Icon Veneration in the Early Church? Response to Craig Truglia
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 июл 2024
- In this video I respond to Craig Truglia on the veneration of icons in the early church.
Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus.
Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai.
SUPPORT:
Become a patron: / truthunites
One time donation: www.paypal.com/paypalme/truth...
FOLLOW:
Twitter: / gavinortlund
Facebook: / truthunitespage
Website: gavinortlund.com/
MY ACADEMIC WORK:
gavinortlund.com/mypublications/
PODCAST:
anchor.fm/truth-unites
DISCORD SERVER ON PROTESTANTISM
Striving Side By Side: / discord
SOME BOOKS:
www.amazon.com/Makes-Sense-Wo...
www.amazon.com/Theological-Re...
www.amazon.com/Finding-Right-...
MY GEAR:
www.amazon.com/Canon-Mark-EF-...
www.amazon.com/FIFINE-Microph...
00:00 Maintaining Productive Dialogue
02:46 Do I Misrepresent the Scholarship?
9:02 Arguments From Authority?
11:00 1. Origen
15:50 2. Eusebius
20:30 3. Tertullian
26:36 4. Grotto in Nazareth
32:30 5. Epiphanius
38:16 What About the Oriental Orthodox?
"It was only by slow degrees that the use of icons became established in the Church. Reacting against their pagan environment, the first Christians were anxious to stress above all the exclusively spiritual character of their worship, and they sought to avoid anything that might savour of idolatry: “God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24). Early Christian art - as found, for example, in the Roman catacombs - showed a certain reluctance to portray Christ directly, and He was most often represented in symbolical form, as the Good Shepherd, as Orpheus with his lyre, or the like. With the conversion of Constantine and the progressive disappearance of paganism, the Church grew less hesitant in its employment of art, and by A.D. 400 it had become an accepted practice to represent our Lord not just through symbols but directly. At this date, however, there is as yet no evidence to suggest that the pictures in church were venerated or honoured with any outward expressions of devotion. They were not at this period objects of cult, but their purpose was decorative and instructional.
Even in this restricted form, however, the use of icons aroused protests on the part of certain fourth-century writers, in particular Eusebius of Caesarea (†339), whose objections are to be found in his letter to Constantia Augusta, the sister of Emperor Constantine...
The first type of icon to receive veneration was not religious but secular - the portrait of the emperor. This was regarded as an extension of the imperial presence, and the honours that were shown to the emperor in person were also rendered to his icon. Incense and candles were burnt in front of it, and as a mark of respect men bowed themselves before it to the ground, such prostration being normally described by the term proskynesis. This cult of the imperial image dates back to pagan times: with the conversion of the emperor to Christianity it was readily accepted by Christians, nor was any objection raised on the part of the ecclesiastical authorities.
If men paid such respect as this to the image of the earthly ruler, should they not show equal reverence to the image of Christ the heavenly King? It was an obvious and natural inference, but it was not an inference that was made at once. In fact, proskynesis was shown towards the relics of the saints and the Cross before it began to be shown towards the icon of Christ. Not until the period following Justinian - during the years 550-650 - did the veneration of icons in churches and private homes become widely accepted in the devotional life of eastern Christians. By the years 650-700 the first attempts were made by Christian writers to provide a doctrinal basis for this growing cult of icons and to formulate a Christian theology of art. Of particular interest is a work, surviving only in fragments, by Leontius of Neapolis (in Cyprus), rebutting Jewish criticisms.
The veneration of icons was not accepted everywhere without opposition. In the late sixth century protests were made at distant geographical extremes, in both instances outside the bounds of the Byzantine Empire - to the west in Marseilles, and to the east in Armenia. (Kallistos Ware From “Christian Theology in the East,” in A History of Christian Doctrine, edited by Hubert Cunliffe-Jones [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980], pp. 191-92)
Thank you for providing this for those who aren't disposed to reading this for ourselves!
Facts
Remember that, not only was Metropolitan Kallistos Ware the most important English-speaking theologian and evangelist in the history of Orthodoxy, but he also prayed with icons on a regular basis. So his conviction about their vital and spiritually helpful place in the life of the Church was very strong.
@Daniel Smith but then her sisters the Copts, Ethiopians, and Eritreans are very iconodulic
@NorthernWaters3 interesting. What are his main issues with Met. Ware’s books?
I've heard icon veneration described as the equivalent of simply asking your friend next to you for prayer. Which is odd. Because I don't put an icon of my friend up on the wall of my church next to Jesus himself and then bow to it and kiss it.
this lol...when I speak with well meaning Catholics about icon veneration, the asking for prayer answer is what I typically get, but then I see often Catholics perform these rites and speak of "increasing my devotion and reliance" on said Saint.
With respect, the response to this would be that the saints were people who had great impact on us and made a global mark on the world, so they're deserving of a picture on the wall more than our friend Jim from accounting who goes to our church, so that would constitute the veneration of the person, just like how having a poster of Michael jordan on your wall isn't seen as weird but having a poster of your sons friend on the jv basketball team would be
@SP-td9xj actually, having a picture of Michael Jordan on your wall would be considered "idolatry."
@@UniteAgainstEvil only to people who are way too legalistic, if it's just a cool picture that someone likes and yet someone considers that idolatry that's on them for not understanding at all what idolatry is
People do what you just described with pictures of loved ones all the time in protestant circles.
This ongoing icon discussion has seriously shook alot of Catholics. I'm not trying to be disrespectful but I have seen Catholic channels speaking on it that are not very mainstream channels because tons of Catholics are flooding them with questions. They can see you have a VERY strong point. I believe it is because you have thoroughly went through and shown an EXTREAMLY obvious argument that the patristic era of the church did not do this and forbade it.
Yes, the early church fathers before 313 A.D. were against the practice of venerating icons. They likened it to Pagans and heretics. There is no evidence of any Christians before 313 A.D. venerating, bowing down to, or in any way praying to images in any way. It seems to have ramped up in the 6th and 7th centuries.
Thanks and cheers from a Catholic in Australia 🇦🇺 who is learning about Christianity from your channel. ✝️God bless you.
thanks very much!
Look into Eastern Orthodox Christianity my friend the one true Faith founded by Jesus Christ and handed down to us from the apostles ☦☦☦.
@@TheTej1 yeah except thats nonsense and there are like 7 other churches that claim that, you fell for an internet trend, sorry dud
@@buffcommie942 I don't know where you've been, but the "internet trend" is only a small amount of Christians converting to Orthodoxy. I know 3 Protestants who have converted to Orthodoxy in the last year; none of them have done so because of things they saw on the internet, and all the Orthodox people I know (even those who I met on the internet) found Orthodoxy in person.
The "true church" are the believers and followers of The Word (Jesus as found in the scriptures).
You know you're not normal when Gavin Ortlund drops a new video on Icon Veneration in the early church, and you have to drop everything and rush to watch it like it's the latest Avengers movie. Thanks Gavin! Greatly appreciate it!
🤣
Agree
Would that I could - promises to keep. Will have to catch up later!
💯
You all such geeks!
"Mistakes can be corrected by those who pay attention to facts but dogmatism will not be corrected by those who are wedded to a vision."
-Thomas Sowell
A-Men! Sheesh the dogmatism is INSANE to me. Ot the attachment to it no matter the proof of its historical lacking.
You know, a lot of these sorts of things I think “hmm I could see either side being right” but on this point it’s definitely an accretion. I agree with what you said in your first video: this alone is enough to stay Protestant
Been thinking about this same thing. When it comes to icons, and in my case, Mary, I Just see catholics trying to maje that fit as hard as they can possibly can. Just looks so forced...
That's how I feel as well. As someone who is struggling with catholicism myself, the honest and clear facts exposed in this video alone is a strong reason for me to remain protestant.
Greetings from Brazil!
The presuppositions of protestantism are definitely not accretions after coming to existence 1500 years after the church's creation.
@@kincaid7156 "coming into existence"
@@kincaid7156 Protestantism is just Christians being forced to Respond to critical errors in the church.
I am open to whatever the truth is here. To that end I listened to your posts, looked up and read the sources, read Truglia's response, and read the sources to which he appealed, as well. I had already read most of these years ago, but not with great scrutiny. Careful scrutiny clearly supports your position that images, if used at all, were allowed for illustrative or educational purposes in the early Christian Church. I also personally engaged the points that Truglia raised and claimed are "explicit" examples that icon veneration was common, normative, and accepted from the earliest Christian records, trying to see if these were true and supported his position. If that is the case, that is a strong support for both Orthodox and Roman praxis.
The problem is that none of these showed that veneration was common or accepted. Most were examples of images simply being present, sometimes having a decoration like flowers placed next to them, being used next to a dead body or relics, or veneration being a novelty worthy of condemnation. Truglia injects his desired belief back into these sources and then claims that these support his position of veneration. However, the sources themselves do not demonstrate veneration of images as being orthopraxis in early Christianity. Quite the opposite, actually.
