church, it's the very foundation for the resurgence of iconoclasm.
Spot on brother!! 💯
@garrettklauhn it has been used however Dr.Gavin tried to dismiss it once in one of his response videos but it's an achilles heel to his entire argument.
Not only is the veneration of relics a great argument but our opponents of iconodulia have no coherent answer for why the non-Chalcedonian churches (aka the Oriental Orthodox, 451AD) venerate images.
Orthodox churches are like the Arlington of the Christian world. If you can venerate the departed soldiers who gave their all to a worldly kingdom with a salute, and other rites, then it stands to reason that the salute to the departed saint warriors of the kingdom of heaven is to bow, kiss, or light a candle. A different way to pay our respects in Christ’s kingdom which is not of this world.
Love this example and line of reasoning!! ☦️💯💯
Wow. That's actually a good analogy I never considered. My late father is a vet. No one would say what we were doing at his military funeral was worshiping him or anyone else.
@@EricBryant there’s something so natural about referencing and showing affection for people in this way. It’s interesting that a lot of early Christian portraits we have that survive are funerary (Roman Catacombs in the late 200s have portraits of the deceased in the orans stance). The catacombs scholar Norbert Zimmerman comments:
“in the majority of portraits the individual depicted looks straight ahead out of the image, as if to make eye contact with the viewer. And this seems to be their function in most cases: to communicate directly with the viewer in the moments of cultic commemoration and contemplation. At least two times a year the family held a meal and visited the tomb, during the rosalia (feast of roses), the commemoration day for the deceased, and the day of passing away, regarded by Christians as the deceased’s birthday to the eternal life.”
I have more of his material in my article “Archeology Of Image Veneration, Part 1
Catacomb Orants And Veneration Of Images”
Orland’s case is more about defending Protestantism than it is about letting the truth lead you where it leads you.
Yes, you are correct. We have to remember that Dr Ortlund has invested a lot into the Protestant world such as a ministry and publishing company. He stands to lose a lot more than just social influence and followers if he can't keep people Protestant.
And orthodox are not invested in defending orthodoxy?
@MrBattlestar10 Orthodoxy is true. So, of course, we have a vested interest. Look at the anathemas of the Ecumenical Councils. Truth is always worth defending. Always! It's even worth dying for as Truth is more than a correct proposition. Truth is a Divine Person: Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word of God ☦️
@@MrBattlestar10 the point is that Orthodoxy is defended because there is an abundance of evidence for it being the Truth. People usually search for the Truth and end up in Orthodoxy, whereas Gavin has always been a Protestant, and when looking into the early church he tries his best to make it fit his Protestant beliefs rather than looking at it for what it objectively is.
@@ThomasG_Nikolaj That's begging the question though, and assuming Gavin Ortlund isn't trying to search for the truth. "What it objectively is", I wish I could just ignore all criticism and assume my position is objectively true as well, but my friend history is much more complicated than that.
More Michael Garten please!! I haven’t heard of him until today but this presentation was FASCINATING
Thank you for your kind words
A new contender has entered the chat
☦️🔥🔥
NEVER 5GET The Ortlund family religion is also the Ortlund family business
Wherever you find Orvin Garland, there you will find Bersules.
The Ortlund media syndicate has been operating in North America and abroad for going on 100 years. It is now poised to become a sort "media mecca" for Protestantism, their operations currently centering around their conggregation in Nashville TN.
Gavin is the 3rd in a generation of prot media. Before him was his daddy Ray Jr at the Gospel Coalition, before Ray Jr was Ray Sr with his radio show Haven of Rest. That family has had dealings with protestant publishers, particularly Zondervan, for a long, long time.
They are going to be fighting like hell to keep the money rolling in, and they know the outlook isn't good. If they lose here, Gavin's got to go get a job washing cars.
James White has been thoroughly humiliated the last couple of weeks, by Jimmy Akin in two debates.
Candace Owen, who Gavin specifically attempted to keep Protestant, has become Catholic. Similar story with Bertuzzi.
We are witnessing the decline of American Protestantism. Godspeed it's demise.
Blessing to my Orthodox brothers from a Catholic.
AVE MARIA
I have been praying for this information to come to light. I am so very thankful for this episode and Michael Garten's work on this topic.
Glory to God. Christ is risen!
Indeed He is risen!
Amen! Glory to God! ☦️
Christ is risen! Thank you for this wonderful interview. I did not know he had a book project in the works! It's always encouraging to see people working hard to defend the Orthodox practice not just Biblically, but also historically.
Those last 10 minutes are really compelling. Thanks for this material, and thank you all for all that you do!
You're most welcome! Thank you for watching.
Oh, hi Jackson!
Quick, someone show this to Gavin Ortlund! 😂
On it! 😂😂
LOL 😂 One can only imagine what kind of casustry Dr Ortlund will invent in an attempt to handwave it all away as another anti-Reformation development.
😂 that's awesome. Ortlund alert!
Let this point be lost on no one: *The Ortlund family religion is also the Ortlund family business*
Wherever in the normie youtube world you find an opportunity to burn the azz of Orvin Garland, there you will find Bersules. 😄
The GORT has taken a shellacking again and again.
The Ortlund media syndicate has been operating in North America and abroad for going on 100 years. It is now poised to become a sort "media mecca" for Protestantism, with operations currently centering around a church in Nashville TN.
Gavin is the 3rd in a generation of Prot media. Before him was his daddy Ray Jr at the Gospel Coalition, before Ray Jr was Ray Sr with his radio show Haven of Rest. That family has had dealings with protestant publishers, particularly Zondervan, for a long, long time.
They are going to be fighting like hell to keep the money rolling in, and they know the outlook isn't good. If they lose here, Gavin's got to go get a job washing cars.
James White has been thoroughly humiliated the last couple of weeks, by Jimmy Akin in two debates.
Candace Owen, who Gavin specifically attempted to keep Protestant, has become Catholic. Similar story with Bertuzzi.
We are witnessing the decline of American Protestantism. Godspeed it's demise.
Blessing to my Orthodox brothers from a Catholic.
AVE MARIA
Let this point be lost on no one: The Ortlund family religion is also the Ortlund family business
Wherever you find Orvin Garland, there you will find Bersules.
The Ortlund media syndicate has been operating in North America and abroad for going on 100 years. It is now poised to become a sort "media mecca" for Protestantism, with operations currently centering around a church in Nashville TN.
