I love how you and Gavin have your dissagrements but kind of have his back when others attack his arguments :)) Such a beautiful thing to see christian brotherly love displayed even when there are dissagrements and without compromise on doctrine.
Gavin is just a lost brother who hasn't found Lutheranism yet. One day he might understand the full glory in baptism and communion and that liturgy and sacrament are beautiful and biblical
One of the reasons I could not remain within the Orthodox church is this very issue- when they are simply to inspire and to make us think of God, they're fine. As an educational tool, they are fine also, but where I struggled and ultimately left the Orthodox church is the position that venerating images is necessary. That felt more like idolatry.
I really think icon veneration is a protestant *phobia.* I love the saints & venerate them & the more i venerate them the more it draws me on to emulate their lifes as ordinary men & women (so yes we should venerate them). But I worship & only worship the triune God of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit.
It's shocking that it is a dogma in the EO. The fact that we see so much warning against idolatry and so much warning against adding to the Gospel in the word of God and traditions still do it says a lot about the deceitfulness of the human heart.
@@lkae4 To imply something is so as you Christian you *must* be absolutely sure it is so, because if *it's not, you* are *blatantly lying* about a man who worships God alone. Are you still willing to be double down on your *phobia* & insinuate it's idolatry?
Thank you Dr. Cooper. One one hand, it is very frustrating if the RC's aren't discussing the early sources and only defaulting to the Theological Development viewpoint when sources don't agree. On the other hand, RC's have no other choice if they truly believe in the infallibility of both the Magisterium (at certain levels) and the councils. We are most definitely at an immovable impasse that can only ultimately be reconciled by either acquiescing to Rome's authority or rejecting it. After 4 years of working through all the other beliefs and holding them up to the light of scripture and the church fathers, it now comes down to reckoning with the one overarching issue of authority. Perhaps I should create my own Bayesian(?) analysis and settle this once and for all! :p
The problem with Jimmy and Trent's video is the attitude they had. The ending where jimmy talked about how disappointed he is with Gavin is ridiculous. Also towards the beginning them taking stabs at his thumbnail image is also silly. Trent and Jimmy came across as offended at Gavin's good scholarship .
It became a really bizarre thing to watch. Ok, Gavin makes strong arguments in his videos. Should he stop it for some reason because it makes the catholic answers job harder? Does Gavin need to run his content by Jimmy and Trent so that they can give the green light? Gavin found himself a market niche of dealing with Catholic Answers’, and everyone can see that he is pushing the strongest arguments in a charismatic and pastoral way. That doesn’t mean they have any right to be pissed about how many videos he makes and what topics he picks. Maybe they should stop making so many videos attacking sola scriptura and other catholic talking points. Lastly, Jimmy and Trent did not seem very composed throughout their video. It was sad to see, I normally like Jimmy’s work.
@@jordand5732 It's interesting you mention "Catholic Answers." I became familiar with the organization about 5-6 years ago and started reading their material. It was before I really got into church history and they had me scratching my head a few times. I've been very fortunate to be in a vibrant fellowship and church with strong, compassionate, qualified leaders, for a long time. I have always been around people that can hold me accountable, encourage me in faith, and challenge me spiritually. I know there are many ills in the modern church but I have never had the anxiety I see people with, today. If your faith is driven by everything you can get your hands on to read and process on your own, something is off. Anyway, not too long after becoming acquainted with CA, I really developed an interest in church history. I enrolled in a college class, which necessarily forced me to learn and study things I wouldn't direct myself to. In parallel, I started pealing back historical layers on a lot of the arguments I heard from CA apologists. Eventually, I realized how much deception there is in a lot of the material, misrepresentation of history, etc. Further, a lot of the arguments they make against Protestant's and apologetic claims are really novel...this whole idea that Sola Scriptura causes chaos and confusion, thus leading to the proliferation of denominations, first appeared in the 1980's-90's. The Eliakim typology from Isaiah 22, as an argument for the existence of the papacy, doesn't appear until about 1990. The Moses seat of Matthew 23 being prefigured in Exodus 18 and becoming the basis for "ex cathedra" is another CA apologist special that I can't find anywhere in history before the organization existed. Now they are all off scrounging for every vague use of certain keywords throughout history to support these things, completely ignoring the novelty of the arguments themselves. If people could learn to hone in on the language that is used when these apologists speak, identify anachronisms, research the history of the claims, etc. I think they would see things a lot differently. Alas, I think most people want to be told what to believe and the modern American bent towards instant gratification, leads people to devour anything that suits their passions and desire to feel like they are part of something ancient and nostalgic, no matter how inaccurate or embellished it is.
I just read John of Demascus on Sacred Images. I agree absolutely with what you said. If there is someone who thinks the creation of any images is wrong in and of itself, that book makes solid, solid arguments for incarnation opening the door to the possibility of acceptable religious art. His arguments are great. But he never makes an argument from their creation to putting them in the assembly of worship and systematically, regularly making prostration before them and kissing them. He makes this leap, and it is frustrating because he does such a convincing job explaining the insanity of the iconoclasts, but he doesn't even really attempt to bridge from their existing to incorporating them into liturgical worship. It is just assumed.
I think St. John makes a solid argument that the veneration of sacred images is correct and beneficial. In, "How many ways we show worship to creatures," St. John describes these kinds of things in detail; Not just the veneration of images of Jesus or the Theotokos or the Saints, but our veneration of other things. We render unto God's creatures what is due to them, and render unto God that which is fitting for God.
@Bb Dl ai see what you mean. I simply think a defense of iconodulia needs to be written for us in this time, wheb there are not really many iconoclasts left but we who appreciate religious art and are cautious about what we bow to and kiss, not wanting to offend God. I know you disagree, but I hope you appreciate that for many protestants, asking them to kiss an icon is like asking them to kiss a scorpion. It goes against their natural instincts in a deep way.
@@lucduchien I would point out that, especially today in the english-speaking sectors of the Orthodox Church, there is a push for developing the "mind of the Church," or the "mind of Christ," because our society has conditioned us towards nominalism and materialism and other ways of thinking contrary to the "ancient faith," as I understand it. There are some presuppositions that have to be changed, at a minimum, for those converting from atheism, from Protestantism, even Roman Catholicism, etc.
@@lucduchien The reeeeeallly radical Protestants, having rejected the very foundations of Roman Catholicism in the first millennium Church, have fallen into a number of different Judaizing heresies because they reject the idea of Holy Tradition outside the Scriptures, in whole or in part. Take the Seventh-Day Adventists, for instance, who, in their interpretation of the Scriptures, take their rigorist view of keeping the Sabbath.
Totally agree on Newman. I have also had people argue that when Nicea II anathematizes "those who do not salute images" has ALWAYS meant "those who force others not to salute images" and then challenge me to prove them wrong from infallible magisterial documents not just writings of fathers. It is impossible to nail down their positions because they can reinterpret things in light of their modern doctrine and explain away evidence as not infallible, so I just had to let him "win" because there is nothing I can do to change his mind.
My thoughts are: how do the orthodox interpret the anathema language because I bet we find them more consistent. At least the orthodox don’t constantly change the terms and definitions and time travel their stuff, from what I can tell anyway.
@@jordand5732 The anathema makes sense if a) you had ever been to an orthodox church b) you understood the context of the 8th century. a) Because we venerate the chalice at times, we venerate the cross & the bible, we venerate the priestly shoul etc, It would be odd to be fine with all this but then suddenly have a problem with the veneration of icons & rather hypocritical & a double standard. b) Because many iconophiles were being beaten up, imprisoned or exiled, bloodied & bruised etc & of course churche destroyed because of it (same type of despicable thing the 16th century reformers did). This ppl deserved to be anathematized for their actions
As I listened to this and have had icon videos (for and against) I passed by a beer truck that read “revolution or reverence, you decide” as part of their new beer’s slogan. Haha. Local brew company slogan for their new beer I guess.
God is unchanging, the same yesterday today and forever, God is not a man that he should change his mind, the word endures forever. I take issue with the whole “doctrinal development” because God never changes, the word never changes, and until all heaven and earth the smallest pen stroke will not be taken away. So logically the worship, understanding, and observance by the church shouldn’t change. If Saint Paul, Saint Peter, Saint James, or Saint John were zapped into a church service he should be able to recognize a church service and church doctrine today. I fear that most modern churches would be shocking to the apostles and result in a very strongly worded epistle letter.
@@bradleyperry1735 You shouldn’t be worshiping apostles or saints or angels or archangels. Worship the triune God alone. Acts 10:25-26 “ As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. 26 But Peter made him get up. “Stand up,” he said, “I am only a man myself.” Saint Paul in Acts 14:15 when Romans tried to worship him in Lystra said: “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them.” Revelation 19:9-10 “And the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.” And he said to me, “These are the true words of God.” Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God.” For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” If “we worship them every Sunday you mean “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” YES If you are worshiping saints or angels NO. In our liturgy we “WITH angels, and archangels and all the company of Heaven laud and magnify…” We praise God (the creator) WITH all the created, men and angels alike.
As a Catholic I tend to interprete Nicea II as restrictively as I can, since it comes up with a borderline doctrine of icon veneration that is very close to the redline of paganism. I stand for ultra-light veneration of images (vg. Mary or Saints) in so far as one keeps a totally Christ centered worship attitude that sees Mary and the Saints as works of God's grace and mercy. If one lives in a pagan context or does not fully understand the doctrine of the Communion of Saints icon veneration can easily lead to paganism.
As and Eastern Orthodox I heartily endorsement Catholic position. Unfortunately too many on my side of the aisle that take valuable aides to worship and turn them into items of worship. When I am venerating an Icon I am calling to mind the individual or the event depicted as examples of God's work and in the past and how I may still benefit from it today.
@@dustindustindontworry-jz8dhYeah worship and venerate God with everything you’ve got! Throw out the idols of Mary and the saints and go straight to Christ.
Since I took a course in ecclesiastical architecture, I have learned that, when the great cathedrals of Europe were built, the people of that time were largely illiterate. Statuary, carved scenes, even stained glass windows, were used as story tellers. Learning by pictures told the Bible stories to the masses who had no access to it he Scriptures even if they could read. I look on statues, pictures, etc. as reminders of our predecessors in the faith. Worship them? Not a chance! Visual reminders are powerful.
@ruthgoebel723 That's simply not the official position of the Orthodox Church, however. If you do not "venerate" the images as holy, pray to them, kiss them, view them as direct channels to the Saint, view every act performed towards those pictures as if it is directly being done to the person in them, you're "anathema." A hell bound unbeliever. This is idolatry, no matter how many word games and other obfuscatory nonsense has been applied to it to rationalize it.
@@bradleyperry1735 So you say. Meanwhile, proud Orthodox apologists are all over fighting with anyone who says you ought to be doing all of that for Christ instead of a poorly done picture of some random guy who died 1000 years ago.
I don’t understand what is meant by “respect but not veneration”. What’s the difference? I feel like veneration exists on a spectrum starting with basic respect. Others may have a stronger devotion but it still remains categorically separate from idolatry. It’s starting to feel like “veneration” when used by Protestants means “suspected idolatry” despite idolatry being condemned by Catholic and Orthodox.
This! I think the crux of the issue is opposing worldviews. Catholics and Orthodox view a lot of theology according to degrees. Veneration isn't adoration. A lot of the interaction coming against veneration isn't understanding that spectrum. They are lumping veneration and adoration together as adoration and categorizing education, decoration, or respect as the opposite and excluding it from degrees of veneration.
@@brianaalece5314 I guess feel like any Protestant who has ever had a Nativity scene or not smashed their neighbor's has probably met any "requirements" of Nicaea II.
@@brianaalece5314sure but the problem is that “veneration” often includes BOWING to or in front of such icons. And that’s literally one of the 10 commandments, which is “you shall not make any graven image” AND “you shall not BOW to them or serve them”. Clearly, bowing is a big no no. Shadrach, meshach, and abednego all refused to even BOW to the statue of Nebuchadnezzar… Why is that? Naaman also, although he was going to have to bow to his masters idol/god, he knew it was wrong to bow to it, and he asked Elisha to ask God to pardon him for such bowing. The fact that some people bow to Christian graven images/icons doesn’t change the fact that it’s violating the command to not “bow to them”. To me, it’s very much playing with fire.
@@asgrey22nativity scenes aren’t typically kissed, BOWED to, or prayed in front of by Protestants though, and that’s the difference. It’s not necessarily about having a icon that’s the issue, it’s what is done WITH that icon. If churches want to hang Christian art on their walls and stuff, then fine. But it gets dangerously close (and possibly does) to violating the commandment to not “bow to them or serve them” when using icons the way that many Catholics seem to
@@lakerfan0243 "Then Joshua tore his clothes and fell facedown to the ground before the ark of the LORD, remaining there till evening. The elders of Israel did the same, and sprinkled dust on their heads." Joshua 7:6. Joshua and the elders of Israel literally bowed before the Ark, with its two statues of cherubim. Fr. John Whiteford: "bowing to idols is only objectionable because the object in question **is in fact an idol**, an image of a false deity. In the second commandment we are told that we cannot make an idol, nor may we bow down to them, nor may we worship them (Exodus 20:4-5)... [But] the Psalms specifically command us to worship (literally, bow before) the Ark: 'Exalt ye the Lord our God, and worship the footstool of His feet; for He is holy' (Psalm 98[99]:5)."
Very balanced and thoughtful response. Looks like Gavin Ortlund got the ball rolling on a conversation that very much needed to happen. Does anyone have more information on the article that the Davenant Institute put out? I'm having trouble finding it on their website.
I really don't think the ball needed to get rolling but he got it rolling. Christians could be working together to combat secularism and atheism but instead there is infighting about religous art. The Baptist perspective seems to be that having religious images is idolatry or at least close to it. The Lutheran perspective seems to be you can have them but don't pay homage or "venerate" the image. An the Catholic/EO perspective is that if you kiss an image or bow to it your showing respect to the image of the person or event which it represents and they call that "veneration" which is distinct from worship which the Catechism says "worship is only due to God alone". I don't believe our salvation is dependent on whether we 1. Venerate images 2. Respect but don't Venerate images 3. Or don't tolerate religous images. Just silly to make a big deal out of this
@@donutsrgood4491it’s not silly to make a big deal about this when many who read the clear teaching of the Bible in the OT find that one of the 10 commandments LITERALLY says you shall “not BOW to or serve them” when talking about graven images, which are what *icons* are. So, yeah, when a church is advocating FOR a practice that seems to violate one of the 10 commandments, then it’s a problem. Is it a big deal for eternal salvation? No. But we should still strive to be teaching right doctrine.
@@donutsrgood4491 hmmm, I don’t know. A big part of the Catholic/Orthodox claim is the preservation of apostolic tradition, so if it can be proven that the early church were opposed to the use of images in worship then it would be a problem that must be addressed. Also, if such a practice Is idolatry then you’re sinning against God. So I don’t think it is a waste of time to have such a discussion, especially if you want to honour God rather than just “be right”.
@@lakerfan0243 In the full context God is telling Israel not to worship other gods. Let's look "And God spoke all these words, saying: 2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.3 “You shall have no other gods before Me. 4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image-any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God […] " (Exodus 20:1-5). We get clarification of this because a couple chapters later in Exodus get then commands Moses to tell people to make religious art “Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 2 “See, I have called by name Bezalel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah. 3 And I have filled him with the Spirit of God, in wisdom, in understanding, in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship, 4 to design artistic works, to work in gold, in silver, in bronze, 5 in cutting jewels for setting, in carving wood, and to work in all manner of workmanship. 6 “And I, indeed I, have appointed with him Aholiab the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan; and I have put wisdom in the hearts of all the gifted artisans, that they may make all that I have commanded you […]” (Exodus 31:1-6). So God LITERTALLY commanded Israel to create statues of the cherubim in art. Many of the other OT prohibitions that we don't follow as Christians also were created for Israel to keep them worshiping the one true God. Such as dietary laws, purity laws or punishments for sins. Israel just worshiped the golden calf also to put this in perspective
Accordingly, we afterwards took up his bones, as being more precious than the most exquisite jewels, and more purified than gold, and deposited them in a fitting place, whither, being gathered together, as opportunity is allowed us, with joy and rejoicing, the Lord shall grant us to celebrate the anniversary of his martyrdom, both in memory of those who have already finished their course, and for the exercising and preparation of those yet to walk in their steps - Polycarp For only the harder portions of his holy remains were left, which were conveyed to Antioch and wrapped in linen, as an inestimable treasure left to the holy Church by the grace which was in the martyr - Marytrdom of St Ignatius of Antioch These two early examples should a level of veneration, to not images, but remains and bones. So veneration of the Saints is early. (Veneration meaning honor) The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. - Colossians 1:15 Veneration is different from adoration, even in the Greek from what I've read. Adoration is for God, it meaning for a supreme being, while veneration is honor.
May I request a tag team video on Infallible Ecumenical Councils featuring you, Gavin Ortlund, Matthew Joyner, and Joshua Schooping? I believe it will be very popular. Because Orthodox and Catholic thesis rest on that premise. I am a Byzantine Catholic and I have been following your work while I was a Dutch Calvinist. God bless.
I hope this doesn't happen unless sitting on the other side of the panel are people from the Orthodox or Catholic camp. Many protestants (not all) can't discern some of the flimsy argumentation given by some of these protestant apologists so unfortunately debates or live discussions are needed. How many times do we have to go see someone's 3hr video and then 2hr response videos? Too many times. Let's just get everyone together and examine who really has the truth.