For pointing this out, Craig deleted my posts and completely blocked me from making any further posts on his web site or youtube channel. I suspect that he is so devoutly Orthodox that even the possibility of an error here is taken as some kind of personal attack. It makes it difficult to have a discussion. There are many nastier apologists than Craig, but he can be rather nasty, himself (e.g., his personal comments regarding Schooping, and describing your work as a "nothing burger").
Anyway... the "pivot" you point out from the presence of images to veneration of images is not unique to Orthodox. It is hardly different from what the Roman apologists do regarding Papal Primacy: Peter was prominent among the apostles -- magic pivot happens -- Bishop of Rome has supremacy and is infallible. That is, it is tempting for any of us to magically fill gaps with our own desires and beliefs. All of us are susceptible to this temptation, and it takes an incredible amount of discipline to avoid it.
Truglia HAS to read icondulia back into history for the same reason that Roman Christians have to read Papal Supremacy back into Scripture. If it isn't there, then their respective churches are in error, for these teachings and practices are central to current doctrines and practices. However, both of their churches claim to be preserved from error by God, so any real humanity creeping in here is an existential threat to their faiths. Consequently, if the history shows that the current churches are wrong here, then the history must be wrong. :)
Also, I have a friend who is an Armenian priest and quite the historian, at least with respect to liturgy and lectionary. He might be willing to talk with you about the question you asked.
I am former EO. Thanks for sharing this. Truglia according to your account is then acting in bad faith, essentially lying. Unrepentant liars go to the lake of fire.
@@1Immanuel8 I don't personally know Truglia and I don't assume that he is deliberately engaging in deception. However, it would really be hard to tell the difference between what he is doing and someone who IS in fact deliberately deceiving.
Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I'd prefer to believe that he is simply so devotedly committed to the doctrines of Orthodoxy that it prevents him from seeing the irrationality of his claims. It could happen to any of us.
@@1Immanuel8 That isn't what he said at all. He's just saying Truglia is biased, deceived by his fallen nature.
Honestly, even without going into deeper reading, I could tell just from Truglia's sources that they were missing the mark. He gave examples of laypeople venerating at best, and just examples of imagery being present at worst, and generally failed to give a proper refutation of Gavin's quoted sources.
I don't think Craig is lying or acting in bad faith, but I'm a little concerned that he isn't acting as charitably as he seems to feel he is. I made two comments on his channel offering information that critiqued the points he had made, and both disappeared. Disappointing.
The sad thing is that even if every single one of the “arguments” to which Gavin is responding held any water at all, this would still be a pitiful case for iconodulia. The fact that Craig felt these arguments even needed to be addressed at all demonstrates how weak the historical case is for the veneration of icons.
Yep
@@arminius504 You from Nola?
Or how weak the other denominations are
Absolutely!
Origen took communion. He had altars. There is no tension between having a metaphorical interpretation and having literal alters and icons.
Thanks Gavin. May the Lord continue to give you wisdom and insights as you read, compare, dsicern and interpret the works of the early church fathers on the issues being discussed in the light of the Holy Scriptures.
Dear Pastor Gavin,
if you ever run out of content, may I give some suggestions?☺️
Could you do videos on
- the 7 ecumenical council from a Protestant perspective
- Indulgences from a Protestant prospective
- The treasury of merit from a Protestant perspective
- That’s a big one: in depth video on the reasons for the reformation.
- Praying for the dead from a Protestant perspective
- More in depth video on the Eucharist from a Protestant perspective
- More in depth video on justification from a catholic and Protestant view
- Maybe a short video on why most Protestants don’t have the crucifix but a cross without Jesus on it.
- The great schism and if there where schisms before the great one.
- The 5 solas, why we believe it and the reasons behind it
- An overview on the first 300 years of church history, the most important things to know.
- The main differences between Protestants and Catholics
- The main differences between Protestants and Eastern Orthodox
Only to give some suggestions ☺️
Thank you for your great and faithful work!
@YAJUN YUAN I'm not sure if this is as big an issue as some might think. Plenty of Catholic churches have crosses without a corpus, especially modern churches, and plenty of Protestant churches have crucifixes.
i appreciate this channel so much, thank you for all your posts and discussions, super valuable to Christians! I've learned a lot from your videos and feel inspired to read more of the Patristic period writers as a solid background for my protestant faith.
Thanks for bringing the discussion back to a gracious and charitable exchange, Gavin! I appreciate your care to play fair.
Thanks for being so thorough and thoughtful 🙏
Thank you Pastor for explaining things so clearly and truthfully.
I am never convinced that “scholarship” is the know all/end all but I find the scholarship arguments here incredibly compelling. Truth invites investigation and there is a whole lot of investigation going on here. I SO appreciate that.
My first thoughts exactly. The "truth" of academic/archeaological & theological scholarship changes significantly over time - often changing significantly over the period of even a few decades.
Scholarship is futile. The history and the scholarship doesn't accept that the Apostles wrote the gospels. Won't accept St Paul wrote most of the letters. Have no acceptance of miracles. Don't even fully accept Christ even existed.
This is a document about a God-man walking on water and raising the dead. The scholarship is graceless.
What makes the critique so devastating for iconodulia here is that many of the people Gavin quotes from from within the Church are actually saints in EO and RC too!
@@namae2497 yeah. Actual saints that venerated icons themselves. So perhaps it's more likely that you people don't understand the quotes in a language you can't actually read rather than assuming these saints were so stupid or evil that they couldn't grasp their own opinions and lived against their own theology.
@@BarbaPamino Saints according to *your* church. Only God knows. Gavin has already demonstrated that early fathers did not employ these images for devotional purposes-I thought EOs and RCs followed the apostolic teachings? Then follow the earliest church fathers, otherwise your churches have no legs to stand on in your claims to apostolicity.
Gavin I just want to say I recently came upon your channel and I thank you for all the work you do you’ve really motivated me to learn more about my faith. I just want to say that it’s just obvious that the Lord is using you in such a wonderful way. The love of Christ just spills from you in such a God honoring way. You truly are emulating Christ in a wonderful way and I want to thank you for that example that even when we disagree with our brothers we are to do it in not only in love and understanding but also shows strength and resolve.
thanks Michael, so happy to be connected to you!
Dr. Ortlund, thank God for your work. You are right, aiming for peace is really difficult, but there are people that make it easier... and I think Craig has not been charitable with your arguments, the *implication* of his words was that your arguments were misleading.
We need to pray for a peaceful understanding without unnecessary impolite comments.
Gavin is a nice guy. However, he is randomly choosing to hold fast to what the mainstream scholarship has to say about icons in the early church on this particular point.
On other points, he seems to argue points that are unbelievable, like he was trying to say that Augustine held to Sola Scriptura? What? It's just nonsensical.
Certainly, he knows better than that. He is inconsistent.
He, more often than not, points to the total opposite of what mainstream scholarship has to say about early church practice and belief.
The other thing is: implying all icon veneration is equivalent to worship of graven images or whatever is not charitable. It requires Gavin to call us liars about what we do and believe. Besides, it's not true.
In other words, Gavin is slandering Christians as idol worshippers.
Gavin is incredibly misleading and has a very particular agenda and idea of what is true that is predetermined long before he comes to the texts of the ECF.
Te vi en el canal de Pacheco. Estoy contento de que la comunidad de Truth Unites esté expandiéndose a otros países de habla hispana.
@@rileychapman642 I believe it's quite clear that Catholics and Orthodox Christians hold to a difference between worship of idols and veneration of icons. And I've never heard Gavin imply otherwise.
The problem is, most Protestants simply don't buy it. Speaking for myself, I'm skeptical that there is a latria/dulia distinction in the eyes of the Bible, of the early church fathers, and of God. So while iconophiles swear up and down that what they're doing isn't worship, I'm not so sure.
@@Draezeth yeah. It's like trying to convince a liberal that just because I voted for Trump in 2016, that doesn't mean I'm racist.
It defies reason, but such is protestantism, especially the amorphous non denominational baptigelical strain.
Also, you and Gavin are very definitely implying that we worship icons by suggesting there's not a dulia-latria distinction. The problem is that there is, very definitely, a distinction. That's why there are different words.
It's all very hard to pin down what you or Gavin are saying, from my perspective. So it goes.
As a God fearing Orthodox Christian, I am telling you that no one I know, nor myself, worships icons. It's ridiculous to suggest otherwise. 🙄
@@rileychapman642 That's the problem here. *You* say that what you do with icons does not fall under the umbrella of worship. To my eyes though, it does. Like, take the Inuits, who have a hundred different words for snow. They will insist that this powdery snow and this crystally snow are different things. But to an American or a European, it's in the same category as snow. The question therefor is not "are they different things in the eyes of the Inuits/Catholics" but "are they different things in the eyes of God".