Gavin is the 3rd in a generation of Prot media. Before him was his daddy Ray Jr at the Gospel Coalition, before Ray Jr was Ray Sr with his radio show Haven of Rest. That family has had dealings with protestant publishers, particularly Zondervan, for a long, long time.
They are going to be fighting like hell to keep the money rolling in, and they know the outlook isn't good. If they lose here, Gavin's got to go get a job washing cars.
James White has been thoroughly humiliated the last couple of weeks, by Jimmy Akin in two debates.
Candace Owen, who Gavin specifically attempted to keep Protestant, has become Catholic. Similar story with Bertuzzi.
We are witnessing the decline of American Protestantism. Godspeed it's demise.
Blessing to my Orthodox brothers from a Catholic.
AVE MARIA
These are probably some of the most compelling arguments I have heard in defence of the veneration of Christ in/through images and fellow man. I am a Protestant/evangelical Christian who started exploring orthodoxy after listening to a few podcasts on Hank Hanegraaff's website a little over a year ago. Ever since I have started to adopt some orthodox spiritual practices like observing Lent, weekly fasting, burning incense, doing the Jesus prayer throughout the day and there's even an icon of Christ Pentocrator hanging on the wall in my bedroom. But after hearing Dr. Gavin speaking to icon veneration I started to have doubts. This response video, however, gave me back all the reassurance I need. Thank you. 🙂
Call your local Orthodox Church and let them know you’re inquiring into Orthodoxy. Let the priest know you feel pulled to the church but have some questions and doubts… and go to a Divine Liturgy!! God bless
@RickyPlumbs unfortunately the nearest Orthodox church appears to be located in Trinidad and Tobago. I live in Suriname. According to Google Maps there doesn't seem to be an orthodox church in all of Latin America!@@RickysPlums
@@RickysPlumsunfortunately the nearest Orthodox church appears to be located in Trinidad and Tobago. I live in Suriname. According to Google Maps there doesn't seem to be an orthodox church in all of Latin America!
One of the best comments we've received. This is one of the main reasons why we do this. Thanks for sharing this with us! ☦️
@@RickysPlums I'd really love to, but in Suriname where I live there's no Orthodox Church, and no one speaks about it. When I look up 'orthodox church' on Google Maps then the closest Orthodox Church to me would be in Trinidad and Tobago. It seems like there's no Orthodox Church in all of Latin America!
Here we go!
I've never been this early! Thanks for posting this conversation!
You're welcome! Christ is Risen! ☦️
This guy needs to debate Gavin Ortlund on this. Love the arguments he’s making and I’ll definitely be rewatching this video since, as an inquirer into Orthodoxy, I’m trying to have my wife come to Divine Liturgy soon and I can already anticipate this will be one of the biggest hurdles for her. So this is great prep to know how to answer her questions. Thank you all for the great content!
Convincing the wife is the most hard and complex challenge, more than making a prot understand iconography...
Every time the historical evidence comes up, monothelite emperor Heraclius starting his coup with an icon of the Mother of God and waging a war trying to get back the true cross a century before Nicaea 2 never seems to come up. You can't say the church that anathematizes him was biased to make him seem especially pious and made that up.
It’s incredible to be in a time where I get to see amazing critics bringing out amazing defenses advancing apologetics. The quotation from acts of John amazed me
This is just a fraction of the total evidence, take a look at my series with Seraphim for more
These are all great arguments, especially the one in the last 15 minutes about Christians giving honor to the image of the pagan emperors. But I do wonder if another approach with Dr. Gavin might really get to the heat of things sooner and draw a clearer and more personal distinction.
Anyone who has seen the movie Silence or knows about the history of Christian persecution in Japan knows that the means by which the Japanese leaders would force Christians to deny Christ was by stepping or stomping on His image.
So perhaps someone should posit to Gavin, “So clearly we are entering troubling times where persecution is on the rise and we find ourselves increasingly in a pagan culture that abhors holy things. Imagine then for a moment, Dr. Gavin, if you found yourself in a situation where you were being told ‘Step on Christ to live or we will torture and kill you.’ What would you do? Take a moment to really picture that potential event and process it in your soul. Now, if you step on the image to avoid death, are you not denying Christ? And if you refuse to step on the image because you refuse to deny Christ, doesn’t that render your entire argument utterly useless?”
I’d call that quite the holy unease. Worth considering.
Luther, I'm glad to see that you brought Michael Garten on the show. Great discussion! Until Mr. Garten releases his book, I recommend "The Dawn of Christian Art" by Thomas Mathews as a good non-Orthodox book on Pre-Nicene Christian Art.
Thanks for recommending this my brother! ☦️
I can't believe he went to the bronze serpent being destroyed as scriptural support for icon veneration. It's like saying the first commandment encourages polytheism.
Chairs in the Orthodox temple should exist in few numbers alongside outer walls only, for elderly people usage. We are NOT coming to sit before God like we sit in the theatre, BUT WE STAND in our prayers before Heavenly King.
💯. We actually made this change in our parish last year, and the quality of worship was noticeably improved
@@TyrannicalReigner So the Orthodox in past 2000 years were dumb... you are saying... I disagree with such a nonsense. Orthodox believe that Lord holds faithful in a standing position during the service, IF they are wholeheartedly in prayers and worship. If they are catching flies, that is different story. Those have aching backs and legs.
❤ 100%
👍
The thing I really don’t like about pews in the parish is that it makes it almost impossible to perform full prostrations, which makes me feel sad particularly during Lent/Pascha!
Great video! Keep them coming!
It's interesting to me, as a Protestant, that Dr. Ortlund considers Icons to be the core of the disagreement between Protestants and Eastern Orthodox, and not Sola Scriptura or the OT Canon, which is the core of my uneasiness with Protestantism, along with the lack of integration of the Trinity in worship and our understanding of the world.
I really think Trinitarian theology makes the most convincing case for icons and intercession of saints.
He doesn’t see icons as the core disagreement, he just sees it as the best EO example of the kind of accretion that he believes sola scriptura protects against.
Those details towards the end there especially were awesome. Great video!
Thank you
Great topic looking forward to go through it
Thank you for this episode! Leaned many new things :)
Glory to God! ☦️ We're glad to hear that! :)
Every one needs to hear this info!!!
Amen! Agreed my brother. Consider sharing far & wide! ☦
Michael Harten is a cut above many! Great show!