@@IC_XC_NIKA even if they sit together to debate it for 3 weeks it won't convince anyone. Debate only convince what they already believed. A fan of James White will be convinced that he won the debate. While Jay Dyer followers will be certain that he won. Trent Horn supporters confident that he nailed it. I find debate to be less useful. It only end up emotional.
@@IC_XC_NIKA yes cordial conversation would be great. Very rare. Even among saints they fell to sin by assuming the worse. St Athanasius adamantly refused to forgive St Meletius. Had St Basil given up the two won't be reconciled. St Cyril hated St Chrysostom because Constantinople usurped the second rank previously held by Alexandrian See. His uncle deposed Chrysostom for introducing a Novus Ordo Liturgy and for altering the original Creed from Nicaea with Constantinople Creed. St Isidore non stop petitioned Cyril to let go the feud and exonerated Chrysostom by bringing his remain in exile back to Constantinople. Cyril repented and venerated Chrysostom. The list is lengthy. If great saints failed then the bar is really high. Most apologists end up using ad hominem attack and emotional during debate. Imagine Muslims watching the debate. What they see is not two people seeking the truth in love. But rather two enemies insulting one another. I love to see cordial conversation and I pray for one. But in reality I rarely see that materialize. Never lose hope maybe we could see Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants sit together and talk 🙏
Excellent video, this is essentially what Gavin is arguing for. They are okay to use for didactic reasons but not veneration. It's crazy how many times people conflate the two. Thanks for chiming in on this. We need more protestant voices on this topic.
I really think icon veneration is a protestant *phobia.* I love the saints & venerate them & the more i venerate them the more it draws me on to emulate their lifes as ordinary men & women (so yes we should venerate them). But I worship & only worship the triune God of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit.
@@ThruTheUnknown I'm not going to argue against you, the difference is making it a matter of salvation like the council did. Except the early church did not venerate images. It's just not there. Yes there were images used to teach which came a little later. But what we are saying as protestants is it should not be a matter of salvation. We are not saying the EO or Catholics are not saved because they do it, we are just saying there is no evidence for it in the early fathers or scripture and should not be bound to peoples consciousness.
@@BibleFanatics Craig Trugila has a solid article published on his website (Orthodox Christian Theology) on January 13 titled "How Did Early Christians Use Religious Imagery?" in which he addresses this critique. To condense Trugila's work, among the Holy Fathers, Ss. Irenaeus of Lyon, Gregory of Nyssa, and Epiphanius of Salamis attest to the veneration of iconography. Respectfully, the whole "early Church did not venerate images" claim is at best an argument from silence if we ignore the historical data to the contrary. We all know that the ante-Nicaean Church was highly-secretive about the character and content of its Liturgy, which was the context in which the majority of Christians would encounter iconography. The same argument made here against the veneration of icons is also made by evangelicals against the general use of a liturgy.
@The One who studies alot If protestants are wrong about it being idolatry (which they are), then it's an irrational fear which by definition what phobia is (an irrational fear). Ergo *it's not opinion, it is* true using some simple *straightforward logic.*
Rome has made their position unfalsifiable… and there’s something slippery in their argumentation… Perfectly stated. And the worst of it is they seem to be unable to see the fallacy they are operating in.
I am a communicant of the OCA jurisdiction of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Raised as a Southern Baptist and converted to Catholicism win in college. Came to Orthodoxy 40 years ago. I understand the reservations when it comes to veneration of icons. I had that myself once upon a time. From what I understand doctor Cooper is correct in that the earliest of church history there were no icons to speak us. But it's time progressed in the church they did up here in the east as did statues. When I venerate an icon I am calling to mind the individual or the event depicted. It is an aide to worship but not essential to salvation. I am aware that there are those within the Eastern Orthodox Church who have a more medieval interpretation of veneration then that and in my opinion that is regrettable. My local Parish priest is very careful communicate the proper view of veneration so that we do not give glory to the thing but to God- Father, Son and Holy Spirit only.
I also EO. I understand your point but its wrong according to EO theology. 7th councils canon clearly say you MUST venerate them or you will ne anathemized (separated from God). Also EO church teaches that apostoles venerated icons. This is aimply not true historically. EO church is beautiful but it is not biblical and it is not practising apostolic faith. Icons are later development. If I am wrong then I am more than happy if you can show us historical evidences about icon veneration from apostolic era.
Glad to see you join the conversation too. I can imagine it being overwhelming for Gavin, who after all is just one person, responding to the numerous responses uploaded. Love your content!
I’d love to hear more about why you think John of Damascus is basically right, but that it doesn’t lead to veneration. I’m exploring this topic a lot lately and that’s a fascinating position! Thanks for the video
@The Hyper Augustinian I’m curious if that’s what Dr. Cooper means. It’s certainly reasonable to believe JoD is just wrong in his conclusions about proskynesis, but that latria/proskynesis distinction is a huge part of JoD’s writing. It would be hard to say he’s “basically right” as Dr Cooper does, but deny such a key part of his work. Obviously “basically right” is a broad statement so that could very well be what he means. Just curious! 😊 thanks for your response!
> Any Protestant makes a 5-minute video > Every Catholic Apologist makes a 5-hour response video, which are then shared and re-shared amongst each other's channels. The overreaction is intense. Prepare to be "owned" by Matt Fradd or Michael Lofton or both.
Thanks for the informative video Dr. Cooper. Many of the youtube videos on subjects like these have people vigorously defending the practices of their faith tradition. This is understandable but often makes it difficult to know the basic facts of a subject. Your video provided some of that in regarding the historical record of icon veneration in the early church.
What's interesting to me is Newman's hypothesis works best within a Sola Scriptura framework. But within the Magisterium framework, it becomes a clever excuse rather than a profound argument.
So in light of “doctrinal development”, in Rome’s eyes, what the Fathers’ say ultimately has no binding value. The only thing that matters is agreement with Rome’s current understanding. That is a really frustrating stance to argue against.
Thanks for this video on a very important topic. I believe you are right to cite John of Damascus' theology of the icon, though I'm not sure why this isn't sufficient for you. For me this issue comes down to the authority of the Church in a council recognized as ecumenical. Since Nicea II was a council of the Church, I don't think we can simply say we disagree, any more than we would be right to say we simply disagree with Calcedon, for example. The authority is the same.
I would love to see a collaboration video with you and Gavin (and maybe even The Other Paul!) delving into the unfalsifiability of Rome's claims and what the implications and repercussions of that are in regard to ecumenical discussion and even just for an individual's faith when he's under a system that cannot be falsified in any means. I think the apostle Paul made it clear that our faith is supposed to be falsifiable. 1 Corinthians 15:14-19 make if clear that the entire Christian religion is based on a falsifiable reality: Christ raising from the dead. And if He didn't raise from the dead, then we're still in our sins. Pretty clear-cut and falsifiable. Why should Rome's claims be judged by a different metric?
This is a great point but I also want to mention that the barrier to dialog is more than just the development hypothesis, at least in this case. I watched the first few minutes of Akin and Horn and couldn't stomach much more. Akin's analysis of the video thumbnail was just a subtle way of attacking Gavin's credibility by using something immaterial to the actual argument to knock him down and psychologically prep their own tribe to receive their own message. Gavin posted and pinned his own sarcastic comment about his thumbnail when the video went up. Obviously Jimmy didn't read it. Another means of distracting from the material issues raised and "prepping" their audience with inappropriate presuppositions was the discussion of relative importance. Jimmy showed a picture of Gavin's book on "Finding the Right Hills to Die On," implying that Gavin approached the issue by placing excessive importance on it, and did so in hypocritical contrast to his own published position. I don't own the book but searching the preview, it doesn't even appear Gavin discusses icons in it. If that's the case, Akin is dishonestly misrepresenting Gavin, again to paint the picture that he's not credible. Jimmy Akin may view the matter as one that is tertiary and relatively unimportant, but he doesn't get to define the degree of importance for the rest of the Christian world. They do similar things with the "infallibility" of councils. They are infallible until you find something that is contradictory, then the contradiction becomes a mere part that doesn't fall within the scope of infallibility, based on criteria or logic that are defined later. The definition is ever shifting to accommodate their refusal to admit to ever being wrong about anything of material significance. It really boils down to arguments from the height of arrogance.
Do Lutherans bow to the cross during the exaltation of the Holy Cross? I would also point out the Orthodox don’t use doctrinal development. I would point to Craig Truglia’s work for this (RUclips wise) I went from Reformed to Orthodox, but you are still someone I greatly respect, rev. Also, do all Lutherans reject Nicea 2?
As a former Lutheran (now Orthodox Christian), I accepted Nicaea II. I was far from your typical Lutheran, though. It's a definite woodchip in the shoe of those who are acquainted with Church history and care about catholicity.
@@evaneparat Do the LCMS officially reject the council though? There isn't a difference in bowing to the Cross or kissing the Gospel book and kissing an icon. It is all veneration. I'm glad we both found our way home.
The icons in and of themselves are referenced like any other great art, with respect. However the veneration is a symbolic gesture of peace “you should great one another with a kiss of peace” and communion with the saints/Christ. I’ve been to many orthodox churches, nobody kisses an icon because of its sacredness, but to greet the sacred memory of whomever it represents. Why isn’t reverence of the Bible considered idolatry? Because we understand that the physical form of the book is simply our interface with the divine, not the divine to be worshipped.
That's probably fine and all, but to compel someone to do this against his conscience, when it is really not found in the Scriptures themselves, is very troublesome.
No one venerates the Bible the way the Orthodox venerate icons. Even then, Scripture is God-breathed so you really can't equate the two. I have an issue with icon veneration mainly because in practice it blurs the lines between "reverance" and worship. After weekly, if not daily, veneration, at what point does it actually stop being mere reverence? I also just see a lot of people on the ground, both Catholic and Orthodox, who end up treating Mary and the saints almost as demigods. Veneration icons also shouldn't be dogmatic which means if you're against it, your faith is questionable and you're heretical.
@@wesmorgan7729 yes they do. When an orthodox Christian steps into the narthex of the church, they generally kiss both the gospel and the icons displayed. They are both reverenced the same way, with a kiss. Regarding heresy, this isn’t the ecumenical council. If a parishioner showed to an Orthodox Church and didn’t want to venerate the icons, most parishes in most dioceses wouldn’t even bat an eye. We venerate icons exactly the same way we venerate the cross or the book of gospels itself
@@dave1370 I don’t know what kind of experience you’ve had in the past, but I’ve never witnessed the use of compulsion in an Orthodox Church, period. You don’t sound orthodox, so I’ll assume you’re not. In what scenario do you think a man like yourself would find the church breathing down his neck, telling him to kiss the icon?
I’m on the EO/RC side of icons, but I agree with you on how frustrating the RCs are with development lol how do I falsifying anything in their position? They’re the worst with this on the papacy.
The worship given to images which the early Christian writers condemned is exactly what Nicea II specified that Orthodox DON'T do. They made the distinction between adoration and veneration so that the condemnation of worshiping images is maintained in the Church. Nicea II says that the honor is given to the Saint, making use of the icon to direct the mind. The veneration is not to the wood and paint. And how Orthodox show honor is exactly how Moses showed honor in Exodus 18:7. Who would be bold enough to accuse Moses of worshiping Jethro in this passage?
Would you be willing to host a debate on your channel? Either a formal debate or a conversation on the veneration of icons. Everyone is plucking out their sources but let's get Craig or Gavin together & examine the claims.
I can see people overusing Newman but I think you also have to look at what the Church has NOT allowed as valid development before you say she will use Newman to get out of anything or justify anything. Because there are a whole lot of “progressive” elements that Rome has stood hard and fast against that other denominations have not.
This is where everyone loses me. You agree with the theology of St. John, believe images are useful AND have some, but don't think you are showing any kind of reverence or respect for the prototypes by hanging them on display and/or using them in the peripheral of worship? I'm convinced that the issue is mostly rooted in NOT grasping what a body is and how that relates to being IN Christ. But I do appreciate this Lutheran view, though I feel it's only quiting a race right before the finish line. God be with you. Sliánte.
Not sure what you mean by on display or at the periphery of worship; it's not just the altarpiece at Weimar, we've got icons/art in almost every Lutheran building. Maybe we're just refusing to cross that finish line and are sitting on it
@@j.g.4942 By periphery I mean you are not fully engaging them, only partly. Like understanding someone you know is in a room with you but not acknowledging their presence. But if you bow to a cross, a statue, an altar table, you are venerating. I've only been to one Lutheran liturgy so I don't know any details. But having ant images and not understanding how they are connected to the protype, via memory, is strange to me. I mean, just paying attention to an image is showing respect, even if only a little.
@@looqo7632dude, why are you and others not realizing that the argument is NOT necessarily against the mere presence of icons in a place of worship? The argument IS against what a person does in the process of *venerating* such icons. My biggest issue is that the icons are BOWED to, which clearly violates the commandment to not “bow to or serve them” when talking about graven images.
@@looqo7632also, simply paying attention to an image is not “paying respect” anymore than me paying attention to a crazy guy being chased by the cops is me “paying respect” to the crazy guy or the cops. So simply having images hanging on the walls of a church is NOT the same as having something like a statue of Mary and then kissing that statue and bowing before it to pray TO Mary for intercession on your behalf.
They touched the garments of the apostles and were healed… the bones of saints were venerated and touched for healing… so there is veneration of icons.
Thank you Dr. Cooper for your video. I really learned a lot. I was wondering if you could do a video on the Deuterocanonical books and why don't protestants accepts them. Thank you.
Speaking of Gavin Ortlund, he has a helpful video entitled "Which Old Testament Canon is Right? With John Meade". He doesn't specifically speak to the Lutheran nuances, but a very good summary.
I'm not a minimalist. I love religious art, stained glass windows and statues just as my home has lots of colour, rich textures and delightfully aesthetic objects. Whist loving all of this, I worship none of them - only God.
In many Lutheran churches people now as the processional cross goes by. Is there something wrong with this are we blurring the line between veneration of images and images as Didactic tool?
Just had a "discussion" on this over on Trent's channel. I would vote nothing wrong just because there are plenty of ways in which we exhibit some sort of symbolic gesture toward the cross, an altar, the host, or even one another (the Peace). These gestures never even hint at adoration or veneration of an icon in the sense that we've been discussing and there is no expectation of accessing, praying to, or honoring the saint or God via this practice. Most of these gestures are not necessarily didactic. They are simply ways of portraying or enacting an important feature of the Christian life with God.
I argue that it is in some sense wrong not to. I think one flaw in Ortlund's reasoning is that he tries to separate doctrine and devotion. It does not make sense to me. If a crucifix teaches me about what Jesus did for me on the cross, am I to delay any outward response in the presence of the image out of fear that I might commit idolatry? Isn't it more fitting to bow down immediately?
@@jimmu2008 On the contrary, I think Ortlund takes seriously scripture’s warnings about images and suggests that our tendency to venerate the image, though perhaps feeling like a natural response, is NOT fitting because of what kind of God we have. Still, in my opinion, liturgical gestures are not the same thing as icon veneration as practiced especially in the East.
Well, I am saying that he takes the Old Testament passages against images too seriously, to the point of disallowing other evidence from scripture. For example, he talks about some local council which he says prohibited images on the walls of the church. Well, if scripture is my final authority, I should note that the both the tabernacle and the temple had images on their walls. And if the temple had images in it, why can't churches. Of course, having the images is not the same as venerating them. And there are other assumptions he makes that I think are false. I wish I had time for a full response, but alas, I have other matters to attend to.
• *Re: lack of early positive Patristic support:* And where are there patristic references to something resembling the Protestant canon of Scripture until St. Jerome? What’s the point of such an argument from silence? • *Re: earliest Christian art was symbolic and didactic:* yes. Icons are “books of the illiterate.” Christian images have always been focused on symbolic meaning. • *Re: Christian images were at first only didactic, not venerated:* You don’t know that. Images fill, for example, the Duro-Europos house church. We have no way of knowing they for sure were not venerated. But *the theological basis for icon veneration applies also to that of relics,* which is undoubtedly early and has obvious biblical precedents.
The western Church never had a controversy about images until Calvin and Zwingli. The Eastern Church developed a unique theology about images precisely because an emperor tried to ban them. I don't think veneration of images is forbidden in Lutheranism, but neither it is something that's obligatory.