Iconodulia is idolatry.
If unity is a goal then venerating icons is an added thing that is blocking unity. It is easier to drop something for the sake of unity, that is not central to the faith, than it is to force others to accept it.
His point exactly
Who cares about unity? This is about what's right, not what unites.
@@BarbaPamino truth unites
This is exactly the point Paul makes in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8!
Sins are sins, there is no middle ground with God.
Many of the doctrinal disagreements between and among Christians of different traditions are almost irrelevant to me and my faith. However, the tone with which one presents his arguments is quite relevant. It is difficult to hear those with a mocking tone, with an air of certainty, with a claim to the only truth for the only true Christians. While I have learned much from such people, there are times I want to turn them off.
Dr. Ortlund, your tone in these discussions is a compelling argument for your case. Thank you for this.
This channel has become one of my new favorites here on YT! Your continued persistence in trying to be fair and objective, in an irenic manner, has been very helpful to me as I've been, over a year now, struggling with trying to decide whether I should leave Protestantism and go East, since all I've ever been exposed to is Protestantism (mainly Evangelicalism) since my conversion to Christianity in 2011. Even though I'm still struggling to decide which branch of Christianity is "most true," (though I'm still leaning Protestant) I appreciate God opening my eyes up to the wider world of Christendom. God bless!
so glad to have been of use! May the Lord guide you.
@@TruthUnites you had asked about reaching out to an oriental orthodox or Coptic church to see what their practices on this is. Have you ever watched "The Ten Minute Bible Hour"? The guy who runs it has visited a Coptic church & interviewed a Coptic priest. I don't know if the priest would do an interview, but you can certainly reach out to find out. The channel name has been changed to "Matt Wittman," who does the interviewing, which he has three videos on it. Maybe start by contacting him first to get contact details? Here is a link to one of them:
ruclips.net/video/YF_QHHp_Ts4/видео.html
@@TruthUnites BTW, I have a live debate against an Eastern Orthodox priest this Monday, January 23rd at 8pm EST on whether praying to Mary & the saints is worship. It will be on "Standing For Truth" on RUclips. If you get the chance, check it out. Here is the direct link, and of course, keep me in your prayers so God will be glorified:
ruclips.net/video/pQno2PUxPBs/видео.html
@@TruthUnitesGavin. I have been attending an American Coptic Church here in Nashville. I asked the priest if he would consider speaking with you. He said yes. Please let me know if you are interstate to chat with him and how I can get his contact info to you.
@@erichhershey2308 Sounds great. Were you ever able to get this off the ground?
COWBOY LOGIC 101:
Never have venerated any icon, image nor relic. Pardon me for saying so but, in light of the glorious Gospel and the knowledge of Christ Jesus, to do so would be utterly absurd and unnecessary. What would be the point?
Here I quote from a favorite hymn:
... Christ has regarded
my helpless estate,
and has shed his own blood for my soul.
My sin oh, the bliss
of this glorious thought!
my sin, not in part, but the whole,
is nailed to the cross,
and I bear it no more;
praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!
That's all I've ever needed or want. Himself. Praise God forevermore, and his Son.
Its frustrating that minus the study of church fathers and creeds and surrounding history, the doctrine of veneration still manages to feel manmade. Other than tradition there seems to be no precedent for such a thing and any attempt to explain the act feels like i need to believe even more manmade infallible doctrines to certify its infallibility. This feels like one big stumbling block unfortunately and I pray that the truth would supersede. Thank you for your work!
Veneration is manmade. Gavin well laid out how in studying the church fathers and earliest Christian history, there was no "veneration", a made up term to disguise idolatry. Early Christians were strongly opposed to this practice. Nothing wrong w/ having beautiful artwork and showing the history of the church depicted w/ stainglass and statues. But to claim that kissing, bowing and praying to them is no idolatry is stupendous to me. I've looked up Catholic explanations for why they do it, and they'll address the commandment forbidding the making of images to bow, kneel and worship. Then they do a word salad that doesn't make sense for how their practice of making the images, then bowing, kneeling, kissing, praying to and supplicating for favours is somehow not disobeying a direct and specific commandment. It just stuns me that these practices are now instantiated into dogma. Esp. in the Orthodox traditions, where it's part of their service to go kiss their icons, and it's extremely specific and reverential how they Must do it. These practices aren't just allowed w/ caveats, they are commanded w/ anathemas. It's just stunning.
Protestants are so ignorant of philosophy.
The Bible was manmade.
"It was divinely inspired."
Yea, so are icons. You guys constantly beg questions. Like your canon.
@@bradspitt3896 Yes, millions of protestant are so dumb. I think you are projecting.
It feels that way my friend, because it is. Follow the truth
Once again. Light dispersing the darkness. Plain 'n simple. Like God and his Word. Plain 'n simple.
As an announcement I will respond to this video in a little while. I think temperature is too hot and this issue should be approached dispassionately and with good historical methodology
@@bersules8 I hope you're kidding because that's not the way to go lol
Thanks for helping to keep things level headed Craig. Appreciate the effort. I know in my own life it’s not easy oftentimes. And I thank Gavin for this as well.
"good historical methodology"... okay.
I'm looking foward to your response, since Gavin - as far as I know - is using mainstream scholarship soucers/tools and dealing strongly with the literature available.
If you approached this topic with “good historical methodology” you’d admit that Dr Ortland is right and that you’ve been lying.
Hi Craig. I am a former EO. At a certain point you simply have to admit that you are wrong. It's tough to do, especially with so many youtube followers. However, once one brick in the theological arch of EO goes, the entire edifice quickly comes tumbling down. The one that did it for me was the question of priests, and deacons, and bishops in the EO sense. These roles simply do not exist anywhere in the NT under the new covenant. A born again Christian calls God Father. Leadership in the family of God (the Church) is by older brothers in the faith (Elders, and of course sisters as deaconesses/servants) helping, guiding, and serving. Lord willing, the blinders will come off, and you will see the truth for yourself.
Thank you for this very insightful video!
I like that you said scholarship and and apologetics can be good for eachother and hold eachother accountable this is a good thought
Your dedication to finding common ground and preserving the humanity of your opponents is truly a breath of fresh air. This is the level of diplomacy I hope to have one day, as someone who’s always been passionate about debate but often comes across abrasively
Thanks a lot, Gavin. Your videos are helping me a lot to remain Protestant.
John, you are lame? You have hurt your leg?
Thanks for spending your time on this Dr Ortlund!
Don't have time to consume this in full right now, but looking forward to it soon, especially after Council of Trent's response to the same Icon Veneration video.
Excellent video, thank you!
Great channel, thank you for your work bro. Greetings from Poland, a country flooded with idols :/ the only thing I miss on your channel is the commentary on the euchristian cult - I can't wait.
Kudos to you, Gavin, for addressing so patiently and charitably a subject that would frankly appear to me and most Protestants as an open-and-shut case.
"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. You shall not bow down to them or serve them..." Exodus 20:4-5
Solid work Dr. Ortlund, very well done. Your presentation continues to be the most compelling.
Coming from a Catholic who isn't finding it compelling, would you be able to put the content into an argument (i.e. a more formal syllogism) that is compelling?
I've watched both the original and this and both have a lot of interesting information and raise interesting issues, but I can't see how it adds up to a challenge that actually needs to be addressed to be a "this alone will make you Protestant" issue.
More and more all the time!
@@John_Fisher
I’ll try my best for the fun of it. I have no formal philosophical training so take this with a grain of salt.
P1) Veneration of icons is an historical accretion
P2) Nicea II affirmed an historical accretion by affirming veneration of icons
C) An ecumenical council (Nicea II) did err, thereby invalidating epistemological claims for Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. (Not sure about the OO)
@@elvisisacs3955 To support P1:
P1a: If veneration of icons is an accretion, it will be spoken of negatively by early church authorities.
P1b: Veneration of icons is spoken of negatively by all early church fathers.
C1: Veneration of icons is an accretion.
Thank you!
Another great video. Well done.
It is a universal fault that people do not want to admit they are wrong about something they have believed. The issue is whether people will submit to the Word of God as the authority for truth. God has shown all of us we have been wrong about many things and he will correct us as long as we live if we will yield to his Word as our ultimate authority. Those who will not yield will cling to deception until they are destroyed.
"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
Matthew 7:22-23
Since the late 90s I've debated with apologists of various religions. I've never known a one of them to surrender an inch on even the tiniest doctrinal hill. For an Orthodox apologist, the claim that their church has no innovations is an awfully big hill.