He's bright and very humble! ☦️
The biggest issue that many of us have with icon veneration isn't even the act or the theology that undergirds it. It's the fact that the Church made it a requirement for salvation which I don't see how that avoids St. Paul's anathema in Galatians for adding to the Gospel. So unless St. Paul taught icon veneration as being essential to the Gospel message his admonition that "If we or an angel preach to you another Gospel other than the one you have received, let him be anathema" seems to apply.
Does saint paul teach that accepting the book of 2 peter Jude or James as required for salvation? Or that the old testament was truly written by
Moses? When you get into the splitting hairs dillema you can point to anything as necessary for salvation but it ultimately depends on submission.
mr garten is the best logic teacher EVER! I LOVE YOU MR GARTEN! -Eve
Funny that 2nd century gnostics sound exactly like iconoclasts
Sheesh! 💯💯
Some did! Others were idolators. Gnostics were not a uniform movement, but a bunch of slightly similar offshoots of offshoots
Gavin Ortlund been pretty quiet since this dropped...
To be fair to Ortlund it came out like a few minutes ago.
NEVER 5GET The Ortlund family religion is also the Ortlund family business
Wherever you find Orvin Garland, there you will find Bersules.
The Ortlund media syndicate has been operating in North America and abroad for going on 100 years. It is now poised to become a sort "media mecca" for Protestantism, their operations currently centering around their conggregation in Nashville TN.
Gavin is the 3rd in a generation of prot media. Before him was his daddy Ray Jr at the Gospel Coalition, before Ray Jr was Ray Sr with his radio show Haven of Rest. That family has had dealings with protestant publishers, particularly Zondervan, for a long, long time.
They are going to be fighting like hell to keep the money rolling in, and they know the outlook isn't good. If they lose here, Gavin's got to go get a job washing cars.
James White has been thoroughly humiliated the last couple of weeks, by Jimmy Akin in two debates.
Candace Owen, who Gavin specifically attempted to keep Protestant, has become Catholic. Similar story with Bertuzzi.
We are witnessing the decline of American Protestantism. Godspeed it's demise.
Blessing to my Orthodox brothers from a Catholic.
AVE MARIA
@@bersules8 Never knew that. Thx for the insight
@@bersules8 Wow. Why haven't any us of heard this before
@@bersules8I think also, we should be showing Mr. Ortland some grace and not doing or saying things that may embitter or embarrass him, just because we disagree with him.
I've said this in the comments before and I'll continue to say it: The foundation of Gavin's objections to iconodulia rests on the practice being idolatrous. The problem for him is he cannot prove it to be so.
This is a major problem for him because all he is left with is resorting to the ahistoric argument, and with that, he is in the same position with the Trinity and with his own church's rock band praise team. Just like iconodulia, the Trinity can be defended Biblically. However, rock band worship cannot.
Facts!! 💯💯 I have been saying this for months now. If it's not idolatry then what's the problem theologically? The other side has nothing substantial theologically to pushback against. This seems to be the reason why you see the shift towards question-begging ahistorical arguments.
@@TheTransfiguredLifeits simple if they admit the reformers were wrong about this down the line it begs the question. What else were they wrong about? Its one of the many questions that cannot be asked as it causes a complete worldview collapse of protestantism.
@@TheTransfiguredLife
The problem is making something necessary for salvation which has no command in Scripture.
I'd be interested in hearing about why the word 'eikona' is used, as opposed to 'eidolon' when referring to the 'image of the beast' in Revelation. My thoughts are that since the anti-christ, the beast, and prophets are counterfeits of the originals, that here we have an example of 'image (eikon)' usage back as far as when revelation was written. So here's an incorrect use for eikons. Even the word 'proskyneo' (Rev 13:15) is used (often translated as worship, even though lateria would probably be better if worship were meant) which could just as easily say, venerate (and probably should, since it reveals the bias of the translator).
Thanks for the comment, here’s a few thoughts (please bear in mind I’m not a Greek expert):
1. The beast here plausibly symbolizes the emperor (perhaps Nero). The image is of the beast 3:14 (so, imperial portrait) but arranged for and energized by the dragon (devil) in 3:15.
2. Therefore we’re likely not dealing with something that’s universally and always functioning as an idol, but rather something that’s doing so in this particular situation. So it seems there’s something different from this imperial eikon compared to the one Jesus talks about in mark 12:16 on the coin of his day. Emperors like Nero and Caligula set themselves apart as divine unlike other earlier emperors (and later ones). So the word eikon which means likeness (and often refers to portraits or a persons reflection in a mirror) seems suited for this evil image, since it’s actually in the likeness of a man. It’s highlighting the human pretense to divinity, whereas if it were called an idol it would be easier to conflate with typical pagan cult statues of the Roman pantheon
3. I believe Nero and Caligula may have embellished their eikones on coins to look more like one of the gods. This would perhaps be part of the meaning here, and connects nicely to the references to restrictions on commerce dependent on having the beasts mark in your hand in 3:16-17
Hopefully that helps
Sorry I meant those to reference verses in ch13
The multiple Bible verses showing Christ is inseparable from the Church by itself refutes all of Protestantism.
What Bible verses are you referring to?
@@ericdelanoy5896 Collosians chapter 1 to start with. The Church has always been visible here on Earth, and it will be until the second coming.
"Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it."
Christ is risen! ☦️☦️☦️
Truly He is risen!! ☦️🔥🔥
When does Michael's book come out? Any ETA? We need this book!
I'm not entirely sure but once it drops we will be sure to post it. ☦️
This was interesting. Not sure I’m convinced yet, but he made some really good points. Wonder if this guy can talk about the topic of Mary and everything that is believed about her by the Orthodox.
Thank you, you may enjoy my friend Seraphim Hamiltons points about Mary the Mother of the Lord. His channel is great
55:00 Can someone tell me where in St. Ignatius writings or 2 Clement he is referring to? I just recently read the epistles of St. Ignatius and 2 Clement and I don’t recall anything like that.
Please take a look at my October 2023 video on St Ignatius and Clement of Alexandria in my profile.
For 2nd Clement, I will include the passage in my upcoming book. He references the Christian baptismal signet image (kind of like a ring size version of a baptismal icon or cross)
At 21:30, Gavin Ortlund went into minute contextual detail to show that Clement, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, and Minucius Felix were making aniconic statements. This was in his recent video responding to S. Hamilton and Garten.
Thanks for engaging in this search for truth.
There are good videos out there by Catholic apologists such as Albrecht and Trent Horn showing difficulties with the evidence that Gavin presents. Suan Sonna points out one issue is suppressed context: the aniconic statements seem to be often given in contexts where idolatry is specifically in view. Sometimes the description of what Christians are rejecting even seems to narrow in on idols.