Perhaps Eusebius' letter to Constantia (the sister of Constantine the Great) may be helpful. Constantia requested that Eusebius (the church historian who authored The Church History) send her an image of Christ, and Eusebius wrote her the following response. I quote a translation of it here, at least the full of what survives to this day: Translation by Cyril Mango, from The Art of the Byzantine Empire 312-1453 (1972, rep. 1986), p. 16-18. Letter from Eusebius of Caesaria (circa 260-399 AD) to Constantia. [I marked notable portions in bold.] "To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." You also wrote me concerning some supposed image of Christ, which image you wished me to send you. Now what kind of thing is this that you call the image of Christ? I do not know what impelled you to request that an image of Our Saviour should be delineated. What sort of image of Christ are you seeking? Is it the true and unalterable one which bears His essential characteristics, or the one which He took up for our sake when He assumed the form of a servant? … Granted, He has two forms, even I do not think that your request has to do with His divine form. … Surely then, you are seeking His image as a servant, that of the flesh which He put on for our sake. But that, too, we have been taught, was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. Indeed, it is not surprising that after His ascent to heaven He should have appeared as such, when, while He-the God, Logos-was yet living among men, He changed the form of the servant, and indicating in advance to a chosen band of His disciples the aspect of His Kingdom, He showed on the mount that nature which surpasses the human one-when His face shone like the sun and His garments like light. Who, then, would be able to represent by means of dead colors and inanimate delineations (skiagraphiai) the glistening, flashing radiance of such dignity and glory, when even His superhuman disciples could not bear to behold Him in this guise and fell on their faces, thus admitting that they could not withstand the sight? If, therefore, His incarnate form possessed such power at the time, altered as it was by the divinity dwelling within Him, what need I say of the time when He put off mortality and washed off corruption, when He changed the form of the servant into the glory of the Lord God… ? … How can one paint an image of so wondrous and unattainable a form-if the term ‘form’ is at all applicable to the divine and spiritual essence-unless, like the unbelieving pagans, one is to represent things that bear no possible resemblance to anything… ? For they, too, make such idols when they wish to mould the likeness of what they consider to be a god or, as they might say, one of the heroes or anything else of the kind, yet are unable even to approach a resemblance, and so delineate and represent some strange human shapes. Surely, even you will agree that such practices are not lawful for us. But if you mean to ask of me the image, not of His form transformed into that of God, but that of the mortal flesh before its transformation, can it be that you have forgotten that passage in which God lays down the law that no likeness should be made either of what is in heaven or what is in the earth beneath? Have you ever heard anything of the kind either yourself in church or from another person? Are not such things banished and excluded from churches all over the world, and is it not common knowledge that such practices are not permitted to us alone? Once- I do not know how-a woman brought me in her hands a picture of two men in the guise of philosophers and let fall the statement that they were Paul and the Saviour-I have no means of saying where she had had this from or learned such a thing. With the view that neither she nor others might be given offence, I took it away from her and kept it in my house, as I thought it improper that such things ever be exhibited to others, lest we appear, like idol worshippers, to carry our God around in an image. I note that Paul instructs all of us not to cling any more to things of the flesh; for, he says, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more. It is said that Simon the sorcerer is worshipped by godless heretics painted in lifeless material. I have also seen myself the man who bears the name of madness57 [painted] on an image and escorted by Manichees. To us, however, such things are forbidden. For in confessing the Lord God, Our Saviour, we make ready to see Him as God, and we ourselves cleanse our hearts that we may see Him after we have been cleansed… [Footnote] 57 “the man who bears the name of madness” is Mani the founder of Manichaeism. [Mani is the heretic after whom Manichaeism, a form of gnosticism, is named. Eusebius talks about and condemns his heresy in "The Church History", book 7, chapter 31.] It is very notable to me that this was written in the fourth century, where it was observed by Eusebius that the use of images was "banished and excluded from churches all over the world, and is it not common knowledge that such practices are not permitted to us alone?" I bring this up because it seems to me that Christians who are lured to the Orthodox or Catholic church have this notion that they are somehow getting in touch with the ancient and original Christianity, but from the looks of this letter from Eusebius, it looks like the original Christianity actually took the Bible's commandments about not making images and not venerating them very seriously. It looks like what is being passed off as a historic Christianity is actually Christianity that has strayed from its roots. Consider this passage from History of Eastern Christianity about the Church of the East: Then suddenly came the age of re-discovery1 of their little community as a revelation to a bewildered world. The story started with a certain Claude James Rich, then Resident of the British East lndia Company in Baghdad, who was not a man of religion but happened to he highly cultured and possessed of a very keen interest in archaeology. He visited the ancient site of the Biblical city of Nineveh in 1820, and his report2 on the area excited all manner of circles, both scholarly and missionary, in England and America. At long last he revealed to the English-speaking races the astounding facts about the Assyrians, who still conversed in a language similar to that spoken by Jesus and the Apostles and whose peculiar form of Christianity called for study and sympathy. A systematic archaeological exploration was commenced by A. H. Layard.3 On the religious side, however, the Nestorians were evidently and traditionally anti-popish and had neither icons nor crucifixes in their churches, only a simple and symbolic Cross. Their attitude towards the Virgin Mary was much akin to Protestant conceptions. Could they be the ancient ‘Protestants of the East’? Hence ensued a deluge of missions and Protestant missionaries to those forlorn sons of a historic church in their Godforsaken abodes. The Church of the East split from the Great Church (a.k.a. the "one holy catholic and apostolic church" prior to any major schism) at the council of Ephesus in 431 AD, over Nestorius (patriarch of Constantinople) being falsely condemned and excommunicated for a heresy he didn't teach, with Cyril of Alexandria (patriarch of Alexandria) prosecuting him with a misrepresentation of his teaching, accusing him of teaching that there were two Christs, one human and one divine, because Nestorius taught that Mary ought to be called the Christotokos (the "mother of Christ") rather than Theotokos ("mother of God"). (See Know the Creeds and Councils, Chapter 3, Council of Ephesus.) From that time on, Nestorius was known as a heretic in the west, but as a saint in the east: Mar Nestor. My point in quoting Eusebius and this portion about the Church of the East is that it shows that the image venerating sects of Christianity are not representing some sort of continuity with early historic Christianity, the very thing that Protestant converts to Eastern Orthodoxy find appealing. Rather, image veneration appear to represent a deviation from what the church originally practiced for at least its first four centuries, as confirmed by these two witnesses-Eusebius, and the Church of the East-I can't say it better than Eusebius said it, so I'll quote him again: can it be that you have forgotten that passage in which God lays down the law that no likeness should be made either of what is in heaven or what is in the earth beneath? Have you ever heard anything of the kind either yourself in church or from another person? Are not such things banished and excluded from churches all over the world, and is it not common knowledge that such practices are not permitted to us alone?
Eusebius took the part of the heretical Arians in his christology, his position was contra the Nicene creed. The theology of icons rests on the theology of Christ being both truly God and truly human, which was not Eusebius’ theology. (When he saw the writing on the wall at Nicea, he compromised rather than be labeled a heretic.) Also, if images are forbidden by the Torah or were not in the early church, how do you explain the synagogue and house church ruins at Dura Europos? Those were mid 3rd century. How do you explain that the Tabernacle had giant seraphim statues, lamp stands modeled after trees and flowers, and other representations of things ‘in and under heaven’? How do you explain that Solomon’s temple, in addition to what the Tabernacle had, had 12 oxen statues holding up the bronze laver?
@@annalynn9325 The tabernacle didn't have seraphim statues. There were Cherubims sculpted onto the Ark and tapestry. These images of cherubims were not venerated. Having religious art isn't the issue. The issue is venerating, bowing before and censing said artwork. Dura Eropos had religious art, like many churches, that isn't a call to veneration of icons. There is no theology of icons in any of the Gospels, Acts, or writings of the apostles.
@@dustindustindontworry-jz8dh Your argument is refuted so you change your argument to something else. No point discussing it further because you’ll move the goal posts to suit what you want to keep believing
@@annalynn9325 You didn't provide any evidence of veneration, with the examples of images that you cited. You can't. I agree, there is no further discussion needed here. The apostles, Christ and disciples didn't teach/create or venerate "icons". Thee END.
"As part of our worship." What? Is someone making this defense? As part of our veneration makes sense, but what you said does not. The gathering is a blessing factory: Humans (quick and dead) receive blessings. You are conflating the blessings (given liberally) with worship (reserved for God alone).
As I delve into the differences between the ecumenical and Protestant claims, I see this discussion missing: Is it necessary, is it permissible, is it beneficial. Is it forbidden, is it harmful, does it diminish the gospel. First, Christ and Christ alone.
I am Catholic. We always had statues in the Church, and in the School. But I never thought of myself as "venerating an image". I always thought i was "remembering" a person. Persons whose holiness of life and virtue are worthy of our memory and emulation. I had some affection or attraction to some of the stories about the lives of a few of them.
Orthodox saints all venerate images. The power of the Holy Spirit is abundant in their lives. To me this is evidence enough that there is nothing idolatrous at all about veneration. In fact it's the opposite, it fosters a love for Christ who is powerful in His saints and the work of the Holy Trinity evident in their lives. It requires humility and love to give honor to whom honor is due as Paul exhorts us. Trust the Apostolic Church in this one.
So we should all believe something that wasn't around until 700 years later after the apostles just because the church said. And by the way if you don't agree you're anathema and have no place in the church? That's pretty hard to accept, especially for a group that values tradition and history of the church so much. Id be fine with it if it was like hey we think this and it could be helpful yet it's the black and white addition of doctrine that Jesus never preached nor was practiced in the early church.
@@a_bex.1501 veneration in various forms was practiced in His time. The scrolls were venerated as well as the mezuzah among other things. Relics were venerated in the first century.
I think you need to lay out the terms of engagement when dealing with this question. You start by saying, first, that we’re leaving aside questions of doctrinal development. Second, you make clear that the argument concerns only what the early church and fathers actually did and believe. Only when those facts are on the table do you discuss the validity of doctrinal development, and discuss whether the RCCs position is, as you say, unfalsifiable. They may admit that, and not see it as a problem. Indeed, if the Holy Spirit preserves the Church from error, then everything the Church has done and has come to believe is plainly true. At that point, you need to rely on their own claims about what it would be impossible for the Church to teach or revise to show that in precisely those kinds of areas the Church has revised and taught wrongly in the past, and therefore may be teaching wrongly in the present. If you don’t proceed carefully you’ll get the typical incoherence and circular argumentation every time.
One thing that I’m not sure is being addressed in this discussion is the experiential practice of icon venerators, and whether or not there is a clear distinction that they experience between worship offered to God and honor offered to saints through images. I do not get the impression, from my own practice, that I confuse God or divinity with any icon I venerate. The two are simply not the same, and what I experience is something more like honor or worship offered to God through remembering what is portrayed through the icon. This is particularly true of icons of events, which usually have nuanced ways of communicating entire theological realities in a single expression. For example, Christ’s Baptism has a TON of theological significance that reminds me of the reality of Baptism and the Incarnation’s significance in sacraments. I worship God by letting this change me, while honoring the fact that God has made it possible to know Him through material.
Very important video,because it's indeed frustrating to see Romans pulling out what explicitly the Fathers agree with them, but in the end we have to pull out that the earliest fathers were pointing to the Trinity, even though the pagan understanding of what a "god" was strongly influenced all of them.
I was going to say the same; people take their idols seriously, that is why Israel wanted to kill Gideon when he cut off the pole of Asherah. So the hostile reaction towards Gavin is no surprise!
Although it may be the case in other videos on other topics, I’m pretty sure the Horn/Akin response didn’t utilize doctrinal development. Considering the length of the video I could be wrong though 😂
@@catkat740 Might have time tomorrow after church. Would be difficult to find without watching the entire video again to isolate a few 5 second sound bytes. It’s nearly 3 hours to sift through.
@@MapleBoarder78 Haha, no worries. I guess I’m thinking maybe Gavin was trying to establish the aniconism of the early Church as “doctrine” at a time when that hadn’t really been defined so Trent and Jimmy were claiming that that wasn’t really the case. So it wasn’t as much doctrine developing but more the thought process and atmosphere which inspired said doctrine was coming to the forefront. If that makes sense?
I'm no expert but it seems to me reasonable to expect that in early Christianity there would be limited use of images (though not *none*); actual idol worship being ubiquitous in the Roman empire. As the empire waned and idol worship as practiced by the Romans ebbed, it would be less "scandalous" or confusing for Christians to begin more openly venerating images and not have the practice confused with idol worship. Nicea after all, is still quite early.
From the present day Roman Catholic point of view, that is my own, It is not the usual practice to venerate images. This is not to say it doesn't happen. The great majority of catholic church goers simply go to church, then leave. There is the occasional veneration, of which i include myself. Also, most of the images are biblical scenes, both old and new testaments. These are not meant to be venerated, but didactic. The one liturgical use of an image is veneration of the cross on Good Friday. Typically images that are venerated are those of the saints. Mary, of course, is most often venerated.
I have come to the view that Ortlund's approach - almost regardless of the weight of his arguments - wins the day for me on such doctrinal disagreements. I have grown tired of strawman arguments and mockery used in such discussions - as if some of the answers to these issues are so obvious. I even hear mockery of the idea of irenic dialogue. Such as these have lost the argument with me before they even try to make a point.
I think it is interesting that you consider the RC position unfalsifiable because no amount of showing the position of the early fathers will be able to overcome the development hypothesis. The development hypothesis just undercuts everything to the point that Catholic doctrine becomes impervious to the opinions of the fathers. BUT There IS still a way to argue against veneration: directly, by showing that it is idolatry or encourages idolatry. So it's not really unfalsifiable, it's just that we don't wanna do anything besides appeal to the fathers or scripture. At this point the RC position just seems to be the stronger position, unless we want to argue that the fathers are more authoritative than RC take them to be. Thoughts?
Dr. I understand the importance of sacraments and presence of Christ in the eucharist but havent we gotten far by explaining eucharist by consubstatiation (explaining more about it besides the presence of Christ).Want to know about this and your opinion.Thank you
Lutherans actually do venerate images! It is regular practice in many Lutheran congregations to bow to the cross as it processes, which is an obvious example of a veneration of an image. Also, many make the sign of the cross, which is also a way of venerating the Holy Cross of Christ. So.....
Speaking as a byzantine Catholic, I've always viewed icon veneration (i.e. kissing the icons) as an expression of St Paul's command to "greet one another with a holy kiss" as applied to the Catholic understanding of the communion of saints. After all, if we can ask saints in heaven to pray for us, why can't we greet them when we go to church?
I remember being at a Greek Orthodox Church once and the priest saying that icon started as a result of most people being illiterate and not being able to read the Bible. FYI, I am evangelical Protestant, so I was only at an Orthodox Church a few times for a food festival.
Isn't knowing what is and isn't idolatry an essential of Christianity? Yet among Protestants there isn't agreement. John Calvin said that images of Christ in Churches constituted idolatry. Maybe you have accepted accretions and John Calvin is right?
Because I have a convert godson. I have recently had to watch all the videos he watches because he asked me these questions. Then I had to visit the churches that he used to go to so I can see what he's talking about when he's talking about stuff. The thing that troubles me most about all these discussions is the lack of true humility to the body of Christ. There is an assumption that if an intellectual reads a handbook he will understand how to run the ship. Even if the handbook tells you that the authority to run the ship is passed down from let's say captain to captain and it must be done a certain way. It seems to me that everyone has their own ideas and sometimes those ideas agree with others so they believe they're in the same ship. But the difference is are enough for me as an outsider to see that it's not the same ship. As for icons, if you venerate them, you're not worshiping them. It's a ridiculous premise to believe that orthodox Christians as a practice worship icons. In fact, most orthodox Christians barely even actually touched the icon when they kiss it because they're too afraid of catching a disease from each other. Lol. The truth is when we kiss an icon we are kissing an image of our brother who should be with christ. We are asking our fellow living member to pray for us because we know because of his sanctification that he has christ's ear. As for the mother of god, the marriage of Cana is the biblical example of how Christ always listens to his mother even if he does not want to do it. This is why we have an icon where Christ covers his mother's mouth before she can ask because he's telling her she shouldn't ask this of him. It's a family relationship. The church is a family and all its members. Whether in heaven or in on earth are in communion. We don't worship saints. They're like our uncles in heaven. Or aunts? Lots of aunts
I am eastern orthodox. But the point you made that person cannot be wise enought o understand anything more than the Church is quite wierd. I mean think about non christian perspective. How couod he choose the right church? By his own understanding isnt it? Why you are orthodox? You born to it? Well that does not mean its it true church just becouse YOU born to it. Did you choose it? Well then you chose it becouse you are wiser than protestant and catholics scholars. I mean martin luther was catholic monk he new church history well. We all orthodox wether we have chose it or born to it, we all need to choose to emprace it if we want to be real orthodox.
@@hesicast yes, but still. i have been thinking this a lot. It is clear that chrostianity is the real religion. But why there are these different churches since khalcedon of 451? And everyone claims to have right wievs becousec HE understand everything better than others. We can pretend to be humble and say that we dont rely to our own understanding but we repy on church fathers. Well also orientals and catholics say so. And even protestants say they rely on the fathers of very firsr centuries.
@@gabrielgabriel5177 we rely on Christ and his enlightenment through the Holy Fathers then and today. What is telling is that when we read St. Athanasius or St Nectarios we are reading the same spirit. When I read Luther I am not reading Grace. Their words are not familiar to me. Also, the church is the body of Christ. All the heretical churches behave the same. The Catholics and the Protestants are conquering churches. And what I mean by that is that when you look at their behavior in the fruits of their behavior as a whole, not as an exception to the rule. I don't see Christ. Now. I don't have to tell you the fruits of either. I'm sure you can experience them simply by going into their churches. I don't want to be insulting to either one because I am not worthy of even the worst Catholic, but the epidemic of force exists in all of those churches. The difference in the orthodox Church is defense and persecution. The Catholics and the Protestants have been in America for a very long time both these religions persecuted the pagans. When the orthodox came to North America, they were persecuted. We don't suffer from choir boy syndrome. It's an exception to the rule. It's not the rule. God gave us reason. Many years ago I was a paganist so it's easy for me to recognize that which is familiar in the opposite direction and the lack of light direction and to turn your back on God direction. I remember the day I asked god for the truth. As I used to seek to find the truth the moment I asked for it, God presented it to me. I was permitted to meet a saint actual living saint . I've been blessed to live near a monastery for the past 12 years and experience the father's there. God is permitted me to see their flaws, their strengths, their weaknesses, and the grace that permeates them. They imitate Christ as Paul imitates. Yet it's impossible to imitate Christ unless Christ is in you. Forgive the long-winded answer. We pray for the Catholics in the Protestants to come back home to the one holy Catholic apostolic church. We want them on the same ship as us and we open the doors to him and we say come and see.