All of Orthodoxy, RCC etc. can NEVER give an inch (at least in their minds) no matter how hard they get slammed on because the church they are under in " infallible" Meaning......if they are wrong on this ONE thing, it endangers the ENTIRE structure of the church. I personally think that has happened. This whole icon veneration thing from the start has shook their worlds. You could make the same arguments with Mary to be honest. I always get the same NPC answers from Catholics " The church has always believed this" When it is VERY clear, they simply have not. I believe this is why Luthor called us to go back to the Patristic era. It takes the church back to its purest moments and cleans out all the man made objects.
In the PCA, which is explicitly opposed to iconography, you'd find all sorts of churches with images in the sanctuary, for all sorts of different reasons. Their inaction in getting rid of them couldn't possibly be used as evidence that American Presbyterianism is secretly in favor of iconodulia
Unfortunately, Trent and Akin put out a 3 hour response to your first video. Rome always has to have the last word and the longest video. 😂
honestly man, its always sooo loonngg lol. all of his rebuttals are twice as long as the initial critique
I can sympathize with not wanting to watch a 3 hour long video response, but IF someone is wrong, and even gravely and complexly wrong, then it generally takes more time to refute what they said than it did to make it.
I haven't watched the video, and I'm not claiming it's an ample rebuttal. I'm just talking about generalities.
Rome is usually wrong too, they like to hear themselves talk
I'm almost to the end of the video.
Masterful work as always, Dr. Ortlund.
Your work has helped shape my views so much. Can't thank you enough for this.
@T3NISNE1 Are you unbiased?
@@bersules8 I don’t understand how that responds to the evidence from the early church fathers.
Lynn, I have an interest in the Church fathers but in no way do I see them as infallible or do I see the mode of worship which they describe as being the ideal.
@@lynnmmartin The arguments are pretty easily rebutted by applying context. Almost every single one of his examples fall apart in context. For example, the quote from Eusebius to Constancia is pretty questionable. He acts as though it isn't in question whether or not the letter is legitimate, but it is. The letter that's taken from showed up 400 years after pretty much everything else Eusebius wrote, conveniently right at the time of the iconoclastic drama. Also, if Eusebius considers the image of Christ an idol, why doesn't he smash it? Why does he guard it in his home, as if he cares for it?
Concerning various other images of Christ, Eusebius has a very positive report. So, why does Gavin leave this out? Well, because it weakens his proof dramatically.
@@bersules8 Gavin literally uses patristic sources to support his view. There's no sola scriptura going on here.
What you really *should* be saying is that the infallibility of the church is what undergirds the iconophile position.
First comment. Yay! 😁 Bless you, Gavin!
If I kiss a picture, print or painting of my deceased wife or family member I am not worshipping an idol or graven image.
It is the same with an icon of a Saint within our Christian family. ...☦️
We admire them, for the example they lived, We look up to them and hold them on high esteem just as we do for our deceased family members. ..
Kindly, from one orthodox to another, we gotta stop using this as a response to Protestant questions about icon veneration. The issue is not whether or not the act of veneration of icons is ok, but rather the fact that one is obligated to venerate them under threat of anathema. Let’s at least be honest and consistent enough to admit this.
@@IAMFISH92 Very true..
Thank you for correcting me ☦️
@@donpattonjr Thank you for displaying openness to correction. God bless you, brother!
This is what I love to see!!!! God bless both of you! This is a great example of how we should act as Believers. From your Protestant brother, but more accurately from your brother in Christ! May Gods Grace, Love, and Mercy be with both of you!
@@King_of_Blades God bless you, my man!
Gavin, so thankful for your ministry here. You cover tons of important material, including this. I remember being constantly challenged by an Eastern Orthodox Sufi mystic that taught christian theology at a secular university when I was in undergrad (a very strange combination of beliefs), and your videos would have been tremendously helpful then! I am thankful they are available for others.
That prof. did however get an interesting book published, "Reclaiming the Great Tradition: Evangelicals, Catholics, and Orthodox in Dialogue," with contributions from JI Packer, Kallistos Ware, Peter Kraft, and others. May be worth checking out in the midst of your ecumenical conversations! Thanks for your great scholarship and continued work!
An Eastern Orthodox Sufi mystic? How does that work?
@@cozzwozzle In short, I don't think it does. Longer answer, he was a perennialist philosopher incredibly influenced by Origen's universalism and christian theology as refracted through David Bentley Hart (who opened a lecture at my university opened by saying that he would take pride in being excommunicated by the Eastern Church). Check the books, "Paths to the Heart: Sufism and the Christian East," and "Not of this World: A Treasury of Christian Mysticism" by my former professor James Cutsinger.
It is very interesting how prevalent harsh and divisive rhetoric is within and between Christian communities. And, it always has. We see evidence of it even in the New Testament! On the one hand, who of all people should be irenic in their dealings with others but Christians?! But on the other hand, the topics we discuss are often the most important topics that could be discussed. Nothing is more important than the core doctrines of Christianity. So, perhaps the project before us is to focus on differentiating between core and non-core doctrines - primary and secondary/tertiary and agree to disagree in an irenic way on any non-core doctrine. And, if we disagree on core doctrines, we agree to still be fair and honest even if not fully irenic. That alone would help immensely I think. Thanks for embodying this general approach!
I just saw Craig's interview with the other Paul on Anastasius the librarian and the origin of the papacy, I wonder if you have any thoughts on his hypothesis there Dr. Ortlund. 🙂
I saw that one too! That was a pretty interesting theory tbh
Excellent video!
The fact of the matter is this: we have yet to see even *one* single example of a statement from any early church figure (from say the first 5 centuries) in support of the *veneration of icons* that is even REMOTELY close in its *blatancy and clarity* as to what we see in the overwhelming number of instances of opposition to icon veneration. Not a single instance.
Of course, I could be mistaken. But I’ve not seen anyone produce a single straightforward example in my 12 years of being in (and out) of the Eastern Orthodox Church. I’m assuming if such an example existed, we’d be seeing it… and Gavin would likely be acknowledging it and responding to it.
Strange fixation on a specific practice when the early Church CLEARLY venerates saints. Icon veneration is merely an extension of that.
@@Ioannikios174where is the proof that early christians venerted saints?
@@Ioannikios174the early church CLEARLY did not venerate saints though.
Hi Dr Ortlund, can the idea of icons be defended as a means of establishing a connection to God (i.e. focused concentration which enables connection to the object it represents)? In this case, it wouldn't be the icon itself which is venerated, but is used as an aid to help one's own mind to focus. From your videos, it doesn't sound like that would be veneration of an icon, but neither would it be directly prohibited either (except by some/many of the early church fathers). Any further clarification would be helpful. Thanks for all you do!
Exposing that Craig didn't even read the passage of Origen he's was quoting from! Incredible. These are some of your best videos Dr. Ortlund
Yeah, when Craig read that passage, it really gave me pause and made me reconsider. But then Gavin read literally the rest of the paragraph, and the argument completely fell apart.
Dude, you're dunking on Craig for quoting a passage without reading it, but it's painfully obvious from your comment that you didn't actually read his essay. The irony is extremely strong here.
Craig simply doesn't make the argument that Gavin attributes to him here, which isn't the end of the world. Sometimes when someone is dealing with a lot of material, they flub certain parts of it. That's fine. What's not fine, and certainly not Christian, is to be so wrapped up in "owning" your enemies and so little interested in actually learning anything that you cheer and jeer like someone at a sports match without even bothering to check that you have your basic facts straight.
@@ryanward72 Please enlighten me and Dr. Ortlund here on the actual point Craig was trying to make here by quoting Orgien if not to support his position on iconodulia, if apparently we got it wrong. I at least went and actually read the passage. I'm not the one making apologetic videos here. If Craig can't even bother to understand the context of a passage he's using to support his points he absolutely deserves to get dunked on for misleading the people who watch him. Nothing I said in my original comment was unChristian in the slightest
@adrummingdog2782 So you read "the passage", presumably the one in Origen, but you didn't actually bother to read what Truglia actually wrote? So not only do you think mockery is acceptable for a Christian, but you don't even think it's necessary to make sure the theme of your mockery is actually true? If you don't immediately see how unchristian that is, I don't think I'll be able to explain it to you.
But to get back to the original point, you literally have to read the sentences immediately before and after the quote to see that Truglia is not making the argument attributed to him here:
"Consider the following statement from Origen found in Against Celsum and likewise take it at face value:
[T]here is no comparison between our statues and the statues of the heathen, nor between our altars, with what we may call the incense ascending from them, and the heathen altars, with the fat and blood of the victims; nor, finally, between the temples of senseless gods, admired by senseless men, who have no divine faculty for perceiving God, and the temples, statues, and altars which are worthy of God. (Contra Celsum, Book VIII, Chap 20)
Clearly, taking statements here or there at face value is a dead end."