In this video interview I tackled Clements statement that works of art cannot be sacred or divine. While this sounds like a rejection of holy images, “sacred and divine” means literal living gods in context.
Let me know if after watching that section you think it was a good point; if not I can elaborate more. Similar points can be made about most or all of the other quotes Gavin uses.
Finally, I don’t think most of the arguments I made in this video are affected by Ortlund’s recent video. And I’m preparing a response to Gavin in defense of my evidence-stay tuned!
If Christ appeared to Gavin and showed him the path to the true faith, Gavin would tell Christ why He’s wrong
Good video
"They will mention these images they will mention their veneration, and describe it"
Who?
I've just been reading through the Wisdom of Solomon, and the author's invectives against idols and images (and he uses εικών - icon) made me think of Orthodox icons. Especially in chapters 14 and 15, where he talks about a father making an image of his dead child, and then later talking about images themselves being dead. It sounds like the words of "John" in the apocryphal Acts of John.
I imagine you would say that the Wisdom of Solomon is talking about worship of images as if they were truly gods rather than the Orthodox practice of the veneration of icons.
The Wisdom of Solomon even talks but people honoring the image of a monarch who is far away so as to flatter him as if he were present. But then I guess where that really goes wrong is when they "intensify their worship" (14:18). But does that not speak to the danger of the veneration of images being a temptation to idolatry?
Again, it strikes me that the reasoning of the so-called "John" sounds like it is drawing from Wisdom of Solomon. Is that, then, just a Gnostic misapplication of those passages?
Help me out if I'm missing something. I'm not here just to argue; I really am seeking truth.
The context clearly indicates what is being spoken of is idols of gods, which are being offered sacrifices and worship, even child sacrifice and sexual immoral acts. Not trying to argue, lol, just genuinely STUMPED how it could be reminding you of Orthodox icons???
Is his book already finished, or are he writing them yet? I'm interested in his project.
The first Icon was done by Evangelist Luke The Pan Agia with baby Jesus i have a copy of it.
Evidence?
I venerate together with the King and God the purple robe of his body, not as a garment, nor as a fourth person….For the nature of the flesh did not become divinity, but as the Word became flesh immutably, remaining what it was, so also the flesh became the Word without losing what it was, being rather made equal to the Word hypostatically. Therefore I am emboldened to depict the invisible God, not as invisible, but as he became visible for our sake, by participation in flesh and blood. I do not depict the invisible divinity, but I depict God made visible in the flesh. (3.6)
those upon whom God rests, who is alone holy and “rests among the saints,” like the holy Mother of God and all the saints. These are those who…have become assimilated to God as much as possible, who are truly called gods, not by nature, but by adoption, as iron heated in the fire is called fire, not by nature, but by its condition and participation in fire….Just as they are truly gods, not by nature, but as partakers of God’s nature, so they are to be venerated, not by nature, but as having in themselves that which is venerable by nature. (3.33)
St. John of Damascus and His Defense of Icons
This is the fully articulated version of the basic principle from the Epistle of Barnabas, that God the Logos can be depicted in reference to His manifestation in the flesh. Thank you for giving the classic quote!
Also the second part makes the same deification-veneration connection we saw in the Acts of John. Excellent!
59:00
The gnostics had type prototype theology, so therefore Christians do to? If that isn't syncretism from conversion, I don't know what is.
Tiny Moustache man breathed air, therefore air bad.
@@cheezeballgamers4361😂
Simple BIBLICAL refutation of type and prototype is scripture where Christ says whatever you have done to the least of these you have done to me. Clearly showing how our acts even veneration past to the prototype Christ the perfect image 👍🏼☦️
RUclips not letting me like the video
Hey Luke! Is the like button still acting up on your end?
What is the lecture he recommended about idolatry?
Jas Elsner’s “The Animated Figurine in Mediterranean Archeology” is what I referenced. Another good one is Adam Levine “Egyptian Iconoclasm”. Both are great resources for showing how pagans DID think idols were living gods in many cases
Well done!
Thanks! ☦️
Glad this helped you
@@MichaelGarten This presentation absolutely has. Between yourself, Seraphim, Craig Trulia and many others. There is such a wide range of evidence it is incredible!
"I noticed references to Battle Standards, to Signet Rings, and ritual cups"
Kind of weird all of what you're referring to aren't images of people right? Its almost like The Church had a tendency to avoid such depictions at the time. Especially since we have dudes like Tertullian speaking so negatively ABOUT the images being made on ritual cups. (Not that im agreeing with tertullian on this point, its just telling that the only testimony we have on the issue is a negative one)
The walking stick point is absurd. If you walked into an art museum, your kneejerk reaction isn't "People painted these so I could kiss them" The default usage of images isn't even remotely what is being suggested in this presentation. We simply do not have, archeologically speaking, much to suggest that the types of images are akin to what are now used, and that they seem to be more educational and didactic in nature, as opposed to the sort of portraiture we now see extensively used!
In fact, it should be *extremely* telling that we have fairly detailed descriptions of the usage of images outside of christianity from the first few centuries, and yet very little about their usage within it, and then, as christianity grows, the practice starts to be described in more detail over time! Weird! Its almost as if, waves of conversion from pagan religions results in carryover! Even more so that the carryover is representative of what we know these pagans were doing already, prior to their conversion!
On the contrary, pagans had a toxic relationship with images that the Church had to correct. And they did.
The answer wasn't going to the other extreme and forbidding image veneration.
@@gsnow2526 That's factually untrue. We have countless testimony of different pagan religions having deep reverence to images. I'm not saying Christians use them EXACTLY how pagans did. I'm saying the development of Christian usage clearly derives from carryover from people converting out of paganism into christianity. I'm noticing an increasing trend of my opposition twisting my words to suit rhetoric.
You're entirely missing the crux of the issue. What is the actual problem with iconodulia?
@@TyrannicalReignerForcing it on people. Pretty simple, really.
@@IAMFISH92 So you have a problem with authority, not iconodulia.
I'm ok with icon veneration and even Theotokos hyperdulia. But my question is: why are those whose consciences may be weaker, who maybe don't understand that veneration is not idolatrous, anathematized in the 7th council?
Or does that anathema primarily apply to the Muslims, who had started colonizing Eurasia and were already persecuting the Christians by that time and were staunch iconoclasts?
It applies to the iconoclasts who wage war against sacred images.