"they're not like eastern icons" ? what do think eastern orthodox icons are like? Eastern orthodox here. "more signs and symbols than anything else" - dont know what you mean by that "the good shepherd, looks like hermes", "images of the OT", "a lot of it is kind of, you know, symbolism", "the rock was christ", "the sign of jonah", "[drawing fulfilments of paganism] to show truths of the christian faith" these are entirely consistent with the language that eastern iconography has been speaking for at least a thousand years, up to the present day. "not an image of jesus in the way that we think about crucifixes in our churches" - who is 'we', and how *do* you think about them? it doesnt sound like you see them the way we see icons. "seem to have a very different function" - the only apparent difference from what you said is the fact of veneration. all the positive descriptions you gave of early icons are still quintessential to current iconography, and does not constitute a discontinuity. the early sayings against veneration of images are to be understood in the context of pagan worship, where it is associated with idolatry, the idea being that the image itself is the body of god. this logically becomes less of an issue as paganism diminishes. the iconodoules are very clear that the image is not venerated as the body of god, but that the veneration passes to the prototype. this makes the difference pretty straightforward between later veneration and earlier apparent condemnation of veneration.
Here’s what I still can’t wrap my head around: So you want to “venerate” or show respect to these saints, right? So *WHY do you NEED an icon/image in order to show respect???* I can show respect to a person without having to bow to, kiss, or pray in front of an image or statue of them. Respect can be shown without having images be used. It can be an inward feeling towards a saint. You don’t have to use icons to show respect or venerate someone. So why the emphasis on icons being kissed, bowed to, or prayed in front of??
@@lakerfan0243 You dont *need* an image in order to show respect, but it is right to do so. as far as veneration is concerned, it is the same as taking out a picture of your grandchildren and kissing it. by definition, "inward feeling" is not showing respect. when you respect someone, you dont just *feel* it inside. you show it in various ways. you greet people, you speak politely to them, you bow in certain circumstances, you stand or salute in other circumstances, you kiss certain people, be it your spouse, parents, kids, or even friends, depending on what country you are from. how would you *show* respect without an image? with words? sure, that's fine, but it isnt as powerful as the embodied practice of bowing or kissing. the tradition of icon veneration comes from a time and place when kissing and bowing were much more common social practices than today in (america), so in that context it is much easier to see how veneration fits into one's model of society and norms. furthermore, *seeing* the saints around us in church makes it immediately clear to our senses that the saints are alive and present with us, in a way that is impossible to do with words.
@@Gwyll_Arboghast but you aren’t seeing the saints… you’re seeing an image or statue of the saints that likely isn’t even an accurate representation of how they really looked. Also, the saints are not “present with us”… they are in heaven. We are on earth. There’s a difference.
@@lakerfan0243 so what if the image isn't like a photograph? its not supposed to be. it is a representation of their spirit, their significance in the language of byzantine imagery. 1) the saints being "in heaven" does not meant they are not with us. heaven isnt a place. heaven is not divided from earth by any spatial separation. 2) we are the body of christ; are the saints not also the body of christ? we are no more separate than one hand from the other. 3) in the divine liturgy, heaven meets with earth, the church *is* heaven. in the liturgy, we actually participate in the same liturgy celebrated by the angels and saints in heaven. in a lesser sense, the church is always heaven. 4) if you accept praying to the saints, they are at least present enough to speak with.
@@Gwyll_Arboghast heaven literally IS described as being spatially divided from earth. The story of Lazarus and the rich man makes that clear. We are PHYSICALLY separated from the departed saints who are in Heaven. No scripture supports the idea that the saints are “present with us” and no scripture supports the idea that the saints are physically close to us.
On the doctrinal development issue, I think you're not being completely accurate here. If Church Father A doesn't agree with something Rome practices, or doesn't fully support it, it is because Rome supports the "consensus of the Fathers" position. Which doesn't mean that if you find one Church Father may quote something that may sound like justification by faith alone, (notwithstanding it being removed from its original context), for example, pointing that out doesn't even nearly come close to refuting Rome because every single teaching does not need to be uniformly agreed to by every Father" due to their "concensus" argument. I find that completely reasonable. It would be like Rome pointing out differences in the various Protestants, and hand-waiving Protestants based only on those differences. There will always be some shades of differences on the margins...and I don't think either side benefits when the other takes an "all or nothing" approach. That said, doctrinal development exists in Protestantism's individual branches as well...yet that seems to be acceptable to every Protestant...yet they attack Rome when they have the same patterns in history.
Thanks Dr. Cooper. Exactly. Rome says the Church Father's agree with them except where they don't. Then they cry "Doctrinal development!", therefore, voila, Rome is always right. They've got the eternal wildcard. Nevertheless, they will discover "on that day" that "God will not be mocked".
I've watched about a dozen videos on this from all the major opposing sides. It seems to me that the church in the centuries leading up to The First Council were not united in doctrine and practice on this issue, as with so many others. So as with most things debated today, we have to admit that there is doctrinal development. The question is; which path is the most faithful to the necessity of the Apostles? I think everyone is following their conscience. Trinitarians ought not to be casting anathemas on each other. It is Christ who will sit on the Bema seat and each will be judged according to the light they were given. We don't have to worship and have altar or pulpit fellowship, but we should at least respect each other, pray for one another. Even as ones who our Lord described in Mark 9 as ones who are not against us.
If you are frustrated with the development hypothesis, then just read Newman and either show how the development hypothesis itself contradicts church teaching, or how a certain principle doesnt fit the hypothesis. I can agree RC apologists throw it around a little fast and loose, but that doesnt mean it's not legit. Of course it's legit, of course doctrine is continually explicated and refined over centurie, but there are limits you just gotta do the research and read the cannons.
How is it that Rome is now opposed to the death penalty for the sake of human dignity, but was okay with it for a millennia? Did human dignity not exist before or something?
@@dave1370 Rome still upholds the death penalty as a proper form of punishment, justly held by state authorities and for the same reasons as before too. As an extension of the principle of self defense. The current catholic teaching is still the exact same. What is in the current catechism, isnt changing the doctrine of it being a just and ethical action in the need of public defense. It is simply making a Prudential and pastoral judgement on the justification of the death penalty in modern society, considering criminals can be reasonable held with out threat to the public. Simply the doctrine didnt change, only the Prudential guidance on the implementation of the doctrine. I agree with the reasoning of the catechism, but a catholic could reasonable disagree in good conscience and support the death penalty considering it's a matter of prudence and not doctrine.
That't not an accurate portrayal of what the Catechism teaches, in my humble opinion. The Catechism now says (2267): "*Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good. Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption. Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide." To me, the last sentence seems to be a clear case of moral condemnation of death penalty, not simply a prudential judgment. DP is against human dignity. The sentence starting with "today, however" also implies that *now we know better what is right*. Previous generations were wrong to endorse death penalty.
@@stanislaw_sk I dont know why people insist on this being an example of a contradiction in the magisterium. It's really not at all close and there are a dozen more interesting examples to trying to find a contraction in. The catechism does 2 things on the death penalty. First it explicitly affirms its doctrinal legitimacy as a just action which the state has the authority to perform, and secondly, it offers a prudential/pastoral judgement on the implementation of the practice they just affirmed as doctrinally sound. The affirmation occurs in CCC 2263-2267. Heres a couple excerpts. The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. ... The one is intended, the other is not Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility. Then the pastoral guide in 2267 you are familiar with, after affirming the age old teaching of DP for the common good, explains why in current society it isnt prudent to use the death penalty because based on new information we can see it is very likely not promoting the common good. And this new info isnt moral progress. Its facts about how DP costs the state more than life imprisonment, and they are both now equally effective tools for public self defense, and how recent studies have shown DP isnt an effective deterrent. This new info in combination with the old moral principle of a desire to preserve life, universal human dignity and giving a chance for conversation... would result in someone concluding not that the DP is intrinsically unjust or immoral, but instead that prudentially is not in accordance with the common good in current society. You just really cant argue the new catechism contradicts the old one when its affirms almost word for word what the only one says. Explains the situations where one can be done justly in nearly the exact same manner. And then just explains how current society doesnt fit the situation laid out by trent.
@@pat1442 Thanks for reply. However, I do not agree with your interpretation. 2263-2266 does not mention the death penalty at all. It speaks generally about what the principles of legitimate defence are. Then in 2267 the death penalty is addressed. Importantly: the justification for the change in teaching refers to the fact that we now have a better understanding of what human dignity is all about and we know that the death penalty destroys this dignity. Yes, the Catechism also mentions that circumstances have changed and the death penalty is not necessary to protect society from the criminal etc. But this is not the main argument. The main argument is a moral one (it refers to a moral value: the dignity of the human person). So yes, it seems to me that this passage from the catechism states that the death penalty is intrinsically immoral. And no, there is no affirmation of previous teaching contained here. It seems to me that the best strategy for you would be to deny that the catechism contains the infallible teaching of the magisterium (i.e., 2267 is simply wrong). But what if the next 10 popes affirm, or further reinforce, the current teaching? The development of doctrine cannot contain contradictions. This is why Dr Ortlund argues for the fact that the rulings of Nicea II contradict the earlier teaching of the Church. I don't know if he is right on this account, but it shows that he knows Newman's criteria for a valid doctrinal development.
Many issues with this video, and I know that you can't address everything in 12 minutes. It seems that you aren't responding to the actual historical claims of Iconodulism prior to Nicaea, as presented by Seraphim Hamilton, for example. You said "I read some of the early Fathers" and that you couldn't find icon veneration there. This is a very naive thing to say, no offense. If I'm looking for a detailed treatise on baptism, I wouldn't read St. Justin Martyr, and then say, oh, there was no detailed discussion of baptism, therefore it didn't exist in the early Church. Rather, I would read Tertullian's treatise dedicated to the subject. I find that Gavin Ortlund is notoriously bad with quote mining in this regard, and that most who reject Nicaea II have little interest is actually reading St. John of Damascus and St. Theodore the Studite, or in looking at the archaeological evidence for iconodulism. For example, Origen states that Christians don't use temples, altars, or images. Any investigation would show that early Christians called their churches "temples," (a practice that continues to this day in the EOC) and that the Dura Europos house church (constructed during Origen's own lifetime) has BOTH images and likely multiple altars. This is not to say that Origen was wrong, (though perhaps he was, as he was wrong about many things) but rather that his words need to be contextualized. For instance, Pagan altars were in the form of heated pyres upon which offerings were burned. Christian altars were often simple tables upon which the Eucharistic sacrifice was offered (note also that these altars were often covered with imagery, demonstrating veneration). Therefore a Pagan altar was probably conceptualized by Origen as being much different than a Christian one. Given an apparent lack of Patristic testimonia, why didn't you look into the works quoted in St. John of Damascus' Three Apologies? He includes three entire florilegia of quotes supporting iconodulism. Did you think to look at that at all? I don't mean to be rude, but practically none of the Protestant takes I've heard on Nicaea II care to address this at all, and therefore the arguments that result particularly from Gavin's video just talk directly past the theological issues at play. That and they have far too narrow a definition of what counts as "veneration," and what counts as an "icon." You say that you don't see a Biblical argument in St. John of Damascus? That is absurd. His entire argument is grounded on ideas such as the Ark (an image) being honored and prostrated towards, as well as images being present in the Temple. Do you realize that those are forms of icon veneration in themselves? Until Protestants (even the "top" apologists) put honest work into investigating these issues from multiple dimensions, they have no chance of convincing anyone who has a serious mind regarding theology.
“Doctrinal development” is insane. As we read through the Bible it is made quite clear that God doesn’t change, his mind doesn’t change, and his word doesn’t change. So if we know what God wants us to do or not do, how to worship, and how to understand then it becomes clear (at least to me) that “doctrine development” should always have the goal of fighting some newly worded heresy to keep us like those churches of the first few centuries. Can you imagine asking Saint Paul to be more inclusive of unrepentant sin and to use a female “pastor’s” preferred pronouns as they assign the Holy Spirit a “she” pronoun, endorse abortion, or in the case of the Roman church place a man on equal footing with God! It seems that in Revelation most modern churches are reading about the five of the seven churches in Revelation and acting like it’s a “to do” list.
I was also very frustrated with the Horn/Akin response. Akin began the rebuttal by calling Gavin's entire argument circular, which couldn't be further from the truth, and then it felt like they were just dodging the accusation the rest of the video. "Yeah, they said don't bow to Pagan images, but OUR images are fine" was basically their argument. That's an unfalsifiable claim as you said.
I think there is a difference between bowing down to an image of a false god and bowing down before an image of Christ or even the saints. In the former case, I would be worshipping or venerate something that represents evil, and I would begin to immulate the evil it represents. In the latter case, I would be worshipping or venerating someone who was good and I would begin to immulate that goodness.
@@jimmu2008 The problem for this view is that it was universally rejected in the early years of the Church as idolatry. You can find countless quotes from Church fathers denouncing images and saying Christians don't use images during worship, which is why Dr. Jordan and Dr. Ortlund hold the view that they do - you can have images, but you shouldn't venerate them. The Bible is also clear - make NO graven images and bow down to them. This is one of those issues where I, respectfully, don't see how people can convince themselves that it's okay. It seems to be one of the most clear teachings in the Bible and the early Church. It worries me because this tells me people can really convince themselves that anything is okay and find ways to rationalize it.
Remember that the early Christians were evangelizing pagans. That is the context in which this should be seen, imho. Because the pagans were convinced their gods occupied the images that they worshipped, could it be that was because they wanted to demonstrate that it wasn't necessary, and God could be worshipped anywhere, since God is omniscient, omnipresent, etc and not contained by said image. This doesn't ipso facto mean that these early Christians forbade images.
Surely the artistic skills of a painter, a sculptor or a stone mason is god given? why malign these gifts? When visiting a Church in the Netherlands recently I was shocked at all the 'headless' statues. These reformers, who acted as common vandals were clearly not understanding or appreciating that these artistic expressions came from God and were in homage to God, no?
I might advise, Dr Cooper, to be wary of Gavins counter Orthodox project and extremely troubling characters he engages with as representatives. I hear your admiration for John of Damascus voiced at the end of this video, and worry that the interaction of Gavin and these ROCOR deus vult types is only going to ruin the beauty of it for everyone involved. I'm sure this has crossed your mind and I would encourage you that you're not wrong here.
![Kodak Black - Versatile 4 [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VcP_1Ua__vY/mqdefault.jpg)
The magic bullet of "doctrinal development" indeed - even when it anathematizes those in church history who they may even venerate disagreed
I love how you and Gavin have your dissagrements but kind of have his back when others attack his arguments :)) Such a beautiful thing to see christian brotherly love displayed even when there are dissagrements and without compromise on doctrine.
That's really awesome!
What’s good about that
Actually it is not a full defense of Gavin’s position. Lutherans are not iconoclasts like the Reformed.
Word. Unity among Diversity.
Gavin is just a lost brother who hasn't found Lutheranism yet. One day he might understand the full glory in baptism and communion and that liturgy and sacrament are beautiful and biblical
One of the reasons I could not remain within the Orthodox church is this very issue- when they are simply to inspire and to make us think of God, they're fine. As an educational tool, they are fine also, but where I struggled and ultimately left the Orthodox church is the position that venerating images is necessary. That felt more like idolatry.
Great point.
I really think icon veneration is a protestant *phobia.* I love the saints & venerate them & the more i venerate them the more it draws me on to emulate their lifes as ordinary men & women (so yes we should venerate them). But I worship & only worship the triune God of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit.
It's shocking that it is a dogma in the EO. The fact that we see so much warning against idolatry and so much warning against adding to the Gospel in the word of God and traditions still do it says a lot about the deceitfulness of the human heart.
@@ThruTheUnknown thanks for sharing. How does your veneration differ from worship?
@@lkae4
To imply something is so as you Christian you *must* be absolutely sure it is so, because if *it's not, you* are *blatantly lying* about a man who worships God alone. Are you still willing to be double down on your *phobia* & insinuate it's idolatry?
Thank you Dr. Cooper. One one hand, it is very frustrating if the RC's aren't discussing the early sources and only defaulting to the Theological Development viewpoint when sources don't agree.
On the other hand, RC's have no other choice if they truly believe in the infallibility of both the Magisterium (at certain levels) and the councils.
We are most definitely at an immovable impasse that can only ultimately be reconciled by either acquiescing to Rome's authority or rejecting it.
After 4 years of working through all the other beliefs and holding them up to the light of scripture and the church fathers, it now comes down to reckoning with the one overarching issue of authority.
Perhaps I should create my own Bayesian(?) analysis and settle this once and for all! :p
“Operation Gladio” was the last straw in my ability to accept Rome’s Authority. I am Orthodox now.
The problem with Jimmy and Trent's video is the attitude they had. The ending where jimmy talked about how disappointed he is with Gavin is ridiculous. Also towards the beginning them taking stabs at his thumbnail image is also silly.
Trent and Jimmy came across as offended at Gavin's good scholarship .
It became a really bizarre thing to watch. Ok, Gavin makes strong arguments in his videos. Should he stop it for some reason because it makes the catholic answers job harder? Does Gavin need to run his content by Jimmy and Trent so that they can give the green light? Gavin found himself a market niche of dealing with Catholic Answers’, and everyone can see that he is pushing the strongest arguments in a charismatic and pastoral way. That doesn’t mean they have any right to be pissed about how many videos he makes and what topics he picks. Maybe they should stop making so many videos attacking sola scriptura and other catholic talking points. Lastly, Jimmy and Trent did not seem very composed throughout their video. It was sad to see, I normally like Jimmy’s work.