As a retired philosophy professor, I join you in disagreeing with the person who assumes that the fallacy of Appeal to Authority takes place whenever an appeal to authority (at all) is used to support a conclusion. (By the way, Wikipedia makes that mistake as well and may be the basis for your objector's complaint.) When we appeal to qualified authorities, using the evidence they provide, to make a point, this is certainly an appropriate way to reason. Indeed, it's how good arguments are made. Appeal to Authority as a fallacy occurs, mainly, in two ways: (1) whenever an authority is appealed to without the relevant evidence that authority provides; and (2) when there is an appeal to an authority in one field of knowledge who isn't an authority in the field of knowledge relevant to the argument made (such as, a appeal to Einstein to settle an issue in English Literature). Having said that, your argument about the veneration of icons is strong. When most respected scholars who have researched all the relevant historical material, looking for the veneration of icons, find that this practice doesn't take place until somewhere in the range of the 6th-7th century, that is (to say the least) strong evidence to undermine the Eastern Orthodox claim that icon veneration begins in the first century. Obviously, it debunks the notion that this practice originated with the apostles.
Hi Gavin, you mentioned a couple months back you'd address Alex O'Conner's views on Divine Hiddenness. Is that still on the table? Would love to hear your thoughts.
it is still in the queue -- might be a bit though!
Hello Pastor Gavin, could you do videos on the 7 ecumenical councils from a Protestant perspective?
That'd be an absolutely fascinating video !!
That’d be amazing! Probably a long term project, but it would be great to see!
It's going to be a struggle, because the ecumenical councils are definitely not protesant.
@@rileychapman642 That doesn't make it hard to comment on them as a Protestant...
@@Draezeth True. lol.
Hi Dr Ortlund,
I've been recently interested in Church History (again) and I was wondering if all your discussions on Church History as it relates to various topics, such as Icons, Baptism etc and publish a book on it?
He is writing a book and it is planned to be launched in 2024.
@@commencater Too late - I'd like to see it published by COB Tomorrow haha!
Great response
The out of context Origen passage reminded me of the following.
In support of the iterative sacramental representation of Christ's sacrifice in the Mass, or his re-immolation, Catholics oftentimes cite st. Augustine: “Christ, was once offered in Himself (meaning on the Cross) and nevertheless He is immolated in a mystery every day for the people" (Ep. xcviii. n. 9, ad Bonif.).
But let us translate the whole relevant part:
“Truly, we speak like that often, and when the Pascha approaches we say: “Tomorrow, or the day after, is the day after the Passion of the Lord.”, even though he suffered so many years ago and that passion was done only once. Truly, even on the day of the Lord we say “The Lord has risen today”, although so many years have passed. But nobody is so unreasonable to accuse of being liars for speaking so, and for this reason: we name those days because of the similarity they have with those, so that the day which is not that day is named by that very same day, although it is only similar to it on account of turn of seasons and because of the celebration of the mystery [st. Augustine uses “sacramentum”] it is said that on that day, something happened which actually didn’t happen on that day, but long time ago.
Wasn’t Christ immolated in himself once, but he is still immolated in sacraments not only on all the solemnities of Pascha, but even daily? Nor is he mistaken in anything who, once asked, answers that he is immolated. If the sacraments didn’t have some similarity with the things of which they are sacraments, they wouldn’t be sacraments at all. Also, from that similitude, in most cases, they receive the names of the things they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain way the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood, in the same way the sacrament of faith is faith [referring to baptism]."
So, if we take this whole passage into account we can conclude that Augustine believes that, as it is sung: "The Lord has risen today", even though he has risen some 1990 years ago, so it can be
said that the Lord is immolated at the altar because his sacrifice which happened once in the past is signified by that which is on the altar.
In other words, a sign A, is named a reality X in the virtue of similitude to that reality X which the sign A signifies. Thus, Augustine actually says the opposite of what Catholics want to argue for.
Augustine said The Church didn't have images of Jesus, Mary, The Apostles, etc. We did not know what they looked like per Augustine.
@YAJUN YUAN And Protestants too, let's be faithful to truth in any context.
@@brich2542interesting where did he say that about Jesus and the Apostles
Dr Ortlund, would love to see yourself and Fr Josiah Trenham have dialogue together. Have you listened to any of his videos?
Quality content Dr. Ortlund. Grateful.
Don't let the negative feedback and bad faith criticism get to you! I love your videos and am always helped by your explanations. Always have to remind myself to postively comment when I feel positively to counter the negative commenters who are always more likely to comment
Sometimes people get overwhelmed by negative feedback
Hope Gavin won't buy into it especially when cath/orth members ravage in comment section!!
Honest question, isn't Dr. Ortland essentially accusing billions of Christians of idol worship? I can't imagine a more severe accusation. I don't know why anyone would be surprised that Orthodox Christians would be upset by that.
@@mathewsoa Perhaps it is severe, but necessary. The Old and New Testaments are full of severe condemnations of God's chosen people. It doesn't mean they aren't in the Body of Christ, but they might still be doing something wrong that needs to be corrected. Whatever you think of this specific criticism, it is obvious that faithful Christians will have to offer severe criticism of other Christians if we want to stay faithful to the Apostolic Deposit of faith.
@@Young_Anglican I mean, the Bible is full of condemnations of people for judging when they shouldn't judge. If you falsely accuse half the Church of idol worship, that seems like a big problem. I've never worshiped an icon or a saint. As a former protestant, I understand precisely where you're coming from, I've said all the same stuff, but knowing what I know now, it just comes across as making false accusations, pretending to know what's in my brain, etc.
@@mathewsoa We are called to not judge unbelievers, but to judge those within the church though. We are expected to hold one another up.
At no point did Gavin make an attempt to psychoanalyze iconodules, either. Regardless of how serious an accusation this is, the data Gavin presents is extremely compelling. *All* early church fathers who commented on this issue were soundly against it. The Bible, plainly read, is against it, and even if you twist scripture to support the use of icons, the best you get is a defense of the position, not a scriptural affirmation. No matter which way you cut it, iconography is risky for a Christian, and we ought to call it out.
Ca anyone give me a link as to 34:48? Epiphanies, Against Those Who, Following an Idolatrous Practice, Make Images...
In watching all your videos so far on this topic, and the research I've done on my own, it is absolutely beyond me how the practice can be defended as an Apostolic or Apostolic Fathers practice. It simply did not exist and was roundly and soundly condemned. You have to really, really WANT it to be in order to find it in the early church
Well, watch someone else's videos. Gavin's presentation is very persuasive. But most of his quotes ignore context, quite frankly, even though he insists it isn't so.
@@rileychapman642 I believe providing context to quotes was the main purpose of this video. He pulled preceding chapters to give context for the quotes in question.
@@rileychapman642 Gavin is very careful to provide context though. Far more so than Craig was. The quote from Orgien that Craig used, for example, completely crumbled to dust when Gavin read the context around it.
@@jonathanboynton2481 He leaves out Eusebius's clear approval of images of Christ and other saints commissioned by Constantine and an image of Christ at a church. He leaves out the extremely questionable authenticity of Eusebius's letter to Constancia, and on it goes.
Context is much broader than a preceding paragraph.
@@Draezeth He leaves out Eusebius's clear approval of images of Christ and other saints commissioned by Constantine and an image of Christ at a church. He leaves out the extremely questionable authenticity of Eusebius's letter to Constancia, and on it goes.
Matt Whitman from “10 minute Bible hour” talked with a Coptic priest a couple years ago. Maybe he can get you in touch with him and would be willing to do a video chat.
One of the reasons I am not Eastern Orthodox. It shows the need of the human being to see something to represent deity because it is too abstract for him.
Could someone provide a link to Craig Truglia's response?
This was an amazing response, Dr. O
thank you sir!
Another Great video Dr Ortlund!!
Hi Dr Ortlund! I had a question. I want to understand your position better. In your other video before this one, and at the beginning of the video here you said that the early church was resoundingly and unanimously against statues, images, and altars. But when you posted the quote of Tertullian talking about the bronzed serpent the counterargument you provided was that there's a distinction between icons/images and venerating them. To me, this seems like a clear contradiction. Do you believe that there are instances of images that were used in the early church but just weren't venerated? Could you clarify your position so that I can understand better?
Hi Briana! I stated a number of times in the initial video that the concern is with the cultic use of images (venerating them, using them in prayer, etc.). The early church was resoundingly and unanimously opposed to that. The other terms I used are didactic, commemorative, or decorative uses of images. (On one occasion I spoke of aesthetic uses also.) Those are not the target of critique, though some early Christians were even opposed to these uses also. I belabored this distinction early on in discussing the meaning of icons. To reiterate: what the early church resoundingly opposed was venerating images, not general use of religious art. Hope this helps...