Hey Eric thank you for engaging with this conversation.
The anathemas are addressed to a specific situation where imperial power repeatedly was harnessed to destroy existing Christian art from the previous centuries. These iconoclasts actually allowed the imperial portrait to continue to be venerated (!) but not images of Christ or his Saints. This blasphemous encroachment of imperial power into the life of the Church follows the same pattern as the Arian controversy centuries before, where Arius’ theology was favored by several emperors because it exalted the relative position of the emperor in relation to God. After all, if Jesus can be an intermediary lower level deity, why not the emperor?
Here's some more evidence from Origen
in THE PHILOKLIA OF ORIGEN,
a compilation of Origen's works made by SS Gregory and Basil.
AETERNA PRESS edition, page 122-123, CHAP.XXII, #5.
[Unfortunately, it has just the English translation without the Greek text.]
(quote)
...why should Christians also, since reason persuades them not to concern themselves with images, and statues, or even with the works of God, but to rise above these and bring the soul near to the Creator, why should not they be free from blame when they are only doing what the philosophers do? If for the sake of defending his pet theory, Celsus or his supporters should that a philosopher will observe his country's customs, it is time for philosophers to make a laughingstock of themselves, in Egypt, for instance, by refraining from eating onions that they may observe their country's customs, or certain parts of a carcass, head or shoulder, for example. that they may not transgress the traditions of their fathers. So then, also if a man has been brought by the Word to worship the Supreme God, and out of regard for ancestral usage lingers somewhere down among the images and statues of men, and is not willing by deliberate choice to rise to the Creator, he would be like those who are acquainted with philosophy, but fear where there is no fear is, and count it impiety to partake of such food.
(end of quote.)
Thanks for posting a quote from a primary source. This is always helpful for trying to understand the early Church.
What would you say is an inference that can be drawn from this? Do you consider this to be evidence of Origen’s aniconism? If so, please explain the connection between this quote and a rejection of all image veneration
❤☦️🇺🇸
Does this mean I don't have to pay taxes????
All the theology without the agape. Academic orthodoxians.
Tons of agape ☦️
@@TheTransfiguredLife Please forgive me. This was such a generalization and I was tired. I was referring to a trend of Orthos that build a Protestantesque reactive platform on anti-Roman rhetoric and model their pedagogical praxis after the anti-theist intelligentsia; perhaps akin to Dr DBH, WLC, or many Orthos out there today capitulating to failed secular academic agendas conjured from those anti-theist Endarkenment seances. We Orthos can get so deep into our relatively newfound tradition that the agape fruit sits high atop the tree of gifts. I’ve had interactions with most social media Ortho celebrities and they like to be proper and right without the love and grace that made the theology.
Ciao
It’s it just me or do pews just not belong in orthodox churches period? It fundamentally changes the worship. It’s sad to me.
They do not belong. My Orthodox Church doesn’t have them but some do have them unfortunately.
Veneration = worship
I was raised in a Reformed Church, but am being drawn toward Orthodoxy. Yes, the possible idol worship has me concerned, as well as, calling Ministers “Father” as there is specific warnings in the Bible not to do this. Also, intercession by anyone other than Christ is not something Biblical.
I have recently read that the Church of Philadelphia was moved to Greece and I think it was probably Orthodox?
No one should be called teacher or father except God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ. He alone is the Father, because all things are from him. He alone is the teacher, because through him are made all things and through him all things are reconciled to God. But one might ask, “Is it against this precept when the apostle calls himself the teacher of the Gentiles? Or when, as in colloquial speech widely found in the monasteries of Egypt and Palestine, they call each other Father?” Remember this distinction. It is one thing to be a father or a teacher by nature, another to be so by generosity. For when we call a man father and reserve the honor of his age, we may thereby be failing to honor the Author of our own lives. One is rightly called a teacher only from his association with the true Teacher. I repeat: The fact that we have one God and one Son of God through nature does not prevent others from being understood as sons of God by adoption. Similarly this does not make the terms father and teacher useless or prevent others from being called father. .- St jerome
There is more going on than simply “don’t call a human being father”
Matthew 3:9 (ESV) And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham.
Matthew 10:20 (ESV) For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.
Matthew 23:9 (ESV) And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.
Romans 4:16-17 (ESV) 16 That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring--not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, 17 as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”--in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.
1 Corinthians 4:15 (ESV) For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
John 8:44 (ESV) You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
1:05:00 through to 1:12:11 did you understand this section?
Man’s traditions
Honestly if you could purchase the writings of St Theodore the Studite you would be much better off than my attempt at explaining here but I want to at least try to show some bible verses to peak your interest.
First consider how Christ revealed the heart of the law:
Galatians 3:23 (KJV) But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Exodus 20:8 (ESV) “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Luke 6:5 (ESV) And he said to them, “The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”
Now, look at these Greek words
icon. image. eikōn. εἰκών
Genesis 1:26 (ESV) Then God said, “Let us make man in our εἰκών image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Colossians 1:15 (ESV) He is the εἰκών image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
idol. image. eidōlon. εἴδωλον.
Exodus 20:4 (ESV) “You shall not make for yourself a carved εἴδωλον 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.
Some images made which are not “carved” or “graven” which is “idol”; these were historically a thing which had specific spiritual function not merely a picture or carving.
Exodus 25:18 (ESV) And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat.
Numbers 21:8 (ESV) And the LORD said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.”
Ok and last thing I can share without directly touching upon the writings of St Theodore the Studite. The emperor of Rome was the high priest and a god, his image represents him; just as we are to honor our parents because they are the image of God, and love our neighbor as the image of God etc
Matthew 22:18-22 (ESV) 18 But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? 19 Show me the coin for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius. 20 And Jesus said to them, “Whose εἰκὼν likeness and ἐπιγραφή inscription is this?” 21 They said, “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” 22 When they heard it, they marveled. And they left him and went away.
This constant use of the Type, Prototype theology *always* refers to living people, or in many cases the person of Christ Himself. It simply isn't analogous to painted or carved images.
This continues to speak to my point that the practice mandated by Nicaea II is the result of later theological thought and development based upon Gnostic and Pagan ideas, blended with good, Christian thought. To make such an issue, a salvation issue, is to spit on The Gospel message of salvation.
No the prototype was also the serpent since it refers back to the cross and also the living people distinction doesn't apply since the living saints depicted are what's honor not the icon itself which you already admitted so another non sequitur. I should make a tally
The saints are alive. Or do you not believe Christ?