@@jordand5732 totally agree with your comment
I also like jimmy. I enjoy his show mysterious world but I've never put much stock in his theology.
I felt bad for Trent because I think he was uncomfortable with how Jimmy approached the beginning and end lol. Horn never goes at it from that angle.
@@jordand5732 It's interesting you mention "Catholic Answers." I became familiar with the organization about 5-6 years ago and started reading their material. It was before I really got into church history and they had me scratching my head a few times.
I've been very fortunate to be in a vibrant fellowship and church with strong, compassionate, qualified leaders, for a long time. I have always been around people that can hold me accountable, encourage me in faith, and challenge me spiritually. I know there are many ills in the modern church but I have never had the anxiety I see people with, today. If your faith is driven by everything you can get your hands on to read and process on your own, something is off.
Anyway, not too long after becoming acquainted with CA, I really developed an interest in church history. I enrolled in a college class, which necessarily forced me to learn and study things I wouldn't direct myself to. In parallel, I started pealing back historical layers on a lot of the arguments I heard from CA apologists. Eventually, I realized how much deception there is in a lot of the material, misrepresentation of history, etc. Further, a lot of the arguments they make against Protestant's and apologetic claims are really novel...this whole idea that Sola Scriptura causes chaos and confusion, thus leading to the proliferation of denominations, first appeared in the 1980's-90's. The Eliakim typology from Isaiah 22, as an argument for the existence of the papacy, doesn't appear until about 1990. The Moses seat of Matthew 23 being prefigured in Exodus 18 and becoming the basis for "ex cathedra" is another CA apologist special that I can't find anywhere in history before the organization existed. Now they are all off scrounging for every vague use of certain keywords throughout history to support these things, completely ignoring the novelty of the arguments themselves.
If people could learn to hone in on the language that is used when these apologists speak, identify anachronisms, research the history of the claims, etc. I think they would see things a lot differently. Alas, I think most people want to be told what to believe and the modern American bent towards instant gratification, leads people to devour anything that suits their passions and desire to feel like they are part of something ancient and nostalgic, no matter how inaccurate or embellished it is.
@@ReformingApologetics good info
I just read John of Demascus on Sacred Images. I agree absolutely with what you said.
If there is someone who thinks the creation of any images is wrong in and of itself, that book makes solid, solid arguments for incarnation opening the door to the possibility of acceptable religious art. His arguments are great.
But he never makes an argument from their creation to putting them in the assembly of worship and systematically, regularly making prostration before them and kissing them. He makes this leap, and it is frustrating because he does such a convincing job explaining the insanity of the iconoclasts, but he doesn't even really attempt to bridge from their existing to incorporating them into liturgical worship. It is just assumed.
I think St. John makes a solid argument that the veneration of sacred images is correct and beneficial.
In, "How many ways we show worship to creatures," St. John describes these kinds of things in detail; Not just the veneration of images of Jesus or the Theotokos or the Saints, but our veneration of other things.
We render unto God's creatures what is due to them, and render unto God that which is fitting for God.
@Bb Dl ai see what you mean. I simply think a defense of iconodulia needs to be written for us in this time, wheb there are not really many iconoclasts left but we who appreciate religious art and are cautious about what we bow to and kiss, not wanting to offend God.
I know you disagree, but I hope you appreciate that for many protestants, asking them to kiss an icon is like asking them to kiss a scorpion. It goes against their natural instincts in a deep way.
@@lucduchien
I would point out that, especially today in the english-speaking sectors of the Orthodox Church, there is a push for developing the "mind of the Church," or the "mind of Christ," because our society has conditioned us towards nominalism and materialism and other ways of thinking contrary to the "ancient faith," as I understand it.
There are some presuppositions that have to be changed, at a minimum, for those converting from atheism, from Protestantism, even Roman Catholicism, etc.
@@lucduchien
The reeeeeallly radical Protestants, having rejected the very foundations of Roman Catholicism in the first millennium Church, have fallen into a number of different Judaizing heresies because they reject the idea of Holy Tradition outside the Scriptures, in whole or in part.
Take the Seventh-Day Adventists, for instance, who, in their interpretation of the Scriptures, take their rigorist view of keeping the Sabbath.
@bbdl2147This is funny. Peter told Cornelius get up, but Catholics just stay on their knees.
Totally agree on Newman. I have also had people argue that when Nicea II anathematizes "those who do not salute images" has ALWAYS meant "those who force others not to salute images" and then challenge me to prove them wrong from infallible magisterial documents not just writings of fathers. It is impossible to nail down their positions because they can reinterpret things in light of their modern doctrine and explain away evidence as not infallible, so I just had to let him "win" because there is nothing I can do to change his mind.
My thoughts are: how do the orthodox interpret the anathema language because I bet we find them more consistent. At least the orthodox don’t constantly change the terms and definitions and time travel their stuff, from what I can tell anyway.
@@jordand5732
The anathema makes sense if a) you had ever been to an orthodox church b) you understood the context of the 8th century.
a) Because we venerate the chalice at times, we venerate the cross & the bible, we venerate the priestly shoul etc, It would be odd to be fine with all this but then suddenly have a problem with the veneration of icons & rather hypocritical & a double standard.
b) Because many iconophiles were being beaten up, imprisoned or exiled, bloodied & bruised etc & of course churche destroyed because of it (same type of despicable thing the 16th century reformers did). This ppl deserved to be anathematized for their actions
@@ThruTheUnknown those against icons were treated super nice I hear.
As I listened to this and have had icon videos (for and against) I passed by a beer truck that read “revolution or reverence, you decide” as part of their new beer’s slogan. Haha. Local brew company slogan for their new beer I guess.
@@ThruTheUnknown So was it only anathematizing those who were violent, or also peaceful christians that wouldn't bow before images?
"Development is wrong unless we are the ones doing it!" 🤣🤣🤣
God is unchanging, the same yesterday today and forever, God is not a man that he should change his mind, the word endures forever.
I take issue with the whole “doctrinal development” because God never changes, the word never changes, and until all heaven and earth the smallest pen stroke will not be taken away. So logically the worship, understanding, and observance by the church shouldn’t change.
If Saint Paul, Saint Peter, Saint James, or Saint John were zapped into a church service he should be able to recognize a church service and church doctrine today.
I fear that most modern churches would be shocking to the apostles and result in a very strongly worded epistle letter.
@@nemoexnuqual3643We worship with them every Sunday at Divine Liturgy. Christ is risen! ☦️
@@bradleyperry1735 You shouldn’t be worshiping apostles or saints or angels or archangels. Worship the triune God alone.
Acts 10:25-26 “ As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. 26 But Peter made him get up. “Stand up,” he said, “I am only a man myself.”
Saint Paul in Acts 14:15 when Romans tried to worship him in Lystra said:
“Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them.”
Revelation 19:9-10
“And the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.” And he said to me, “These are the true words of God.”
Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God.” For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”
If “we worship them every Sunday you mean “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” YES
If you are worshiping saints or angels NO.
In our liturgy we “WITH angels, and archangels and all the company of Heaven laud and magnify…” We praise God (the creator) WITH all the created, men and angels alike.
Mad? That’s not what he’s saying 😂
this is a oversimplification
So if St John of Damascus is right on a theological level, why is a practice that is based on that theology wrong?
Because the argument was not about veneration.
Right on a theological position, not holistically
As a Catholic I tend to interprete Nicea II as restrictively as I can, since it comes up with a borderline doctrine of icon veneration that is very close to the redline of paganism. I stand for ultra-light veneration of images (vg. Mary or Saints) in so far as one keeps a totally Christ centered worship attitude that sees Mary and the Saints as works of God's grace and mercy. If one lives in a pagan context or does not fully understand the doctrine of the Communion of Saints icon veneration can easily lead to paganism.
Most consistent Roman Catholic
As and Eastern Orthodox I heartily endorsement Catholic position. Unfortunately too many on my side of the aisle that take valuable aides to worship and turn them into items of worship. When I am venerating an Icon I am calling to mind the individual or the event depicted as examples of God's work and in the past and how I may still benefit from it today.
Or you could just not venerate icons at all and worship God alone and venerate God alone, in spirit and truth.
@@dustindustindontworry-jz8dh that's impossible. We cannot have a relationship with God apart from the family He established.
@@dustindustindontworry-jz8dhYeah worship and venerate God with everything you’ve got! Throw out the idols of Mary and the saints and go straight to Christ.
Thanks Dr. Cooper you nailed it. Slapping some Newman on it gets tired and goes nowhere. A presentation on the council would be great.
Since I took a course in ecclesiastical architecture, I have learned that, when the great cathedrals of Europe were built, the people of that time were largely illiterate. Statuary, carved scenes, even stained glass windows, were used as story tellers. Learning by pictures told the Bible stories to the masses who had no access to it he Scriptures even if they could read. I look on statues, pictures, etc. as reminders of our predecessors in the faith. Worship them? Not a chance! Visual reminders are powerful.
Tell that to my catholic family member that loves his idols.
@ruthgoebel723 That's simply not the official position of the Orthodox Church, however. If you do not "venerate" the images as holy, pray to them, kiss them, view them as direct channels to the Saint, view every act performed towards those pictures as if it is directly being done to the person in them, you're "anathema." A hell bound unbeliever.
This is idolatry, no matter how many word games and other obfuscatory nonsense has been applied to it to rationalize it.
@@dananderson6697That’s not actually the Orthodox position.
@@bradleyperry1735 So you say. Meanwhile, proud Orthodox apologists are all over fighting with anyone who says you ought to be doing all of that for Christ instead of a poorly done picture of some random guy who died 1000 years ago.
@@DavidNicholson101Tell that to your "church father" Calvin that threw away any kind of iconography
I don’t understand what is meant by “respect but not veneration”. What’s the difference? I feel like veneration exists on a spectrum starting with basic respect. Others may have a stronger devotion but it still remains categorically separate from idolatry. It’s starting to feel like “veneration” when used by Protestants means “suspected idolatry” despite idolatry being condemned by Catholic and Orthodox.
This! I think the crux of the issue is opposing worldviews. Catholics and Orthodox view a lot of theology according to degrees. Veneration isn't adoration. A lot of the interaction coming against veneration isn't understanding that spectrum. They are lumping veneration and adoration together as adoration and categorizing education, decoration, or respect as the opposite and excluding it from degrees of veneration.
@@brianaalece5314 I guess feel like any Protestant who has ever had a Nativity scene or not smashed their neighbor's has probably met any "requirements" of Nicaea II.
@@brianaalece5314sure but the problem is that “veneration” often includes BOWING to or in front of such icons. And that’s literally one of the 10 commandments, which is “you shall not make any graven image” AND “you shall not BOW to them or serve them”. Clearly, bowing is a big no no. Shadrach, meshach, and abednego all refused to even BOW to the statue of Nebuchadnezzar… Why is that? Naaman also, although he was going to have to bow to his masters idol/god, he knew it was wrong to bow to it, and he asked Elisha to ask God to pardon him for such bowing.
The fact that some people bow to Christian graven images/icons doesn’t change the fact that it’s violating the command to not “bow to them”. To me, it’s very much playing with fire.
@@asgrey22nativity scenes aren’t typically kissed, BOWED to, or prayed in front of by Protestants though, and that’s the difference. It’s not necessarily about having a icon that’s the issue, it’s what is done WITH that icon.
If churches want to hang Christian art on their walls and stuff, then fine. But it gets dangerously close (and possibly does) to violating the commandment to not “bow to them or serve them” when using icons the way that many Catholics seem to
@@lakerfan0243 "Then Joshua tore his clothes and fell facedown to the ground before the ark of the LORD, remaining there till evening. The elders of Israel did the same, and sprinkled dust on their heads." Joshua 7:6. Joshua and the elders of Israel literally bowed before the Ark, with its two statues of cherubim. Fr. John Whiteford: "bowing to idols is only objectionable because the object in question **is in fact an idol**, an image of a false deity. In the second commandment we are told that we cannot make an idol, nor may we bow down to them, nor may we worship them (Exodus 20:4-5)... [But] the Psalms specifically command us to worship (literally, bow before) the Ark: 'Exalt ye the Lord our God, and worship the footstool of His feet; for He is holy' (Psalm 98[99]:5)."
Very balanced and thoughtful response. Looks like Gavin Ortlund got the ball rolling on a conversation that very much needed to happen. Does anyone have more information on the article that the Davenant Institute put out? I'm having trouble finding it on their website.
It's in their journal Ad Fontes
I really don't think the ball needed to get rolling but he got it rolling. Christians could be working together to combat secularism and atheism but instead there is infighting about religous art. The Baptist perspective seems to be that having religious images is idolatry or at least close to it. The Lutheran perspective seems to be you can have them but don't pay homage or "venerate" the image. An the Catholic/EO perspective is that if you kiss an image or bow to it your showing respect to the image of the person or event which it represents and they call that "veneration" which is distinct from worship which the Catechism says "worship is only due to God alone". I don't believe our salvation is dependent on whether we 1. Venerate images 2. Respect but don't Venerate images 3. Or don't tolerate religous images. Just silly to make a big deal out of this
@@donutsrgood4491it’s not silly to make a big deal about this when many who read the clear teaching of the Bible in the OT find that one of the 10 commandments LITERALLY says you shall “not BOW to or serve them” when talking about graven images, which are what *icons* are. So, yeah, when a church is advocating FOR a practice that seems to violate one of the 10 commandments, then it’s a problem.
Is it a big deal for eternal salvation? No. But we should still strive to be teaching right doctrine.
@@donutsrgood4491 hmmm, I don’t know. A big part of the Catholic/Orthodox claim is the preservation of apostolic tradition, so if it can be proven that the early church were opposed to the use of images in worship then it would be a problem that must be addressed.
Also, if such a practice Is idolatry then you’re sinning against God. So I don’t think it is a waste of time to have such a discussion, especially if you want to honour God rather than just “be right”.
@@lakerfan0243 In the full context God is telling Israel not to worship other gods. Let's look "And God spoke all these words, saying: 2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.3 “You shall have no other gods before Me. 4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image-any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God […] " (Exodus 20:1-5). We get clarification of this because a couple chapters later in Exodus get then commands Moses to tell people to make religious art “Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 2 “See, I have called by name Bezalel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah. 3 And I have filled him with the Spirit of God, in wisdom, in understanding, in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship, 4 to design artistic works, to work in gold, in silver, in bronze, 5 in cutting jewels for setting, in carving wood, and to work in all manner of workmanship. 6 “And I, indeed I, have appointed with him Aholiab the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan; and I have put wisdom in the hearts of all the gifted artisans, that they may make all that I have commanded you […]” (Exodus 31:1-6). So God LITERTALLY commanded Israel to create statues of the cherubim in art. Many of the other OT prohibitions that we don't follow as Christians also were created for Israel to keep them worshiping the one true God. Such as dietary laws, purity laws or punishments for sins. Israel just worshiped the golden calf also to put this in perspective
Accordingly, we afterwards took up his bones, as being more precious than the most exquisite jewels, and more purified than gold, and deposited them in a fitting place, whither, being gathered together, as opportunity is allowed us, with joy and rejoicing, the Lord shall grant us to celebrate the anniversary of his martyrdom, both in memory of those who have already finished their course, and for the exercising and preparation of those yet to walk in their steps
- Polycarp
For only the harder portions of his holy remains were left, which were conveyed to Antioch and wrapped in linen, as an inestimable treasure left to the holy Church by the grace which was in the martyr
- Marytrdom of St Ignatius of Antioch
These two early examples should a level of veneration, to not images, but remains and bones. So veneration of the Saints is early. (Veneration meaning honor)
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
- Colossians 1:15
Veneration is different from adoration, even in the Greek from what I've read. Adoration is for God, it meaning for a supreme being, while veneration is honor.
May I request a tag team video on Infallible Ecumenical Councils featuring you, Gavin Ortlund, Matthew Joyner, and Joshua Schooping? I believe it will be very popular. Because Orthodox and Catholic thesis rest on that premise. I am a Byzantine Catholic and I have been following your work while I was a Dutch Calvinist. God bless.
I hope this doesn't happen unless sitting on the other side of the panel are people from the Orthodox or Catholic camp.
Many protestants (not all) can't discern some of the flimsy argumentation given by some of these protestant apologists so unfortunately debates or live discussions are needed.
How many times do we have to go see someone's 3hr video and then 2hr response videos? Too many times. Let's just get everyone together and examine who really has the truth.
@@IC_XC_NIKA even if they sit together to debate it for 3 weeks it won't convince anyone. Debate only convince what they already believed. A fan of James White will be convinced that he won the debate. While Jay Dyer followers will be certain that he won. Trent Horn supporters confident that he nailed it. I find debate to be less useful. It only end up emotional.
@@AdithiaKusno Some are but some could be very useful. Even if it's not a formal debate a cordial conversation would be nice too
@@IC_XC_NIKA yes cordial conversation would be great. Very rare. Even among saints they fell to sin by assuming the worse. St Athanasius adamantly refused to forgive St Meletius. Had St Basil given up the two won't be reconciled. St Cyril hated St Chrysostom because Constantinople usurped the second rank previously held by Alexandrian See. His uncle deposed Chrysostom for introducing a Novus Ordo Liturgy and for altering the original Creed from Nicaea with Constantinople Creed. St Isidore non stop petitioned Cyril to let go the feud and exonerated Chrysostom by bringing his remain in exile back to Constantinople. Cyril repented and venerated Chrysostom. The list is lengthy. If great saints failed then the bar is really high. Most apologists end up using ad hominem attack and emotional during debate. Imagine Muslims watching the debate. What they see is not two people seeking the truth in love. But rather two enemies insulting one another. I love to see cordial conversation and I pray for one. But in reality I rarely see that materialize. Never lose hope maybe we could see Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants sit together and talk 🙏
Excellent video, this is essentially what Gavin is arguing for. They are okay to use for didactic reasons but not veneration. It's crazy how many times people conflate the two. Thanks for chiming in on this. We need more protestant voices on this topic.