@@TruthUnites my question now is, you said a few times that the question of veneration is silent in a lot of these passages. They are talking about adoration, and silent on veneration. How do we know that they are unanimously against veneration if a lot of times they are silent on veneration?
@@brianaalece5314 Adoration could be used synonymously with veneration, and both are universally abhorred in the early church. The specific acts associated with what Gavin is calling “the cultic use of images” would include bowing, kneeling, burning incense, and praying to an image, all of which would qualify as veneration and were rejected. There was no silence on this issue in the early church, as Gavin made clear in his initial video. There was also no defense of these practices in the early church until the sixth or seventh centuries, which Gavin also documented. God bless
@@michaelstephens9278 the issue at this point then would be that adoration and veneration are viewed as clumped together when they are distinct in Catholic theology. Perhaps a lot of productive conversation could come from focusing on the distinction as well?
@@brianaalece5314 I agree, I would be very eager to find out more about how the distinction between the terms came about.
I am Egyptian (ethnically Coptic). Although I go to an Egyptian evangelical church near Toronto I know many people in the Coptic Orthodox Church (the biggest of the Oriental Orthodox churches). I know a couple priests and I can try to connect them to you if you want. Love your content
@@elvisisacs3955 my guy!!
I visited St. Mark’s in Toronto for a service a while back. Didn’t know there are Egyptian evangelical churches in the city, that’s great to hear!
@@ChristiansColloquy yeah the Egyptian evangelical community is small, but we’re a thriving church. If you’re ever free come for a visit. The church is called Chapel Place and we’re in Markham
@@nour7anna Oh sweet! I'll definitely visit sometime soon. I occasionally preach for Fellowship Baptist in Markham.
@@nour7anna Just checked out your website, fascinating! I'd love to connect sometime and learn more about the church. My girlfriend's father is an elder in the Ghanaian Presbyterian church in Toronto, and I love hearing his perspective on church life & culture in Canada.
Lol. Trent and Jimmy responds video out 2 hours ago.
I love the way Dr. Gavin articulates his thoughts and positions what us Protestants struggle with, and similarly I appreciate Trent Horn's approach in challenging what we believe. But Dr. G's video was 1hr +, this rebuttal is 40 + min, and Trent and Jimmy had an almost 3 hour response!!!. How on earth do we get to truth, unity, common ground in this back and forth, see-saw approach that is a real time sink. Why don't you guys create a channel together, spend an hour a month discussing a divisive topic in the interest if unity and then go enjoy a beer together afterwards knowing you've done more to unite the Church with the platforms and fame you have all been blessed with.
Or maybe I'm smoking something and that would never work. I guess I'm just tired that after 500 years it seems we no closer to genuinely understanding each other.
Regardless, good job Gavin. Always appreciate the time and effort you put into these videos, even if I don't always have the time (and brain power) to really follow all your arguments.
I think (or at least hope) that this lengthy discussion could lead to shorter videos going forward, as both sides trim the fat off the arguments that have no merit.
Craig has bad mouthed you in post, and other places, and even on the Orthodox Discord (about 10k members) they say stuff like “here’s Gavin with his Fake Charity” they are bad two faced imo, only cordial to your face then go on to attack You and not defend veneration or whatever topic they want to defend. I’ll bet he makes a response to your response. They cannot and will not let you have the last word on icons, because by their own doctrine it is CURSEABLE for them not to.
They can’t seem to wrap their minds around a kind and charitable Christian. That just goes to show what kind of people they’re surrounding themselves with.
We're pretty upfront with Gavin
They are Constantine’s imperial pagan state church of the 7th century Byzantine empire pretending to be the church and Christianity. They are satanic gaslighting sociopaths. I know how they really are so did the monk Scott Nevins that killed himself in Arizona.
Pray for those who persecute you. Love your enemies.
Why would they EVER let him have the last word on icons if they believe he's wrong in the first place? That's an awkward criticism-- it comes off as "let me be right and unchallenged", even if the other has a reason to challenge your assertions still.
It's not like Gavin's going to stop unless he feels he's said enough that can stand on its own, either. Should I be saying that he won't let them have the last word on icons, because it'd necessarily wreck his own convictions?
For discussion with Oriental Orthodox, there is Fr. Anthony Mourad. He was on Gospel Simplicity, and he is also on Coptic Orthodox answers, both to be found on RUclips.
Dr. Ortland, I am completely in the camp of Orthodox use of icons being doctrinal development. I have my reasons and see them as no less than totally scriptural.
@YAJUNYUAN yes
@@fr.davidbibeau621 Okay, can you give us more?
Ok but it’s not scriptural, like at all. In fact it is commanded against. There is no development from scripture if you are being honest with the text
Exodus 20:3-5
“You shall have no other gods before me.
“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of ANYTHING THAT IS IN HEAVIN above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them (proskuneó (venerate) LXX) or serve (latreuo (worship) LXX) 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,
The veneration of a carved image is a false god, regardless of intent
@@bersules8 Listing items is not a counter-argument to what I presented.
Addressing the ark really quickly:
Exodus 25:22 / There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are on the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you about all that I will give you in commandment for the people of Israel
God's presence was actually with the people there. The ark was not "a doorway". Also, God commanded this. You seem shocked that God can do things that He asks us not to do?
God also had Moses lift up the bronze serpent in the wilderness, but then later when Hezekiak smashes it we are told
2 Kings 18:4-5 / And he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, according to all that David his father had done. 4 He removed the high places and broke the pillars and cut down the Asherah. And he broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the people of Israel had made offerings to it (it was called Nehushtan). 5 He trusted in the Lord, the God of Israel, so that there was none like him among all the kings of Judah after him, nor among those who were before him.
Well, Saturday is still the Sabbath, even if anti Christ pope thought to change times and laws by moving it
@@bersules8 Nothing's wrong with images. It's giving them more power than they have, and anathematizing those who don't give then such power, that's the problem.
@@bersules8 So when God told people never to make images or bow to them, I guess he was just kidding. It was just a funny prank, bro.
That's what we were waiting for!
At 30:10 in your citation of Ricco, there's a quoted gloss "image, simulate us." That should be "simulatus," no? There are some other oddities in the text, however, that may reflect second-language problems.
Seems to me people may get so worked up because they care for people’s souls and realize what someone believes has an effect on where they spend eternity?
Loving the beard bro.
Sometimes, the images from the synagogue at Dura Europa have been used to justify the use of ikons, but they are narrative images . Purely didactic scenes used to teach.
That's what Christian Icons do. They also serve as representations of the saint that we use to remember them.
I know how hard it is for western materialists to grasp what's going on. I have to believe that Christ didn't incarnate himself and go to western Europe for a reason. I'm sorry, but most of western life is wrong about life.
@@BarbaPamino wut
@@morgunism αλήθεια
@@BarbaPamino That's *one* of the functions of icons. Don't just claim that and use it to justify your whole position. An icon that merely teaches a story is not the same thing as the way icons are used today.
And no, the doctrine of incarnation does *not* hang on the premise of icon veneration. I'm frankly baffled that so many people think this.
@Επαμεινωνδας Κοσμας op comment: existence of icons does not prove veneration.
You: icons teach and you're all materialists jesus didn't incarnate to you? West is wrong?
Am I following you correctly?
but is it licit to venerate video thumbnails?
Thanks for this! I have been following your communit posts and even responded to one of Craig's posts that argued since Irenaeus only called certain practices "in the practice of the gentiles" in his criticism of gnostic uses of images that the crowning the images alongside pagan philosophers must not have been a part of Irenaeus' criticism. It felt incredibly tenuous and weak to argue that because of the syntax of a criticism of gnosticism it must be the case that it was an accepted Christian practice, so I just had to comment something.
I am glad you are continuing this dialogue, especially after Truglia's insinuations of you as dishonest and uncharitable; it shows a lot of grace on your part.
You’re right! When you do apologetics, if people don’t like and/or understand what you say they are quick to call you dishonest.
So true.
8 I am the Lord God: that is my name: I will not
give my glory to another, nor my praises to graven images.
(Isaiah 42:8)
God glory was in the ark of the covenant, which God himself told Moses to make, so that his glory with go them
@@pdub69triniboy the Ark remained behind the veil of which ONLY the high priest *alone* was allowed to approach *once* a year. The Ark contained two nameless cherubim. The middle (mercy seat) where God dwelt was....👉empty.👈 The mercy seat was where the invisible God dwelt. The example of the Ark is a poor example.
This debate is so stupid. I see no problem with imagery to help remind or teach the faith. But honestly this is not rocket science. To bow down before a piece of plaster or wood or stone that man has *made* is ridiculous.
The scriptures clearly condemn the making of idols, images especially to worship or bow down to.