So you reject the gnostic text used in the video that attacks imagery? You don't think that text thought it would be a valid attack? How can you justify the use of the argument?
Simple BIBLICAL refutation of type and prototype is scripture where Christ says whatever you have done to the least of these you have done to me. Clearly showing how our acts even veneration past to the prototype Christ the perfect image 👍🏼☦️
Tell me you don’t know what Gnosticism is without telling me
I think this also has more so to do with how people practice icon veneration. Its the way that people idolize the idols. This is similar to people in Word of Faith. If you tell people in word of faith they should not hyper fixate on being wealthy.They gaslight you and say, "are you saying christians should not be rich?!" No that isn't what I am saying! But whether you are rich or poor, that should not be your measuring stick in your walk with Christ! In similar manner, whether you honor icons or not, it should not be a dogma in the christian life.
If you were an Israelite in the desert, would you regard looking at the bronze serpent with faith as optional?
Genesis 1:26 (ESV)
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
If you’re church has bad theology regarding images, it has a faulty foundation.
@@MichaelGarten
You're comparing a direct command of God recorded in Scripture (which was a type of Christ) with venerating icons which have no Scriptural warrant and were dogmatized almost 800 years after Christ?
@@RandomOccurrences do you regard bowing to the temple as optional? God never told Solomon he had to make it. But it seems to be part of what it means to be the people of God that you do this action:
[Psa 5:7 ESV] 7 But I, through the abundance of your steadfast love, will enter your house. I will bow down toward your holy temple in the fear of you.
[Psa 138:2 ESV] 2 I bow down toward your holy temple and give thanks to your name for your steadfast love and your faithfulness, for you have exalted above all things your name and your word.
The Temple was a copy and image of the heavenly temple of God. So making and venerating the Temple was never explicitly commanded but it was still obvious to people they were supposed to do this because it was a holy image. It doesn’t seem like your objection works.
Also, icon veneration was done and approved of in the first 300 years and there is plenty of evidence supporting our claim that this is apostolic. I presented some of this in the video, and would be curious to hear your response to it.
Hey, just want to say that I've enjoyed occasionally watching this channel. Let me preface my comments with admitting that I am a confessional Lutheran.
My impression with what is presented is that a bulk of it is arguments from silence, and redefining terms as fits the needs of the argument.
For example, I can't see the leap from the bronze serpent to icon veneration, especially icons of the saints (as opposed to an icon of Christ). God gave a specifoc promise and a specific command regarding a specific item for a specific purpose. That it is a type of which Christ is the antitype I get. But using that instance for any use of material means seems to be a leap.
Also there seems to be a bit of an assumption that giving honor/veneration in the past means the same thing as how it is used today.
Again, I want to reiterate that I don't intend disrespect and I have nothing but love for my eastern brethren in Christ.
Right, the common use of "It can also possibly be translated to _______" is deeply problematic.
It *isn't* translated to that. This is an obvious altering of the text to push an understanding.
The fact of the matter, in your point about icons of saints vs Christ is spot on. I can *kind of* understand venerating icons of Christ himself as a good practice. But forcing us to bow before and kiss images of mortals under pain of anathema is deeply problematic, and ought to be rejected.
When Joshua bows before the ark in Joshua 7 does he commit idolatry? Or is he honoring that which has been blessed which would include the saints since they are united and adopted into the angelic choir by God
To the point on the Epistle of Barnabas.
The Cross is not images of mortal saints... I've never understood how this defends the practice of Nicaea II.
The issue of the serpent, again, presents a problem for the Orthodox position. The serpent was viewed as a good thing, as are images! However, the moment people turned the serpent into something it wasn't designed to be, it was to be destroyed. The same can be said for the deeply excessive and idolatrous use of icons in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, by requiring their veneration under threat of damnation.
This continued translation to "Battle Standard" is simply eisegetical revisionism to suit the EO position. Just because something *can* be translated in some way, does not mean it should be translated that way, nor *has* it been translated that way. Even if it was translated as such however, the way "battle standard* is being used is eisegeting in *further* meaning to a word, that isn't even being used! Would it not simply be a more organic reading to suggest that the serpent was simply fixed to a battle standard? As opposed to eisegeting in a whole bunch of extratextual meaning to what a battle standard *might sometimes* speak to? It is also continually used to argue for this "reverential stare" which I think totally muddies and neuters the definition of "veneration" down to nothing. If looking upon something with some form of reverence counts as veneration, then Nicaea II requires something much greater than simple veneration of the believer. To equate looking at something with reverence as being a good thing, to, bow before, kiss, and pray using these images or you cannot rightly call yourself Christian, is a *crazy* departure.
The Epistle of Barnabas itself, is also obviously noncanonical, but also when it says, the glory of Christ is in these things, is correct! We can honor God in how we craft our churches, make statues and images of the things we are allowed to depict! Thats all fine! However, when you go on to say that The Epistle speaks to the practice of pre nicene veneration... well... it just doesn't does it? It only speaks of how the serpent itself was viewed. This is not a historical argument for the extant usage of icons during the time period that the epistle was written. Its merely a statement of how the serpent was used/ viewed, which is completely detached from bowing before/ kissing images of mortals. You also say something telling
"We see the beginning of the image incarnation principle"
Remember, I'm no iconoclast, I have icons in my home. I agree that because of the incarnation we can rightly make icons of Christ.
Now I'm not going to nitpick your choice of words, as I know I'm not always perfectly precise in all that I say... However, is it not telling we are arguing like papists? Saying things existed in seed form and developed and blossomed into fully fleshed out ideas? This is a theory of doctrinal development... Something that Nicaea II is *completely* opposed to in its language! The problem with the types of arguments being put forward is that they are not addressing the *dogmatic* claims of Nicaea II, which speaks to the veneration of images being practiced *by the apostles* if Orthodoxy cannot demonstrate this belief explicitly, they *must* concede that the doctrine developed and evolved over time, and that, indeed, the goalpost for what one must do to be saved *has* indeed moved! Otherwise, one has to concede that those who were iconoclastic prior to Nicaea II are all damned for having not adhered to practice! It is doubly telling that the kinds of arguments being put forward are ALL in reference to images of Christ himself! Where is the defense that if you don't bow before and kiss pictures of Mary, and other mortals, you're *also* under pain of anathema?
You also make the claims that Barnabas somehow proves that the practice existed. Thats simply false. Simply saying that because Barnabas speaks to how the serpant was viewed somehow= At the time of the epistles authorship being were venerating images of mortals is unworkable logic, and is, again, deeply eisegetical.