I really think icon veneration is a protestant *phobia.* I love the saints & venerate them & the more i venerate them the more it draws me on to emulate their lifes as ordinary men & women (so yes we should venerate them). But I worship & only worship the triune God of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit.
@@ThruTheUnknown I'm not going to argue against you, the difference is making it a matter of salvation like the council did. Except the early church did not venerate images. It's just not there. Yes there were images used to teach which came a little later. But what we are saying as protestants is it should not be a matter of salvation. We are not saying the EO or Catholics are not saved because they do it, we are just saying there is no evidence for it in the early fathers or scripture and should not be bound to peoples consciousness.
@@BibleFanatics Craig Trugila has a solid article published on his website (Orthodox Christian Theology) on January 13 titled "How Did Early Christians Use Religious Imagery?" in which he addresses this critique. To condense Trugila's work, among the Holy Fathers, Ss. Irenaeus of Lyon, Gregory of Nyssa, and Epiphanius of Salamis attest to the veneration of iconography.
Respectfully, the whole "early Church did not venerate images" claim is at best an argument from silence if we ignore the historical data to the contrary. We all know that the ante-Nicaean Church was highly-secretive about the character and content of its Liturgy, which was the context in which the majority of Christians would encounter iconography. The same argument made here against the veneration of icons is also made by evangelicals against the general use of a liturgy.
@@evaneparat Thanks for the link to the article. I have watched his RUclips videos on this. Is the article more in depth?
@The One who studies alot
If protestants are wrong about it being idolatry (which they are), then it's an irrational fear which by definition what phobia is (an irrational fear). Ergo *it's not opinion, it is* true using some simple *straightforward logic.*
@dr Jordan Cooper as always another presentation excellently done. And more thought provoking material to think over 💚🙏
Rome has made their position unfalsifiable… and there’s something slippery in their argumentation…
Perfectly stated. And the worst of it is they seem to be unable to see the fallacy they are operating in.
I am a communicant of the OCA jurisdiction of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Raised as a Southern Baptist and converted to Catholicism win in college. Came to Orthodoxy 40 years ago. I understand the reservations when it comes to veneration of icons. I had that myself once upon a time. From what I understand doctor Cooper is correct in that the earliest of church history there were no icons to speak us. But it's time progressed in the church they did up here in the east as did statues. When I venerate an icon I am calling to mind the individual or the event depicted. It is an aide to worship but not essential to salvation. I am aware that there are those within the Eastern Orthodox Church who have a more medieval interpretation of veneration then that and in my opinion that is regrettable. My local Parish priest is very careful communicate the proper view of veneration so that we do not give glory to the thing but to God- Father, Son and Holy Spirit only.
I also EO. I understand your point but its wrong according to EO theology. 7th councils canon clearly say you MUST venerate them or you will ne anathemized (separated from God). Also EO church teaches that apostoles venerated icons. This is aimply not true historically. EO church is beautiful but it is not biblical and it is not practising apostolic faith. Icons are later development. If I am wrong then I am more than happy if you can show us historical evidences about icon veneration from apostolic era.
Glad to see you join the conversation too. I can imagine it being overwhelming for Gavin, who after all is just one person, responding to the numerous responses uploaded. Love your content!
I’d love to hear more about why you think John of Damascus is basically right, but that it doesn’t lead to veneration. I’m exploring this topic a lot lately and that’s a fascinating position! Thanks for the video
@The Hyper Augustinian I’m curious if that’s what Dr. Cooper means. It’s certainly reasonable to believe JoD is just wrong in his conclusions about proskynesis, but that latria/proskynesis distinction is a huge part of JoD’s writing.
It would be hard to say he’s “basically right” as Dr Cooper does, but deny such a key part of his work. Obviously “basically right” is a broad statement so that could very well be what he means. Just curious! 😊 thanks for your response!
@The Hyper Augustinian yep! I know that's his final conclusion but I don't remember him tying it back in to John of Damascus? Maybe I missed that
> Any Protestant makes a 5-minute video
> Every Catholic Apologist makes a 5-hour response video, which are then shared and re-shared amongst each other's channels.
The overreaction is intense. Prepare to be "owned" by Matt Fradd or Michael Lofton or both.
Micheal loften literally put 4 hour rebuttal on james White's twitter posts😩😂
@@theknight8524 there really isn't any other way to describe it other than cringe
I often wonder where they get the funding for that time.
@@vngelicath1580 did you see loftons “mic drop” to Akin voicing his “disappointment” with Gavin? Very cringe.
@@j.athanasius9832 indeed. Very cringe
Thanks for the informative video Dr. Cooper. Many of the youtube videos on subjects like these have people vigorously defending the practices of their faith tradition. This is understandable but often makes it difficult to know the basic facts of a subject. Your video provided some of that in regarding the historical record of icon veneration in the early church.
Thank you Dr for joining the conversation
What's interesting to me is Newman's hypothesis works best within a Sola Scriptura framework. But within the Magisterium framework, it becomes a clever excuse rather than a profound argument.
So in light of “doctrinal development”, in Rome’s eyes, what the Fathers’ say ultimately has no binding value. The only thing that matters is agreement with Rome’s current understanding. That is a really frustrating stance to argue against.
I am Catholic.. thank you for being honest...Mr cooper
Thanks for this video on a very important topic. I believe you are right to cite John of Damascus' theology of the icon, though I'm not sure why this isn't sufficient for you.
For me this issue comes down to the authority of the Church in a council recognized as ecumenical. Since Nicea II was a council of the Church, I don't think we can simply say we disagree, any more than we would be right to say we simply disagree with Calcedon, for example. The authority is the same.
I would love to see a collaboration video with you and Gavin (and maybe even The Other Paul!) delving into the unfalsifiability of Rome's claims and what the implications and repercussions of that are in regard to ecumenical discussion and even just for an individual's faith when he's under a system that cannot be falsified in any means.
I think the apostle Paul made it clear that our faith is supposed to be falsifiable. 1 Corinthians 15:14-19 make if clear that the entire Christian religion is based on a falsifiable reality: Christ raising from the dead. And if He didn't raise from the dead, then we're still in our sins. Pretty clear-cut and falsifiable.
Why should Rome's claims be judged by a different metric?
I would crowdfund that
This is a great point but I also want to mention that the barrier to dialog is more than just the development hypothesis, at least in this case. I watched the first few minutes of Akin and Horn and couldn't stomach much more. Akin's analysis of the video thumbnail was just a subtle way of attacking Gavin's credibility by using something immaterial to the actual argument to knock him down and psychologically prep their own tribe to receive their own message. Gavin posted and pinned his own sarcastic comment about his thumbnail when the video went up. Obviously Jimmy didn't read it.
Another means of distracting from the material issues raised and "prepping" their audience with inappropriate presuppositions was the discussion of relative importance. Jimmy showed a picture of Gavin's book on "Finding the Right Hills to Die On," implying that Gavin approached the issue by placing excessive importance on it, and did so in hypocritical contrast to his own published position. I don't own the book but searching the preview, it doesn't even appear Gavin discusses icons in it. If that's the case, Akin is dishonestly misrepresenting Gavin, again to paint the picture that he's not credible. Jimmy Akin may view the matter as one that is tertiary and relatively unimportant, but he doesn't get to define the degree of importance for the rest of the Christian world.
They do similar things with the "infallibility" of councils. They are infallible until you find something that is contradictory, then the contradiction becomes a mere part that doesn't fall within the scope of infallibility, based on criteria or logic that are defined later. The definition is ever shifting to accommodate their refusal to admit to ever being wrong about anything of material significance. It really boils down to arguments from the height of arrogance.
This is a great video, and it's personally very timely for me. Thank you for your content.
Do Lutherans bow to the cross during the exaltation of the Holy Cross?
I would also point out the Orthodox don’t use doctrinal development. I would point to Craig Truglia’s work for this (RUclips wise)
I went from Reformed to Orthodox, but you are still someone I greatly respect, rev.
Also, do all Lutherans reject Nicea 2?
As a former Lutheran (now Orthodox Christian), I accepted Nicaea II. I was far from your typical Lutheran, though. It's a definite woodchip in the shoe of those who are acquainted with Church history and care about catholicity.
@@evaneparat Do the LCMS officially reject the council though? There isn't a difference in bowing to the Cross or kissing the Gospel book and kissing an icon. It is all veneration.
I'm glad we both found our way home.
May you please expand upon this?
The icons in and of themselves are referenced like any other great art, with respect. However the veneration is a symbolic gesture of peace “you should great one another with a kiss of peace” and communion with the saints/Christ. I’ve been to many orthodox churches, nobody kisses an icon because of its sacredness, but to greet the sacred memory of whomever it represents. Why isn’t reverence of the Bible considered idolatry? Because we understand that the physical form of the book is simply our interface with the divine, not the divine to be worshipped.
That's probably fine and all, but to compel someone to do this against his conscience, when it is really not found in the Scriptures themselves, is very troublesome.
No one venerates the Bible the way the Orthodox venerate icons. Even then, Scripture is God-breathed so you really can't equate the two. I have an issue with icon veneration mainly because in practice it blurs the lines between "reverance" and worship. After weekly, if not daily, veneration, at what point does it actually stop being mere reverence? I also just see a lot of people on the ground, both Catholic and Orthodox, who end up treating Mary and the saints almost as demigods. Veneration icons also shouldn't be dogmatic which means if you're against it, your faith is questionable and you're heretical.
@@wesmorgan7729 yes they do. When an orthodox Christian steps into the narthex of the church, they generally kiss both the gospel and the icons displayed. They are both reverenced the same way, with a kiss.
Regarding heresy, this isn’t the ecumenical council. If a parishioner showed to an Orthodox Church and didn’t want to venerate the icons, most parishes in most dioceses wouldn’t even bat an eye. We venerate icons exactly the same way we venerate the cross or the book of gospels itself
@@dave1370 I don’t know what kind of experience you’ve had in the past, but I’ve never witnessed the use of compulsion in an Orthodox Church, period. You don’t sound orthodox, so I’ll assume you’re not. In what scenario do you think a man like yourself would find the church breathing down his neck, telling him to kiss the icon?
I’m on the EO/RC side of icons, but I agree with you on how frustrating the RCs are with development lol how do I falsifying anything in their position? They’re the worst with this on the papacy.
The EO position is far worse. Their position is that Constantinople has always been at war with eastasia 🙄
If you believe your church cannot err in doctrine... how do you see doctrinal errors?
The worship given to images which the early Christian writers condemned is exactly what Nicea II specified that Orthodox DON'T do. They made the distinction between adoration and veneration so that the condemnation of worshiping images is maintained in the Church. Nicea II says that the honor is given to the Saint, making use of the icon to direct the mind. The veneration is not to the wood and paint. And how Orthodox show honor is exactly how Moses showed honor in Exodus 18:7. Who would be bold enough to accuse Moses of worshiping Jethro in this passage?
Honestly that is mental gymnastics. You really need to teach your brains to think strange way in order to accept icon veneration
Would you be willing to host a debate on your channel? Either a formal debate or a conversation on the veneration of icons. Everyone is plucking out their sources but let's get Craig or Gavin together & examine the claims.
I can see people overusing Newman but I think you also have to look at what the Church has NOT allowed as valid development before you say she will use Newman to get out of anything or justify anything. Because there are a whole lot of “progressive” elements that Rome has stood hard and fast against that other denominations have not.
This is where everyone loses me. You agree with the theology of St. John, believe images are useful AND have some, but don't think you are showing any kind of reverence or respect for the prototypes by hanging them on display and/or using them in the peripheral of worship?
I'm convinced that the issue is mostly rooted in NOT grasping what a body is and how that relates to being IN Christ.
But I do appreciate this Lutheran view, though I feel it's only quiting a race right before the finish line.
God be with you. Sliánte.
Not sure what you mean by on display or at the periphery of worship; it's not just the altarpiece at Weimar, we've got icons/art in almost every Lutheran building.
Maybe we're just refusing to cross that finish line and are sitting on it
@@j.g.4942 By periphery I mean you are not fully engaging them, only partly. Like understanding someone you know is in a room with you but not acknowledging their presence.
But if you bow to a cross, a statue, an altar table, you are venerating. I've only been to one Lutheran liturgy so I don't know any details.
But having ant images and not understanding how they are connected to the protype, via memory, is strange to me. I mean, just paying attention to an image is showing respect, even if only a little.
@@looqo7632 well then maybe Lutherans venerate icons then, because you describe something that sounds like what I've heard, seen and done.
@@looqo7632dude, why are you and others not realizing that the argument is NOT necessarily against the mere presence of icons in a place of worship?
The argument IS against what a person does in the process of *venerating* such icons. My biggest issue is that the icons are BOWED to, which clearly violates the commandment to not “bow to or serve them” when talking about graven images.
@@looqo7632also, simply paying attention to an image is not “paying respect” anymore than me paying attention to a crazy guy being chased by the cops is me “paying respect” to the crazy guy or the cops.
So simply having images hanging on the walls of a church is NOT the same as having something like a statue of Mary and then kissing that statue and bowing before it to pray TO Mary for intercession on your behalf.
They touched the garments of the apostles and were healed… the bones of saints were venerated and touched for healing… so there is veneration of icons.
Thank you Dr. Cooper for your video. I really learned a lot. I was wondering if you could do a video on the Deuterocanonical books and why don't protestants accepts them. Thank you.
Speaking of Gavin Ortlund, he has a helpful video entitled "Which Old Testament Canon is Right? With John Meade". He doesn't specifically speak to the Lutheran nuances, but a very good summary.
I'm not a minimalist. I love religious art, stained glass windows and statues just as my home has lots of colour, rich textures and delightfully aesthetic objects. Whist loving all of this, I worship none of them - only God.
In many Lutheran churches people now as the processional cross goes by. Is there something wrong with this are we blurring the line between veneration of images and images as Didactic tool?
Just had a "discussion" on this over on Trent's channel. I would vote nothing wrong just because there are plenty of ways in which we exhibit some sort of symbolic gesture toward the cross, an altar, the host, or even one another (the Peace). These gestures never even hint at adoration or veneration of an icon in the sense that we've been discussing and there is no expectation of accessing, praying to, or honoring the saint or God via this practice. Most of these gestures are not necessarily didactic. They are simply ways of portraying or enacting an important feature of the Christian life with God.
I argue that it is in some sense wrong not to. I think one flaw in Ortlund's reasoning is that he tries to separate doctrine and devotion. It does not make sense to me. If a crucifix teaches me about what Jesus did for me on the cross, am I to delay any outward response in the presence of the image out of fear that I might commit idolatry? Isn't it more fitting to bow down immediately?
@@jimmu2008 On the contrary, I think Ortlund takes seriously scripture’s warnings about images and suggests that our tendency to venerate the image, though perhaps feeling like a natural response, is NOT fitting because of what kind of God we have. Still, in my opinion, liturgical gestures are not the same thing as icon veneration as practiced especially in the East.
Well, I am saying that he takes the Old Testament passages against images too seriously, to the point of disallowing other evidence from scripture. For example, he talks about some local council which he says prohibited images on the walls of the church. Well, if scripture is my final authority, I should note that the both the tabernacle and the temple had images on their walls. And if the temple had images in it, why can't churches. Of course, having the images is not the same as venerating them. And there are other assumptions he makes that I think are false. I wish I had time for a full response, but alas, I have other matters to attend to.
If it was made mandatory, that would be the problem. It sounds like in the East, veneration of icons is mandatory
• *Re: lack of early positive Patristic support:* And where are there patristic references to something resembling the Protestant canon of Scripture until St. Jerome? What’s the point of such an argument from silence?
• *Re: earliest Christian art was symbolic and didactic:* yes. Icons are “books of the illiterate.” Christian images have always been focused on symbolic meaning.
• *Re: Christian images were at first only didactic, not venerated:* You don’t know that. Images fill, for example, the Duro-Europos house church. We have no way of knowing they for sure were not venerated. But *the theological basis for icon veneration applies also to that of relics,* which is undoubtedly early and has obvious biblical precedents.
Also: Orthodox do not teach anything like the Roman view of doctrinal development.
Marcus Minucius Felix, in his "Octavius", also says very plainly that Christians have no altars, images, temples, etc.
No pulpit or seminary either.
The western Church never had a controversy about images until Calvin and Zwingli. The Eastern Church developed a unique theology about images precisely because an emperor tried to ban them.
I don't think veneration of images is forbidden in Lutheranism, but neither it is something that's obligatory.
And neither is it in Catholicism.
Perhaps Eusebius' letter to Constantia (the sister of Constantine the Great) may be helpful. Constantia requested that Eusebius (the church historian who authored The Church History) send her an image of Christ, and Eusebius wrote her the following response. I quote a translation of it here, at least the full of what survives to this day:
Translation by Cyril Mango, from The Art of the Byzantine Empire 312-1453 (1972, rep. 1986), p. 16-18.
Letter from Eusebius of Caesaria (circa 260-399 AD) to Constantia.