Deuteronomy 4:15-18 says,
"Keep therefore your souls carefully. You saw NOT ANY SIMILITUDE in the day that the Lord God spoke to you in Horeb from the midst of the fire:
LEST PERHAPS BEING DECEIVED YOU MIGHT MAKE YOU A GRAVEN SIMILITUDE, OR IMAGE of male or female,
The similitude of any beasts, that are upon the earth, or of birds, that fly under heaven,
Or of creeping things, that move on the earth, or of fishes, that abide in the waters under the earth. *Catholic Douey Rehiems bible.*
God forbade any image of Himself, because He did not want Israel to idolize the image or worship it.
Amen
@@pdub69triniboyyikes. Icon veneration is now the same thing as the Ark of the covenant? Careful buddy
@@pdub69triniboyand His glory is NOT in icons.
The "truth" of academic/archeaological & theological scholarship changes significantly over time - often markedly changing over the period of even a few decades. This is often due to "new" discoveries; but, more often than that, it changes based on whatever the cultural zeitgeist may be at a particular place and time.
If one's theology is built centrally around verification through academic scholarship, then one is building on "theological sand".
Are you suggesting that one can glean no useful information from carefully studying the primary sources (the church fathers)? How is your opinion any different than saying "we can't possibly know what's true"? What would you have him do instead?
@@josephbrandenburg4373 is that what I said? No useful information? No, not at all - that's an extrapolation you've made built upon an assumption.
Did I say Church Fathers? No, absolutely not. I think you should either re-read my comment, or perhaps I need to further clarify: I'm stating that reading "the latest & greatest" from academia to support one's theology is a poor idea.
As far as the usefulness of the "wisdom of the world", the channel 'Orthodox Wisdom' posted an excellent and also relevant video concerning this topic earlier today: ruclips.net/video/QAFeQi72yDw/видео.html
@@George-ur8ow But if the "academic consensus" is just a careful study of the primary sources...
@@josephbrandenburg4373 if it is so very careful & accurate, then, academic consensus would not change. However, academic consensus changes significantly over decades, let alone centuries.
Theology is beyond the realm of the tangible, the academic & the scholastic. This is one of the chief errors of the west after the schism.
Watch the brief video from Orthodox Wisdom. It specifically addresses the topic in a much better way than I ever could. The video is simply a short reading from blessed Orthodox Monk Seraphim Rose, of Platina, California.
@@George-ur8ow Perhaps I can watch the video tomorrow... but I'm not sure you're being fair here. Is there any evidence that the scholarship in this area has, un fact, changed?
Climate "science" changes all the time, because it's a front for bribery and other forms of corruption. That doesn't mean that there's no objective truth that can be discerned from careful study. Look at the development, for example, of physics or astronomy. Rather than changing, each new discovery builds the past. Newton's laws are still taught to children in school to this day, even though Einstein's theories and quantum chromodynamics provide us with additional "laws" which are also true. Did the consensus change? Of course not. And why should it matter if it had? Astronomers switched to a Solar model when Galileo gave them incontrovertible proof. The changes in consensus don't happen arbitrarily.
Well, I'll try to remember to check the link before responding further. But I don't really understand what the alternative is to using the method of scholarship to learn (trusting other scholars only insofar as you can see their evidence).
Seems to me, with WHATEVER one might be venerating - whether it be it icons or anything else - a Christian should ask themself several key questions about it: 1) Especially, as it may relate to your faith, is it taking, or does it even have the potential to, take your focus off of interacting with or contemplating God? 2) As all Christians have a direct access to God, why would you be obsessed with mere things created by the hand of man? 3) Why do you need it? 4) Is it something that can easily be abused - or that has that danger (particularly for immature Christians, or naively, by unbelievers) - as it impacts our relationship with God? Of course, most anything could become an unhealthy focus, but we know that icons can, at best, easily be misunderstood by unbelievers or theologically naive believers. While the scholarship and being aware of key viewpoints are great, it really should boil down to how one answers these questions. And, as various leaders and movements within Christ's Church have historically been wrong and have contradicted the teachings of Scripture, we need to be careful as to how much whatever views inform us today.
Excellent post. Hence scripture is the standard. The measuring stick. The point of correction for all other things. Calvin said the human heart is a non stop idol factory. We need God’s word to keep us grounded and from error
I enjoy listening to this sort info!
Your material is good and I appreciate your desire to be Irenic, but there is a time to call Idolatry what it is.
So true. I get the spirit of unity and peace, it’s needed. But idolatry is idolatry and I have a hard time believing that Jesus would have done anything but flip the tables and rip the idols down
In regards to an Oriental Orthodox who would be willing to dialogue... I have no idea how to contact him, but Sub Deacon Daniel (Syrian Orthodox) has dialogued with / debated Craig Trulia on his channel. Perhaps he might be someone to try to reach out to?
Time-stamp
13:18, 14:08, 15:15 - Elaborating on Origen’s context. For Christians, “statues” are virtues.
So are the Orthodox idolators? I would like to hear from Dr. Ortland. It's a yes or no question. How can idolators be Christian? Some of the comments on here say we are devoid of the Gospel too. This is a question in good faith.
Absolutely not Christian :)
@@4emrys with the smiley face I can't tell if you are kidding.
If I were to guess how Dr. Ortlund would respond, and it’s only a guess, I think he would say it is idolatry but not necessarily intentional or embraced idolatry-wherein people can have misunderstanding and even sin in this area and still be Christian.
@@levifox2818 forgive me. I don't want a guess. I'm not misunderstanding either. So I have no excuses there.
@@fr.davidbibeau621
That’s alright, I thought I’d offer it in case you did. Dr. Ortlund gets more comments than he has time to respond to
Dr. you speak to Icon veneration as a “development”. How do you reconcile the fact that the reformation came about a millennium and a half down the historical timeline?
But Protestants aren’t the ones claiming there weren’t developments. EO and RC claim everything they do goes right back to the Apostles.
@@theosophicalwanderings7696 I didn’t realize developments were biblically, ok. I’m sure all sorts of creative interpretation is done around Jude 1:3.
Church tradition says veneration does go back to the apostles as the council states. Church tradition also says St Luke was the first iconographer. And to admit that icons existed, like in the catacombs but say they weren’t venerated because a scholar didn’t take note of it is an interesting position for sure.
Appealing to figures, not canonized by the Church as Saints, and sometimes as heretics, like Origin, is also an interesting appeal.
@@L2A815 Protestants say developments *aren't* okay. That's *why* there was a reformation.
@@Draezeth What counts as a "development"? The canon was developed-- there was never even an ecumenical council to declare a Scriptural canon, and different regions had books that other regions excluded.
Do you know what the Reformation even was? It was a return to the scripture and the early church. Stripping away all the man made accretions and pagan influences and abuses of the church. It wasn’t something “new” it was reforming back to the original
The contention around 16:50 that linguistically the honor goes to Christ and Peter rather than the image is exactly the iconodoule case.
The Eternal Logos made himself into a literal image (or icon) when He deified human flesh.
Well you have an exact depiction of him ? Because if not you are worshipping a different man.
One big problem with this. In that blurb that you quoted from St Epiphanius of Salamis, the book that it is exceprted from is entirely dedicated to PROVING THAT THE QUOTE IS A FORGERY. The only quotation from a Saint (as opposed to those of anathematized heretics like Origen and Tertullian) that you present is demonstrably a fabrication. Points from the Conclusion:
1. "We take it for that it is not credible that Epiphanius of Salamis could have claimed that no one, at the end of the 4th century, had ever heard of Christian images".
2. "We accept that the iconophobic writings manifest a docetic Christology, that is, a one-sided Christology, leaning in favor of divinity, which thus diminishes the full reality of the humanity. This orientation clearly contrasts the opinions of Epiphanius."
3. "However eccentric Epiphanius of Salamis may have been, there is no authentic witness that allows us to see him as an extreme iconophobe or an iconophobe of any sort."
4. "We accept Nicephorus's point that the key to solving the authenticity question is found in the doctrinal differences between the two corpora [the true and false writings of Epiphanius] and not in the similarities of literary style."
At the outset, before engaging the specific arguments, my question is whether this is even relevant. Let's grant for a moment that it is an accretion: does that mean it is automatically wrong? Noah's ark had the same dimensions as the Nephilim; the first city builder was Cain, yet we await a Heavenly Jerusalem; the first attempt to bend heaven to earth was the pagan kingly succession sex rituals that resulted in Nephilim (still practiced by the Japanese emperors btw), but the successful attempt to bend heaven to earth was the Incarnation. The pattern is pretty clear: fallen man creates something for evil, and God finds a way to sanctify it and turn it to good. Is it impossible for images, which have historically been created for evil, to likewise be sanctified and find their proper place within the expanding ontological hierarchy established by the Incarnation?
I wonder if the faith-community vs objective scholarship divide is in fact a subtle working out of the distinctive methodologies of Protestant and Catholic/Orthodox authority.