Because the cross is itself and image that even the clueless iconoclasts still venerated to which muslims and Jews called and idol so quantifier shift fallacy on your part. Since you are conceding that veneration of the cross which was done in antiquity is still the same principle applied to a symbol whether the same or not you are literally special pleading when it suits you. As for the epistle obviously it's not canonical but to he fair many groups of this time did beleive it was and that some later catholic epistles were not the case of the epistle was to show that an ancient piece of Christian literature shows a pious practice in the early years. And no nicea 2 never condemned all forms of development ans St Theodores epistles show that the Church through the ages evolves in its understanding on theological topics and how to understand scripture and this is shown in the development of the trinity and the nature of the ecclesiastical boundaries of the Church regions through history.
@@shiningdiamond5046 You're putting words in my mouth. I do not concede that the cross was venerated, I'm only saying its a poor argument to suggest the practice demanded by Nicaea II.
You'll be hard pressed to demonstrate that Nicaea II allows for development of any kind. I've spent so much time reading that council I couldn't even count the time spent. I do not see language allowing for the kind of development that would be necessary based upon the "evidence" put forward in this presentation.
The cross is an image of the True Cross. If it can be venerated then other images, in principle, could be venerated as well.
How does it become illicit when it shows humans instead of objects? Further, the saints are not mortal in the truest sense but immortal by the grace of God.
It is precisely because we see the grace of God in them that we venerated them.
@@gsnow2526 It becomes illicit when petitions begin to be made to the depicted, rather than to God. This devolves into the greater issue of the cult of the saints, which we don't necessarily need to get into. My point of argument is that Nicaea II makes sweeping historic claims that cannot be demonstrated, and have not been demonstrated, here, or elsewhere.
@@ScroopGroopYour opening statement was that how you don't see venerating the cross as the same as icons which is a concession to the point and now you're just pulling a Motte and Bailey to get out of the corner. St Theodore the studite and St John of damscus literally go through how from the old and new testament the understanding of veneration begin from cultural and pious affirmation of the natural law in man's heart to what'd good to how the old testament had expanding liturgical practices from exodus 20 to the final temple prophecy in Ezekiel as well as how in different regions which Nicea 2 says was that different customs on veneration varied from culture such as kissing being and antiochian practice as well as presenting flowers on the altar which is still done today
The points about Clement being made around 41:42 also misses the mark. Nobody is arguing as if Protestants claims that the orthodox think the images themselves are somehow living things. This also misrepresents the definition of idolatry. Idolatry does not simply consist of viewing something as a god itself. Clearly this isn't the case since we know we can make money, sex, possessions, popularity etc. idols. This is a misrepresentation of what idolatry actually is to fit the rhetoric of the Eastern Orthodox position.
More on Clements points, its telling that he makes this fairly blunt claim about how Art cannot be *sacred* or divine.
1. Would should expect a correction, explaining how Christian imagery IS acceptable and good, and how it differs from the kinds of images he is condemning, but of course, that doesn't happen.
2. Sacred by no means requires that the thing itself be of divine nature, it seems he is using the word to mean that something is set apart for divine purposes... Which is precisely how Eastern Orthodox use Iconography. To act as if this shows Clement was in support of the veneration of religious imagery is simply not true. At best you could argue that he was not entirely and completely opposed to religious imagery. That is a far cry from suggesting that the practice is apostolic.
You fo realize that clement in the same work says artists who come to the church says they are to work for the church which in that period was to make idols for the false gods and that all the ancient found in Egypt still contain mosaics in their worship halls. The archeological evidence demands a reading of clement that he does not view all art as negative but divine art that in itself was not sacred because of its misuse and even in his other works say that much of the pagan culture was a misuse of natural law not intrinsically bad less one falls into a genetic fallacy.
Idolatry is a paradigmatic sin. Perhaps the chief of all paradigmatic sins.
When the Fathers apply idolatry to things like wealth or fame, it is precisely to show how the same fundamental problem of idolatry is present in those pursuits. That is of taking those elements and placing them in the throne where God ought to be (our hearts).
This can also help you understand why sacred art, even when venerated, does not automatically become idolatry.
@@shiningdiamond5046 Thats all founded upon assumption. Archeological evidence does not suggest universal practice. Nor does the presence of imagery suggest usage. I know Michael says otherwise, but he doesn't demonstrate it.
The problem behind all of this is the claim of the practice being apostolic. That requires explicit testimony and evidence to be deemed true. Even if one can demonstrate that something like Nicaea II veneration was happening in the first century sometimes STILL falls short of the claims made by Nicaea II. The EO position requires that the practice be instituted by The Apostles themselves, and if we don't have sufficient evidence to support it as a universal practice, as described at Nicaea II, then you need to either concede that The Apostles failed in their mission to properly teach and articulate a practice that is necessary for salvation to The Church, or that Nicaea II was wrong. I know which side I'm on.
@@gsnow2526 I actually agree! Image veneration does not constitute idolatry inherently. Saying if one fails to do so, that their soul is in jeopardy, *does* constitute idolatry.
@@ScroopGroop anathemas apply to all who willingly oppose the teachings of the church. If you oppose their teaching on images then, yea, your soul is in jeopardy.
That does not constitute idolatry. Further, anathema is not automatic damnation either fyi
To the point about the serpent, that there was a right intended use for it, and it was then corrupted into something unsavory.
This is precisely what those of us who do not reject Icons in any sense, but reject the demand to bow before them, and kiss them under pain of anathema, believe has happened with Eastern Orthodoxy and its use of religious images. Taking something that is not inherently bad, and elevating it to a place that is has no business being. By making the veneration of Icons a requirement to attain salvation IS to elevate the role of icons to the place of an idol, since its veneration is of equivalent importance to belief in Christ Himself, since a failure to participate in either of these things, results in damnation.
Anathema, removing one from The Church, by the standard understanding of the historic church, would mean that if one dies, not willing to venerate icons, would be damned. Nicaea II confirms this.
The point you're missing is that bowing and kissing whicj was always a region by region and rite custom is the outer expression of what we view of those whom the art depicts. It's not Idolatry when Moses and the serpent are bowed before but when the icons which we state over are not venerated but whom they represent you just special plead ad infinitum because you can't engage the actual substance behind the theolegy presented.😊
@@shiningdiamond5046 Baseless assertion of my ability to engage the substance for one.