[I marked notable portions in bold.]
"To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error."
You also wrote me concerning some supposed image of Christ, which image you wished me to send you. Now what kind of thing is this that you call the image of Christ? I do not know what impelled you to request that an image of Our Saviour should be delineated. What sort of image of Christ are you seeking? Is it the true and unalterable one which bears His essential characteristics, or the one which He took up for our sake when He assumed the form of a servant? … Granted, He has two forms, even I do not think that your request has to do with His divine form. … Surely then, you are seeking His image as a servant, that of the flesh which He put on for our sake. But that, too, we have been taught, was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. Indeed, it is not surprising that after His ascent to heaven He should have appeared as such, when, while He-the God, Logos-was yet living among men, He changed the form of the servant, and indicating in advance to a chosen band of His disciples the aspect of His Kingdom, He showed on the mount that nature which surpasses the human one-when His face shone like the sun and His garments like light. Who, then, would be able to represent by means of dead colors and inanimate delineations (skiagraphiai) the glistening, flashing radiance of such dignity and glory, when even His superhuman disciples could not bear to behold Him in this guise and fell on their faces, thus admitting that they could not withstand the sight? If, therefore, His incarnate form possessed such power at the time, altered as it was by the divinity dwelling within Him, what need I say of the time when He put off mortality and washed off corruption, when He changed the form of the servant into the glory of the Lord God… ? … How can one paint an image of so wondrous and unattainable a form-if the term ‘form’ is at all applicable to the divine and spiritual essence-unless, like the unbelieving pagans, one is to represent things that bear no possible resemblance to anything… ? For they, too, make such idols when they wish to mould the likeness of what they consider to be a god or, as they might say, one of the heroes or anything else of the kind, yet are unable even to approach a resemblance, and so delineate and represent some strange human shapes. Surely, even you will agree that such practices are not lawful for us.
But if you mean to ask of me the image, not of His form transformed into that of God, but that of the mortal flesh before its transformation, can it be that you have forgotten that passage in which God lays down the law that no likeness should be made either of what is in heaven or what is in the earth beneath? Have you ever heard anything of the kind either yourself in church or from another person? Are not such things banished and excluded from churches all over the world, and is it not common knowledge that such practices are not permitted to us alone?
Once- I do not know how-a woman brought me in her hands a picture of two men in the guise of philosophers and let fall the statement that they were Paul and the Saviour-I have no means of saying where she had had this from or learned such a thing. With the view that neither she nor others might be given offence, I took it away from her and kept it in my house, as I thought it improper that such things ever be exhibited to others, lest we appear, like idol worshippers, to carry our God around in an image. I note that Paul instructs all of us not to cling any more to things of the flesh; for, he says, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more.
It is said that Simon the sorcerer is worshipped by godless heretics painted in lifeless material. I have also seen myself the man who bears the name of madness57 [painted] on an image and escorted by Manichees. To us, however, such things are forbidden. For in confessing the Lord God, Our Saviour, we make ready to see Him as God, and we ourselves cleanse our hearts that we may see Him after we have been cleansed…
[Footnote]
57 “the man who bears the name of madness” is Mani the founder of Manichaeism.
[Mani is the heretic after whom Manichaeism, a form of gnosticism, is named. Eusebius talks about and condemns his heresy in "The Church History", book 7, chapter 31.]
It is very notable to me that this was written in the fourth century, where it was observed by Eusebius that the use of images was "banished and excluded from churches all over the world, and is it not common knowledge that such practices are not permitted to us alone?"
I bring this up because it seems to me that Christians who are lured to the Orthodox or Catholic church have this notion that they are somehow getting in touch with the ancient and original Christianity, but from the looks of this letter from Eusebius, it looks like the original Christianity actually took the Bible's commandments about not making images and not venerating them very seriously. It looks like what is being passed off as a historic Christianity is actually Christianity that has strayed from its roots.
Consider this passage from History of Eastern Christianity about the Church of the East:
Then suddenly came the age of re-discovery1 of their little community as a revelation to a bewildered world. The story started with a certain Claude James Rich, then Resident of the British East lndia Company in Baghdad, who was not a man of religion but happened to he highly cultured and possessed of a very keen interest in archaeology. He visited the ancient site of the Biblical city of Nineveh in 1820, and his report2 on the area excited all manner of circles, both scholarly and missionary, in England and America. At long last he revealed to the English-speaking races the astounding facts about the Assyrians, who still conversed in a language similar to that spoken by Jesus and the Apostles and whose peculiar form of Christianity called for study and sympathy. A systematic archaeological exploration was commenced by A. H. Layard.3 On the religious side, however, the Nestorians were evidently and traditionally anti-popish and had neither icons nor crucifixes in their churches, only a simple and symbolic Cross. Their attitude towards the Virgin Mary was much akin to Protestant conceptions. Could they be the ancient ‘Protestants of the East’? Hence ensued a deluge of missions and Protestant missionaries to those forlorn sons of a historic church in their Godforsaken abodes.
The Church of the East split from the Great Church (a.k.a. the "one holy catholic and apostolic church" prior to any major schism) at the council of Ephesus in 431 AD, over Nestorius (patriarch of Constantinople) being falsely condemned and excommunicated for a heresy he didn't teach, with Cyril of Alexandria (patriarch of Alexandria) prosecuting him with a misrepresentation of his teaching, accusing him of teaching that there were two Christs, one human and one divine, because Nestorius taught that Mary ought to be called the Christotokos (the "mother of Christ") rather than Theotokos ("mother of God"). (See Know the Creeds and Councils, Chapter 3, Council of Ephesus.) From that time on, Nestorius was known as a heretic in the west, but as a saint in the east: Mar Nestor.
My point in quoting Eusebius and this portion about the Church of the East is that it shows that the image venerating sects of Christianity are not representing some sort of continuity with early historic Christianity, the very thing that Protestant converts to Eastern Orthodoxy find appealing. Rather, image veneration appear to represent a deviation from what the church originally practiced for at least its first four centuries, as confirmed by these two witnesses-Eusebius, and the Church of the East-I can't say it better than Eusebius said it, so I'll quote him again:
can it be that you have forgotten that passage in which God lays down the law that no likeness should be made either of what is in heaven or what is in the earth beneath? Have you ever heard anything of the kind either yourself in church or from another person? Are not such things banished and excluded from churches all over the world, and is it not common knowledge that such practices are not permitted to us alone?
Eusebius took the part of the heretical Arians in his christology, his position was contra the Nicene creed. The theology of icons rests on the theology of Christ being both truly God and truly human, which was not Eusebius’ theology. (When he saw the writing on the wall at Nicea, he compromised rather than be labeled a heretic.) Also, if images are forbidden by the Torah or were not in the early church, how do you explain the synagogue and house church ruins at Dura Europos? Those were mid 3rd century. How do you explain that the Tabernacle had giant seraphim statues, lamp stands modeled after trees and flowers, and other representations of things ‘in and under heaven’? How do you explain that Solomon’s temple, in addition to what the Tabernacle had, had 12 oxen statues holding up the bronze laver?
@@annalynn9325 The tabernacle didn't have seraphim statues. There were Cherubims sculpted onto the Ark and tapestry. These images of cherubims were not venerated. Having religious art isn't the issue. The issue is venerating, bowing before and censing said artwork. Dura Eropos had religious art, like many churches, that isn't a call to veneration of icons. There is no theology of icons in any of the Gospels, Acts, or writings of the apostles.
@@dustindustindontworry-jz8dh Your argument is refuted so you change your argument to something else. No point discussing it further because you’ll move the goal posts to suit what you want to keep believing
@@annalynn9325 You didn't provide any evidence of veneration, with the examples of images that you cited. You can't. I agree, there is no further discussion needed here. The apostles, Christ and disciples didn't teach/create or venerate "icons". Thee END.
"As part of our worship." What? Is someone making this defense?
As part of our veneration makes sense, but what you said does not. The gathering is a blessing factory: Humans (quick and dead) receive blessings.
You are conflating the blessings (given liberally) with worship (reserved for God alone).
💯💯
As I delve into the differences between the ecumenical and Protestant claims, I see this discussion missing:
Is it necessary, is it permissible, is it beneficial.
Is it forbidden, is it harmful, does it diminish the gospel.
First, Christ and Christ alone.
I am Catholic. We always had statues in the Church, and in the School. But I never thought of myself as "venerating an image". I always thought i was "remembering" a person. Persons whose holiness of life and virtue are worthy of our memory and emulation. I had some affection or attraction to some of the stories about the lives of a few of them.
Orthodox saints all venerate images. The power of the Holy Spirit is abundant in their lives. To me this is evidence enough that there is nothing idolatrous at all about veneration. In fact it's the opposite, it fosters a love for Christ who is powerful in His saints and the work of the Holy Trinity evident in their lives. It requires humility and love to give honor to whom honor is due as Paul exhorts us. Trust the Apostolic Church in this one.
You mean trust the Orthodox Church?
I'm not sure you're referring to those Pentecostals
So we should all believe something that wasn't around until 700 years later after the apostles just because the church said. And by the way if you don't agree you're anathema and have no place in the church? That's pretty hard to accept, especially for a group that values tradition and history of the church so much. Id be fine with it if it was like hey we think this and it could be helpful yet it's the black and white addition of doctrine that Jesus never preached nor was practiced in the early church.
@@a_bex.1501 veneration in various forms was practiced in His time. The scrolls were venerated as well as the mezuzah among other things. Relics were venerated in the first century.
I think you need to lay out the terms of engagement when dealing with this question. You start by saying, first, that we’re leaving aside questions of doctrinal development. Second, you make clear that the argument concerns only what the early church and fathers actually did and believe. Only when those facts are on the table do you discuss the validity of doctrinal development, and discuss whether the RCCs position is, as you say, unfalsifiable. They may admit that, and not see it as a problem. Indeed, if the Holy Spirit preserves the Church from error, then everything the Church has done and has come to believe is plainly true. At that point, you need to rely on their own claims about what it would be impossible for the Church to teach or revise to show that in precisely those kinds of areas the Church has revised and taught wrongly in the past, and therefore may be teaching wrongly in the present. If you don’t proceed carefully you’ll get the typical incoherence and circular argumentation every time.
Is your goal to prove 'Rome' wrong, or the truth?
BY THE VENERATION WE HONOR AND WE GLORIFY THE PERSONS REPRESENTED.
One thing that I’m not sure is being addressed in this discussion is the experiential practice of icon venerators, and whether or not there is a clear distinction that they experience between worship offered to God and honor offered to saints through images. I do not get the impression, from my own practice, that I confuse God or divinity with any icon I venerate. The two are simply not the same, and what I experience is something more like honor or worship offered to God through remembering what is portrayed through the icon. This is particularly true of icons of events, which usually have nuanced ways of communicating entire theological realities in a single expression. For example, Christ’s Baptism has a TON of theological significance that reminds me of the reality of Baptism and the Incarnation’s significance in sacraments. I worship God by letting this change me, while honoring the fact that God has made it possible to know Him through material.
Very important video,because it's indeed frustrating to see Romans pulling out what explicitly the Fathers agree with them, but in the end we have to pull out that the earliest fathers were pointing to the Trinity, even though the pagan understanding of what a "god" was strongly influenced all of them.
I was going to say the same; people take their idols seriously, that is why Israel wanted to kill Gideon when he cut off the pole of Asherah. So the hostile reaction towards Gavin is no surprise!
Although it may be the case in other videos on other topics, I’m pretty sure the Horn/Akin response didn’t utilize doctrinal development. Considering the length of the video I could be wrong though 😂
Akin does speak of doctrinal development in his rebuttal. It's perfectly understandable that you might have missed it. It was a really long video.
Doctrinal development is brought up multiple times in the Akin/Horn video.
@@MapleBoarder78 Do you happen to have time stamps? I’m not doubting it I just can’t find it.
@@catkat740 Might have time tomorrow after church. Would be difficult to find without watching the entire video again to isolate a few 5 second sound bytes. It’s nearly 3 hours to sift through.
@@MapleBoarder78 Haha, no worries. I guess I’m thinking maybe Gavin was trying to establish the aniconism of the early Church as “doctrine” at a time when that hadn’t really been defined so Trent and Jimmy were claiming that that wasn’t really the case. So it wasn’t as much doctrine developing but more the thought process and atmosphere which inspired said doctrine was coming to the forefront. If that makes sense?
Please a program on the 7th council
I'm no expert but it seems to me reasonable to expect that in early Christianity there would be limited use of images (though not *none*); actual idol worship being ubiquitous in the Roman empire. As the empire waned and idol worship as practiced by the Romans ebbed, it would be less "scandalous" or confusing for Christians to begin more openly venerating images and not have the practice confused with idol worship. Nicea after all, is still quite early.
It seems that use of images for worship was the contemporary worship music of it's day. It was a development that became the norm.
From the present day Roman Catholic point of view, that is my own, It is not the usual practice to venerate images. This is not to say it doesn't happen. The great majority of catholic church goers simply go to church, then leave. There is the occasional veneration, of which i include myself. Also, most of the images are biblical scenes, both old and new testaments. These are not meant to be venerated, but didactic. The one liturgical use of an image is veneration of the cross on Good Friday. Typically images that are venerated are those of the saints. Mary, of course, is most often venerated.
Thank you sir.
I have come to the view that Ortlund's approach - almost regardless of the weight of his arguments - wins the day for me on such doctrinal disagreements. I have grown tired of strawman arguments and mockery used in such discussions - as if some of the answers to these issues are so obvious. I even hear mockery of the idea of irenic dialogue. Such as these have lost the argument with me before they even try to make a point.
I think it is interesting that you consider the RC position unfalsifiable because no amount of showing the position of the early fathers will be able to overcome the development hypothesis. The development hypothesis just undercuts everything to the point that Catholic doctrine becomes impervious to the opinions of the fathers.
BUT
There IS still a way to argue against veneration: directly, by showing that it is idolatry or encourages idolatry.
So it's not really unfalsifiable, it's just that we don't wanna do anything besides appeal to the fathers or scripture.
At this point the RC position just seems to be the stronger position, unless we want to argue that the fathers are more authoritative than RC take them to be. Thoughts?
Dr. I understand the importance of sacraments and presence of Christ in the eucharist but havent we gotten far by explaining eucharist by consubstatiation (explaining more about it besides the presence of Christ).Want to know about this and your opinion.Thank you
@@kandce49 Thank you,i havent watched it.I will watch
Lutherans actually do venerate images! It is regular practice in many Lutheran congregations to bow to the cross as it processes, which is an obvious example of a veneration of an image. Also, many make the sign of the cross, which is also a way of venerating the Holy Cross of Christ. So.....
Many apologies for the gross errors of grammar in my text. Doing this on my cell phone 😕
Veneration is just an excuse Veneration and Adoration is Part of Worshipping
Speaking as a byzantine Catholic, I've always viewed icon veneration (i.e. kissing the icons) as an expression of St Paul's command to "greet one another with a holy kiss" as applied to the Catholic understanding of the communion of saints. After all, if we can ask saints in heaven to pray for us, why can't we greet them when we go to church?
I remember being at a Greek Orthodox Church once and the priest saying that icon started as a result of most people being illiterate and not being able to read the Bible. FYI, I am evangelical Protestant, so I was only at an Orthodox Church a few times for a food festival.
@marriage4life893 Where does it say that in scripture?
Are you saying that doctrinal development doesn’t exist?
Isn't knowing what is and isn't idolatry an essential of Christianity? Yet among Protestants there isn't agreement. John Calvin said that images of Christ in Churches constituted idolatry. Maybe you have accepted accretions and John Calvin is right?
Whaaatttt! I'm sure you've read thousands of times how images plays a role in Old Testament, does it aligns with what you're sayin?
Because I have a convert godson. I have recently had to watch all the videos he watches because he asked me these questions. Then I had to visit the churches that he used to go to so I can see what he's talking about when he's talking about stuff. The thing that troubles me most about all these discussions is the lack of true humility to the body of Christ. There is an assumption that if an intellectual reads a handbook he will understand how to run the ship. Even if the handbook tells you that the authority to run the ship is passed down from let's say captain to captain and it must be done a certain way. It seems to me that everyone has their own ideas and sometimes those ideas agree with others so they believe they're in the same ship. But the difference is are enough for me as an outsider to see that it's not the same ship. As for icons, if you venerate them, you're not worshiping them. It's a ridiculous premise to believe that orthodox Christians as a practice worship icons. In fact, most orthodox Christians barely even actually touched the icon when they kiss it because they're too afraid of catching a disease from each other. Lol. The truth is when we kiss an icon we are kissing an image of our brother who should be with christ. We are asking our fellow living member to pray for us because we know because of his sanctification that he has christ's ear. As for the mother of god, the marriage of Cana is the biblical example of how Christ always listens to his mother even if he does not want to do it. This is why we have an icon where Christ covers his mother's mouth before she can ask because he's telling her she shouldn't ask this of him. It's a family relationship. The church is a family and all its members. Whether in heaven or in on earth are in communion. We don't worship saints. They're like our uncles in heaven. Or aunts? Lots of aunts
I am eastern orthodox. But the point you made that person cannot be wise enought o understand anything more than the Church is quite wierd. I mean think about non christian perspective. How couod he choose the right church? By his own understanding isnt it? Why you are orthodox? You born to it? Well that does not mean its it true church just becouse YOU born to it. Did you choose it? Well then you chose it becouse you are wiser than protestant and catholics scholars. I mean martin luther was catholic monk he new church history well. We all orthodox wether we have chose it or born to it, we all need to choose to emprace it if we want to be real orthodox.