Since the Reformation arose in/through the Renaissance, the Protestant impulse is that truth is (in a sense) 'more objective' and can be discerned through proper research, *even apart from* the faith-community. Thus the opinion of scholarship (even secular scholarship) holds more weight for what may or may not be true.
Whereas, the Catholic/Orthodox framework insists that the truth of the religion can only be ascertained from _within_ the lens and authority of the believing community (even if this leads to accepting objectively unproven claims). If I'm correct about this and not posing a caricature, this would potentially pose an issue of straying into "institutional fideism" when pushed too far.
(On the other hand, the danger of the Protestant impulse is a de-sacralizing of truth and divorcing it from the role of the faith-community; very complex).
Very good observation. I would say that the catholic/orthodox view is more that truth is ordinarily discovered within the faith community.
@@1984SheepDog Building off of that, if it's objectively true should it not be able to be discoverable regardless? Put another way: Is Christian theology true because the Church says so or is it true regardless and the Church merely has the duty to transmit that message?
In a way, the Catholic/Orthodox mode of authority can lend itself well to a Postmodern Neo-Kantianism where the Noumenal (Truth) is indiscernable and only the authoritative interpretive-community can determine reality. Which is very subjectivist.
@Ⲉvⲁⲛgⲉlⲓⲥⲁl Ⲥⲁⲧⲏⲟlⲓⲥ what do you mean by "objectively true"? The Trinity would not be discoverable or be understood by all those outside the church as "objectively true", but they are 100% true.
I think we would both agree that God revealed the truths of the Christian faith to the church, and not to the world, and gave the church the mission (authority) and grace to transmit it to all generations.
@@1984SheepDog Well sure, but His revealing of Himself is in in the life/death/resurrection of His son which happened objectively in history, theoretically can be discerned and accepted as truth by a secular historian who never darkens the door of a church.
The Christian community has the role of proclaming Christ -- which is where the power unto saving faith arises -- and what that message means.. but the 'objective reality' of God's revelation (beginning with Abraham and culminating in Christ) is true apart from the interpretive community. Which is why there is a difference for e.g. between "revelation" and "theology", truth and reflection on truth.
The impression one gets from the way that at least Post-Vatican I Catholicism speaks is that a teaching is true because "The Church" infallibly declares it to be so regardless of outside discernable evidence. The concern is that this often is applied to the canon of Scripture (the church doesn't "recognize" authenticity but actually establishes it) and logically this could be applied to the Resurrection in the most extreme -- and is essentially the approach to the various Marian dogmas.
@@1984SheepDog It's just a matter of where you go. The Protestant is going to start with establishing the historical reality of the Resurrection and the authenticity of the Apostolic witness through the Christian Scriptures (using external sources of scholarship to defend it) -- even going so far as discerning what the historical witness of the church is through secular scholarship, apart from an organic dialogue in community. Only then, arriving within a faith-community that he believes best upholds the faithful transmission of this revelation.
Whereas the Catholic/Orthodox is going to start by establishing the authenticity of the church (which thankfully rests upon the historical reality of the resurrection, but it often is minimized to a precondition). From there, whatever the church establishes is infallibly binding and authoritative (regardless of evidence).
My point is, there is something lacking and even potentially dangerous with both approaches. Protestantism can lean epistemically Modernist (rational/empirical), whereas Catholicism/Orthodoxy lay the groundwork for an epistemic skepticism that borders on the Postmodern. I would suggest this is why in postmodernity, these older Churches are making come-back whereas in modernity Protestantism was king (how could it not? The latter produced the former).
Very well done. I think you give Craig much more credit than he is due but maybe that’s best for communicating to those vulnerable to being deceived by him.
Agreed. Former EO here. I don't think that Craig is acting in bad faith, but he is self deceived, and of course is not a scholar.
@@1Immanuel8 Just curious what convinced you to leave the EOC? We don’t often hear the stories of people like you.
@@lynnmmartin my experience of priests and bishops acting in a non Christian manner drove me to question my underlying assumption of their authority. That led me to read Scripture, and see what I could find in the NT about priests and bishops. I was surprised that the NT describes an entirely different structure of authority in the Church. Once I saw that then the rest that is distinctively EO came tumbling down- icons, saints in the EO sense, monasteries and that system, relics, incense, bells, etc. Former priest Joshua Schooping wrote a pretty good book about this. Also- and perhaps this is the crux- who saves? Is it the Lord Jesus Christ? Or the Church? That then goes into a discussion about the sacraments. But before all this is the question- what does it mean to be born again? What does it mean to receive the holy Spirit. When I started pondering on all these things, it soon became evident that EO serves another Jesus, and preaches a different gospel, not the Jesus of Scripture, nor the Gospel you find in the Word of God.
@@1Immanuel8 you're anathema. Also your points were pretty moot since you say the Church doesn't save?!? Like what you're a complete fool if you think that the theanthropic body doesn't save and shooting is a plagiarizing liar who was exposed by Perry Robinson and was gonna get defrocked
@@shiningdiamond5046your comment is actually a good example of my experience in the EO church. No love of Christ. No interest in wanting to know the truth of the matter. The Lord Jesus Christ says, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." The Lord did and independent work of salvation in my life outside any church context and brought me to faith using the Scripture and dreams and night visions. Prior to that I had been a Lakota ceremonial pipe keeper and sun dancer, if that means anything to you. It was a very difficult new birth in Christ- a couple of weeks after I unconditionally submitted my life to the Lord, He gave me a night vision where the Lord showed me my sin and also the spirits I had been doing ceremony with for about 15 years. I wailed before the Lord- I mean heaving my guts out wailing- for a couple of months after that. I only entered the EO church several years later- after a brutal truck crash. I was severely concussed and in a lot of pain. The enemy led me down a garden path away from the simplicity that is in Christ to the bells, incense, icons- all the stuff and nonsense of the EO church. Several months after entering the church, I suddenly came to my senses, and immediately left. It is considerably more complicated than that of course, but that is the long and short of it. Having said that, if you believe that a theanthropic body is what is going to save you and not the Lord Jesus Christ and what He accomplished on the Cross- have at it.
Even if you don't follow Gavin's conclusions, you cannot deny that he does is best to be rigorous, thorough, truthful, fair and balanced. Of course if you believe, based on Mathew 16:16-19 and Acts 15, that it is for the Apostolic successors to adjudicate doctrinal disputes, taking into account new theological states of affairs (v.g the implications of the incarnation), then you cannot but accept the result of Nicea II in order to remain united to the Body of Christ.
Brother Ortlund, this is not about icon veneration but it is about apologetics, anyone else viewing this comment is also welcome to take this argument and develop it further I would like to see more discussion.
FIRST LOOK UP ANY VIDEO DESCRIBING THE BINYANIM, most are ten minutes, the three letter verb roots and modifications are the foundation of the Hebrew language, and then here we go.
This is not the way I would start learning a language, HOWEVER, this is why I would like to develop a Christian apologetics argument proving the existence of the YHVHJESUS from the Hebrew language as the "Holy Tongue".
First the question: PRESUMING LANGUAGE EVOLVED THROUGH USE OVER TIME, HOW IS IT POSSIBLE FOR HEBREW TO EXIST?
1. You can't evolve a system based on three letter roots, and how could natural selection SELECT FOR VERBS?
2. Although the presumption would be that the speech preceded the script, the construction of the binyanim would require being designed in script before it could be applied to speech. How could men design that in community and apply it? At best one man would have had to complete it, require his wife to speak it, and that language only, and then teach only that to his children and then those children require that same process with their mates and children.
3. Only the Adam and Eve story, which was originally written in Hebrew can account for the language. The seventh from Adam, Enoch is called THE SCRIBE, if 1Enoch was composed 2nd Century BC wouldn't any Hebrew scholar and scribe have been curious about what type of script he used? They would have known about cuneiform, hieroglyphics and the evolution of the style of hebrew script from "proto Canaanite" to the second century style. They would also have known that both the Greek and Aramaic came from the Hebrew.
4. In the sequel to the movie on dating the Exodus PATTERNS OF EVIDENCE, the scholars proposed that Ephraim or Manasseh invented the Aleph Bet, being from Joseph and the Egyptian Asenath the daughter of the priest, by creating phonetic hieroglyphics, but why? And that has to common to the Hebrews by the time of Moses, but being raised in pharoahs house why would he learn it since there's no evidence the Egyptians used it? Yet Moses had it. Did he learn it from Jethro the priest of Midian? The book of job is older than the Torah, the language and Aleph Bet had to have existed in the land of UZ outside of Israel between the time from Abraham to Moses. Also, after 400, or 200 years why did the children of Israel still speak Hebrew? African Americans didn't maintain their original African languages.
Please share this if you know any scholars who might be interested, I think it deserves peer review.