Secondly, I never said the practice is inherently idolatrous. Saying that ones salvation is at stake for *not* practicing icon veneration *is* idolatry, because your very soul now hangs in the balance on account of a practice that can not find its roots in the apostolic deposit.
The veneration of Icons is of equivalent importance to faith in God himself, since a failure to practice/ believe either, results in one being damned.
The veneration of icon is required because it is part of sound and apostolic doctrine.
To put it in a negative sense - the Council called those who spit on the image of the cross anathema.
Keep in mind that veneration starts in the way we see the image. Kissing the icon was just the customary way to display externally that respect towards what the image depicts.
Keep in mind that this is further aggravated by the fact that all creation is iconographic. When you kiss a loved one, you are, in fact, kissing an image of God.
@@gsnow2526
Having children is Idolatry if you take this stance to it's extreme conclusion since you are making images of God.
@@gsnow2526 You don't get to simply say "Its sound and apostolic practice"
It isn't apostolic. This presentation demonstrates that what is demanded of the believer by Nicaea II can in no way trace its roots back to The Apostles, especially without deep eisegesis. At best, this presentation demonstrates there might maybe be some seed form of the practice in regards to depictions of Christ himself. The systematic theology built around this, that has grown to include the cult of the saints, the weird type prototype theology etc is completely devoid of apostolic pedigree.
Your idea of sacrifice is wrong sacrifice means to make sacred. We sacrifice apples in memory of Saint Irene we sacrifice at mass the wine and bread and we make things sacred like icons, water, oil, replics ect. We do mass for the dead with various things being made sacred and we sacrifice ourselves when achieving Theosis and give all of our self over to the divine will and firmly attach ourselves to them and remove everything contrary to their will from yourself.
A few thoughts in response, let me know if this is helpful:
1. There is a transformation of the language of sacrifice in Christianity where certain actions resemble a literal sacrifice and get called that. But this is not the same as it literally being a sacrifice in the sense ancient people meant when they spoke of worshiping a god or idol.
2. A votive offering is not a literal sacrifice in the welcoming meal sense that I’ve outlined. Votives are objects that get ceremonially dedicated to someone; I think several of your examples fit this characterization
3. The main literal sacrifice in Christianity is the Eucharist, but the difference from sacrifice in other religions is that God doesn’t need it
Sooo, early Christians who left Roman Pagan idolatry very quickly fell back into idolatry? Got it
None of the scribal and rhetorical practices early Roman Christians adopted made them believers in Roman mythology. Their use of technical philosophical vocabulary from non Christian philosophers did not make them believers in non Christian philosophy. Similarly, none of the non-idolatrous honorable image-types they adopted from their culture would make them idolators.
Interestingly, your response seems to acknowledge that an adequate case has been made for pre Nicene image veneration
Orland deletes all comments on his videos which point to the truth and disagrees with him. This says to me his is not interested in the truth and is only trying to convert people to his church and not lead people to God.
Surely a pagan becoming Christian with all idolatory would think it ok to use so this is just as expected nothing more
None of the scribal and rhetorical practices early Roman Christians adopted made them believers in Roman mythology. Their use of technical philosophical vocabulary from non Christian philosophers did not make them believers in non Christian philosophy. Similarly, none of the non-idolatrous honorable image-types they adopted from their culture would make them idolators.
Interestingly, your response seems to acknowledge that an adequate case has been made for pre Nicene image veneration
My point is that if today a Muslim converted to a Christian, would he/she not need to be corrected in days and weeks ahead and if so that would mean a stronger argument for protestant view on icons not weaker as this video suggests
@@garymckenzie7196 so is your suggestion that the earliest Christians, because they were the ones most likely to still have pagan influences, would need to grow out of that taint and reject it completely as time passed?
Bowing to images is not prescritive. Something that God ordained vs man made tradition is not the same. When in doubt focus solely on jesus teaching. Images veneration is not salvitic. Where im from in haiti, people worship those images. I was born a catholic by the way.
You didn't engage with Michael Garten's material
Veneration of images is an apostolic practice. You're not in a place to make pronouncements about the apostolic faith if you aren't in continuity with that same faith. There's many unwritten traditions that the presupposition of Sola Scriptura can't account for. I understand you may have seen strange handling of images in Haiti but don't allow your personal experience in Haiti to color your view of the Ancient faith. We all must be willing to let truth inform and reorient our worldview.
@TheTransfiguredLife the apostles had the holy spirit and discernment. The regular joes cant differentiate. They will follow whatever earthly leaders do. Ex. Joshua and the calf statue...u know who got punished? The regular joes.
@@TheTransfiguredLife
You can't critique possibly unbiblical and anti-Biblical practices if you aren't a member of a Church which doesn't hold these practices to be problematic?
That sounds a lot like "We need to pass the bill to find out what's in the bill."
And what standard are we suppose to apply to all of these "unwritten traditions"? Perhaps the same standard Christ used against the pharisees?
*The Ortlund family religion is also the Ortlund family business*
Wherever you find Orvin Garland, there you will find Bersules.
The Ortlund media syndicate has been operating in North America and abroad for going on 100 years. It is now poised to become a sort "media mecca" for Protestantism, their operations currently centering around their conggregation in Nashville TN.
Gavin is the 3rd in a generation of prot media. Before him was his daddy Ray Jr at the Gospel Coalition, before Ray Jr was Ray Sr with his radio show Haven of Rest. That family has had dealings with protestant publishers, particularly Zondervan, for a long, long time.
They are going to be fighting like hell to keep the money rolling in, and they know the outlook isn't good. If they lose here, Gavin's got to go get a job washing cars.
James White has been thoroughly humiliated the last couple of weeks, by Jimmy Akin in two debates.
Candace Owen, who Gavin specifically attempted to keep Protestant, has become Catholic. Similar story with Bertuzzi.
We are witnessing the decline of American Protestantism. Godspeed it's demise.
Blessing to my Orthodox brothers from a Catholic.
AVE MARIA
1. So his family works with spreading the gospel? Oh no! And they make money on it? Satanists! Guess these guys and the one interviewed can’t make any money of this episode and he gives away his book for free.
2. How come you as a Catholic defends Orthodox? Gavin sees you as a Christian brother but you’re not the orthos brother. You’re anathema to them. Your outside the church and cut from God. Strange battle to be in.
This was a waist of time, fortunately I listened to it while driving, didn’t engage the core of Gavin’s arguments
How so?
Gavin doesn't give arguments but argument from incredulity