@@gabrielgabriel5177 Those who eyes shall see.....God knows. We just use words as if we know their meaning.
@@gabrielgabriel5177 Also Χριστός Ανέστη
@@hesicast yes, but still. i have been thinking this a lot. It is clear that chrostianity is the real religion. But why there are these different churches since khalcedon of 451? And everyone claims to have right wievs becousec HE understand everything better than others. We can pretend to be humble and say that we dont rely to our own understanding but we repy on church fathers. Well also orientals and catholics say so. And even protestants say they rely on the fathers of very firsr centuries.
@@gabrielgabriel5177 we rely on Christ and his enlightenment through the Holy Fathers then and today. What is telling is that when we read St. Athanasius or St Nectarios we are reading the same spirit. When I read Luther I am not reading Grace. Their words are not familiar to me. Also, the church is the body of Christ. All the heretical churches behave the same. The Catholics and the Protestants are conquering churches. And what I mean by that is that when you look at their behavior in the fruits of their behavior as a whole, not as an exception to the rule. I don't see Christ. Now. I don't have to tell you the fruits of either. I'm sure you can experience them simply by going into their churches. I don't want to be insulting to either one because I am not worthy of even the worst Catholic, but the epidemic of force exists in all of those churches. The difference in the orthodox Church is defense and persecution. The Catholics and the Protestants have been in America for a very long time both these religions persecuted the pagans. When the orthodox came to North America, they were persecuted. We don't suffer from choir boy syndrome. It's an exception to the rule. It's not the rule. God gave us reason. Many years ago I was a paganist so it's easy for me to recognize that which is familiar in the opposite direction and the lack of light direction and to turn your back on God direction. I remember the day I asked god for the truth. As I used to seek to find the truth the moment I asked for it, God presented it to me. I was permitted to meet a saint actual living saint . I've been blessed to live near a monastery for the past 12 years and experience the father's there. God is permitted me to see their flaws, their strengths, their weaknesses, and the grace that permeates them. They imitate Christ as Paul imitates. Yet it's impossible to imitate Christ unless Christ is in you. Forgive the long-winded answer. We pray for the Catholics in the Protestants to come back home to the one holy Catholic apostolic church. We want them on the same ship as us and we open the doors to him and we say come and see.
"they're not like eastern icons" ? what do think eastern orthodox icons are like?
Eastern orthodox here.
"more signs and symbols than anything else" - dont know what you mean by that
"the good shepherd, looks like hermes", "images of the OT", "a lot of it is kind of, you know, symbolism", "the rock was christ", "the sign of jonah", "[drawing fulfilments of paganism] to show truths of the christian faith"
these are entirely consistent with the language that eastern iconography has been speaking for at least a thousand years, up to the present day.
"not an image of jesus in the way that we think about crucifixes in our churches" - who is 'we', and how *do* you think about them? it doesnt sound like you see them the way we see icons.
"seem to have a very different function" - the only apparent difference from what you said is the fact of veneration. all the positive descriptions you gave of early icons are still quintessential to current iconography, and does not constitute a discontinuity.
the early sayings against veneration of images are to be understood in the context of pagan worship, where it is associated with idolatry, the idea being that the image itself is the body of god. this logically becomes less of an issue as paganism diminishes. the iconodoules are very clear that the image is not venerated as the body of god, but that the veneration passes to the prototype. this makes the difference pretty straightforward between later veneration and earlier apparent condemnation of veneration.
Here’s what I still can’t wrap my head around: So you want to “venerate” or show respect to these saints, right? So *WHY do you NEED an icon/image in order to show respect???* I can show respect to a person without having to bow to, kiss, or pray in front of an image or statue of them. Respect can be shown without having images be used. It can be an inward feeling towards a saint. You don’t have to use icons to show respect or venerate someone.
So why the emphasis on icons being kissed, bowed to, or prayed in front of??
@@lakerfan0243 You dont *need* an image in order to show respect, but it is right to do so. as far as veneration is concerned, it is the same as taking out a picture of your grandchildren and kissing it.
by definition, "inward feeling" is not showing respect. when you respect someone, you dont just *feel* it inside. you show it in various ways. you greet people, you speak politely to them, you bow in certain circumstances, you stand or salute in other circumstances, you kiss certain people, be it your spouse, parents, kids, or even friends, depending on what country you are from.
how would you *show* respect without an image? with words? sure, that's fine, but it isnt as powerful as the embodied practice of bowing or kissing.
the tradition of icon veneration comes from a time and place when kissing and bowing were much more common social practices than today in (america), so in that context it is much easier to see how veneration fits into one's model of society and norms.
furthermore, *seeing* the saints around us in church makes it immediately clear to our senses that the saints are alive and present with us, in a way that is impossible to do with words.
@@Gwyll_Arboghast but you aren’t seeing the saints… you’re seeing an image or statue of the saints that likely isn’t even an accurate representation of how they really looked. Also, the saints are not “present with us”… they are in heaven. We are on earth. There’s a difference.
@@lakerfan0243 so what if the image isn't like a photograph? its not supposed to be. it is a representation of their spirit, their significance in the language of byzantine imagery.
1) the saints being "in heaven" does not meant they are not with us. heaven isnt a place. heaven is not divided from earth by any spatial separation.
2) we are the body of christ; are the saints not also the body of christ? we are no more separate than one hand from the other.
3) in the divine liturgy, heaven meets with earth, the church *is* heaven. in the liturgy, we actually participate in the same liturgy celebrated by the angels and saints in heaven. in a lesser sense, the church is always heaven.
4) if you accept praying to the saints, they are at least present enough to speak with.
@@Gwyll_Arboghast heaven literally IS described as being spatially divided from earth. The story of Lazarus and the rich man makes that clear. We are PHYSICALLY separated from the departed saints who are in Heaven.
No scripture supports the idea that the saints are “present with us” and no scripture supports the idea that the saints are physically close to us.
8:52 - "What do you do at that point?"
You call a serpent a serpent, dust off your feet and keep moving.
Yes please do a video on Nicea ll. Unless you have and I don't realize!
Please release a book on Icons yourself and/or books written by other Lutheran scholars on Icons.
Yes. If incarnation is TRUE, Images Must be venerated.
It seems that the biggest problem is not that it is simply a pious opinion, but rather mandated by Nicea 2 at the risk of anathema.
As an Anglican, I apologize for John Henry Newman.
I recommend the other Paul’s channel where he has a funny video on Newman “fixing” various issues in Catholicism.
On the doctrinal development issue, I think you're not being completely accurate here. If Church Father A doesn't agree with something Rome practices, or doesn't fully support it, it is because Rome supports the "consensus of the Fathers" position. Which doesn't mean that if you find one Church Father may quote something that may sound like justification by faith alone, (notwithstanding it being removed from its original context), for example, pointing that out doesn't even nearly come close to refuting Rome because every single teaching does not need to be uniformly agreed to by every Father" due to their "concensus" argument. I find that completely reasonable. It would be like Rome pointing out differences in the various Protestants, and hand-waiving Protestants based only on those differences. There will always be some shades of differences on the margins...and I don't think either side benefits when the other takes an "all or nothing" approach. That said, doctrinal development exists in Protestantism's individual branches as well...yet that seems to be acceptable to every Protestant...yet they attack Rome when they have the same patterns in history.
Thanks Dr. Cooper. Exactly. Rome says the Church Father's agree with them except where they don't. Then they cry "Doctrinal development!", therefore, voila, Rome is always right. They've got the eternal wildcard.
Nevertheless, they will discover "on that day" that "God will not be mocked".
those romanists always sound like their whole history is mental gymnastics
Doctrinal Development is the Presidential Suite at Hilbert's Hotel of Heresy.
Nice, saw this pop up in the J&S group.
I've watched about a dozen videos on this from all the major opposing sides. It seems to me that the church in the centuries leading up to The First Council were not united in doctrine and practice on this issue, as with so many others.
So as with most things debated today, we have to admit that there is doctrinal development. The question is; which path is the most faithful to the necessity of the Apostles? I think everyone is following their conscience.
Trinitarians ought not to be casting anathemas on each other. It is Christ who will sit on the Bema seat and each will be judged according to the light they were given.
We don't have to worship and have altar or pulpit fellowship, but we should at least respect each other, pray for one another. Even as ones who our Lord described in Mark 9 as ones who are not against us.
If you are frustrated with the development hypothesis, then just read Newman and either show how the development hypothesis itself contradicts church teaching, or how a certain principle doesnt fit the hypothesis. I can agree RC apologists throw it around a little fast and loose, but that doesnt mean it's not legit. Of course it's legit, of course doctrine is continually explicated and refined over centurie, but there are limits you just gotta do the research and read the cannons.
How is it that Rome is now opposed to the death penalty for the sake of human dignity, but was okay with it for a millennia? Did human dignity not exist before or something?
@@dave1370 Rome still upholds the death penalty as a proper form of punishment, justly held by state authorities and for the same reasons as before too. As an extension of the principle of self defense. The current catholic teaching is still the exact same. What is in the current catechism, isnt changing the doctrine of it being a just and ethical action in the need of public defense. It is simply making a Prudential and pastoral judgement on the justification of the death penalty in modern society, considering criminals can be reasonable held with out threat to the public. Simply the doctrine didnt change, only the Prudential guidance on the implementation of the doctrine. I agree with the reasoning of the catechism, but a catholic could reasonable disagree in good conscience and support the death penalty considering it's a matter of prudence and not doctrine.
That't not an accurate portrayal of what the Catechism teaches, in my humble opinion. The Catechism now says (2267):
"*Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.
Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.
Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide."
To me, the last sentence seems to be a clear case of moral condemnation of death penalty, not simply a prudential judgment. DP is against human dignity. The sentence starting with "today, however" also implies that *now we know better what is right*. Previous generations were wrong to endorse death penalty.
@@stanislaw_sk I dont know why people insist on this being an example of a contradiction in the magisterium. It's really not at all close and there are a dozen more interesting examples to trying to find a contraction in.
The catechism does 2 things on the death penalty. First it explicitly affirms its doctrinal legitimacy as a just action which the state has the authority to perform, and secondly, it offers a prudential/pastoral judgement on the implementation of the practice they just affirmed as doctrinally sound.
The affirmation occurs in CCC 2263-2267. Heres a couple excerpts.
The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. ... The one is intended, the other is not
Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
Then the pastoral guide in 2267 you are familiar with, after affirming the age old teaching of DP for the common good, explains why in current society it isnt prudent to use the death penalty because based on new information we can see it is very likely not promoting the common good. And this new info isnt moral progress. Its facts about how DP costs the state more than life imprisonment, and they are both now equally effective tools for public self defense, and how recent studies have shown DP isnt an effective deterrent. This new info in combination with the old moral principle of a desire to preserve life, universal human dignity and giving a chance for conversation... would result in someone concluding not that the DP is intrinsically unjust or immoral, but instead that prudentially is not in accordance with the common good in current society.
You just really cant argue the new catechism contradicts the old one when its affirms almost word for word what the only one says. Explains the situations where one can be done justly in nearly the exact same manner. And then just explains how current society doesnt fit the situation laid out by trent.
@@pat1442
Thanks for reply. However, I do not agree with your interpretation. 2263-2266 does not mention the death penalty at all. It speaks generally about what the principles of legitimate defence are. Then in 2267 the death penalty is addressed. Importantly: the justification for the change in teaching refers to the fact that we now have a better understanding of what human dignity is all about and we know that the death penalty destroys this dignity. Yes, the Catechism also mentions that circumstances have changed and the death penalty is not necessary to protect society from the criminal etc. But this is not the main argument. The main argument is a moral one (it refers to a moral value: the dignity of the human person). So yes, it seems to me that this passage from the catechism states that the death penalty is intrinsically immoral. And no, there is no affirmation of previous teaching contained here. It seems to me that the best strategy for you would be to deny that the catechism contains the infallible teaching of the magisterium (i.e., 2267 is simply wrong). But what if the next 10 popes affirm, or further reinforce, the current teaching? The development of doctrine cannot contain contradictions. This is why Dr Ortlund argues for the fact that the rulings of Nicea II contradict the earlier teaching of the Church. I don't know if he is right on this account, but it shows that he knows Newman's criteria for a valid doctrinal development.
Bring the Old Haircut back! The OG Lutheran haircut 💈
Many issues with this video, and I know that you can't address everything in 12 minutes. It seems that you aren't responding to the actual historical claims of Iconodulism prior to Nicaea, as presented by Seraphim Hamilton, for example. You said "I read some of the early Fathers" and that you couldn't find icon veneration there. This is a very naive thing to say, no offense. If I'm looking for a detailed treatise on baptism, I wouldn't read St. Justin Martyr, and then say, oh, there was no detailed discussion of baptism, therefore it didn't exist in the early Church. Rather, I would read Tertullian's treatise dedicated to the subject.
I find that Gavin Ortlund is notoriously bad with quote mining in this regard, and that most who reject Nicaea II have little interest is actually reading St. John of Damascus and St. Theodore the Studite, or in looking at the archaeological evidence for iconodulism. For example, Origen states that Christians don't use temples, altars, or images. Any investigation would show that early Christians called their churches "temples," (a practice that continues to this day in the EOC) and that the Dura Europos house church (constructed during Origen's own lifetime) has BOTH images and likely multiple altars. This is not to say that Origen was wrong, (though perhaps he was, as he was wrong about many things) but rather that his words need to be contextualized. For instance, Pagan altars were in the form of heated pyres upon which offerings were burned. Christian altars were often simple tables upon which the Eucharistic sacrifice was offered (note also that these altars were often covered with imagery, demonstrating veneration). Therefore a Pagan altar was probably conceptualized by Origen as being much different than a Christian one.
Given an apparent lack of Patristic testimonia, why didn't you look into the works quoted in St. John of Damascus' Three Apologies? He includes three entire florilegia of quotes supporting iconodulism. Did you think to look at that at all? I don't mean to be rude, but practically none of the Protestant takes I've heard on Nicaea II care to address this at all, and therefore the arguments that result particularly from Gavin's video just talk directly past the theological issues at play. That and they have far too narrow a definition of what counts as "veneration," and what counts as an "icon." You say that you don't see a Biblical argument in St. John of Damascus? That is absurd. His entire argument is grounded on ideas such as the Ark (an image) being honored and prostrated towards, as well as images being present in the Temple. Do you realize that those are forms of icon veneration in themselves? Until Protestants (even the "top" apologists) put honest work into investigating these issues from multiple dimensions, they have no chance of convincing anyone who has a serious mind regarding theology.
“Doctrinal development” is insane. As we read through the Bible it is made quite clear that God doesn’t change, his mind doesn’t change, and his word doesn’t change.
So if we know what God wants us to do or not do, how to worship, and how to understand then it becomes clear (at least to me) that “doctrine development” should always have the goal of fighting some newly worded heresy to keep us like those churches of the first few centuries.
Can you imagine asking Saint Paul to be more inclusive of unrepentant sin and to use a female “pastor’s” preferred pronouns as they assign the Holy Spirit a “she” pronoun, endorse abortion, or in the case of the Roman church place a man on equal footing with God!
It seems that in Revelation most modern churches are reading about the five of the seven churches in Revelation and acting like it’s a “to do” list.
I was also very frustrated with the Horn/Akin response.
Akin began the rebuttal by calling Gavin's entire argument circular, which couldn't be further from the truth, and then it felt like they were just dodging the accusation the rest of the video.
"Yeah, they said don't bow to Pagan images, but OUR images are fine" was basically their argument. That's an unfalsifiable claim as you said.
I think there is a difference between bowing down to an image of a false god and bowing down before an image of Christ or even the saints. In the former case, I would be worshipping or venerate something that represents evil, and I would begin to immulate the evil it represents. In the latter case, I would be worshipping or venerating someone who was good and I would begin to immulate that goodness.
@@jimmu2008 The problem for this view is that it was universally rejected in the early years of the Church as idolatry.
You can find countless quotes from Church fathers denouncing images and saying Christians don't use images during worship, which is why Dr. Jordan and Dr. Ortlund hold the view that they do - you can have images, but you shouldn't venerate them.
The Bible is also clear - make NO graven images and bow down to them.
This is one of those issues where I, respectfully, don't see how people can convince themselves that it's okay. It seems to be one of the most clear teachings in the Bible and the early Church. It worries me because this tells me people can really convince themselves that anything is okay and find ways to rationalize it.
Remember that the early Christians were evangelizing pagans. That is the context in which this should be seen, imho. Because the pagans were convinced their gods occupied the images that they worshipped, could it be that was because they wanted to demonstrate that it wasn't necessary, and God could be worshipped anywhere, since God is omniscient, omnipresent, etc and not contained by said image. This doesn't ipso facto mean that these early Christians forbade images.
Without the understanding of ἐνέργειᾰ veneration of icons doesn't make sense.
Surely the artistic skills of a painter, a sculptor or a stone mason is god given? why malign these gifts? When visiting a Church in the Netherlands recently I was shocked at all the 'headless' statues. These reformers, who acted as common vandals were clearly not understanding or appreciating that these artistic expressions came from God and were in homage to God, no?
I might advise, Dr Cooper, to be wary of Gavins counter Orthodox project and extremely troubling characters he engages with as representatives. I hear your admiration for John of Damascus voiced at the end of this video, and worry that the interaction of Gavin and these ROCOR deus vult types is only going to ruin the beauty of it for everyone involved. I'm sure this has crossed your mind and I would encourage you that you're not wrong here.