Lol, let's ask Trent for an endorsement on your book on the Papacy =) I really enjoyed it, and I think it does a good job demonstrating the conciliar model. amzn.to/3DiNGau I am also really excited to read your book on Job! People should definitely check it out: amzn.to/3VHhtQx
Growing up evangelical it hit me yesterday that Protestants will bow and “worship at the foot of the cross”. It never struck me before but this is literally icon veneration.
The Protestants just made an excellent new movie, the Best Christmas Pagent ever, and a central theme in this movie is how an Icon of Our Lady and Christ Child brought these children to Our Lord. I'm like, the people behind this movie are going to become Apostolic Christians
@@americanvendee I would say they unknowingly participate in the concept without intending to. What I mean by this is they are using the icon of the cross to pass worship to Jesus and thanks for his sacrifice. If you asked them they would just say it helps remind them of Christ’s sacrifice as they worship him alone. Considering they reject icon veneration this particular practice seems like a log in their eye and theology.
@@joelrobertsonmusic it was a touching movie and I was shocked how central the theme of an image of Mary and wanting to be like her is one of the main messages of the movie
I have gone back and forth on this subject, but walking through the world that has replaced images of Christ with images of cartoons (e.g. snowmen, bunnies, snoopy, Santa) during the holidays of Easter and Christmas shows me how images can change the focus of individuals. By removing icons of Christ people have replaced these icons with images of commercialism. Icons acted as literature in an ancient world that couldn’t read, but it still has purpose in a literate world that has no focus. Whenever I see a Christmas or Easter parade filled with floats and balloons of the latest Hollywood action movie, I wonder about the effect on children who now see this time to reflect on salvation solely as a time for buying presents and candy. If instead they were taken to a procession with a crucifix or nativity scene they would ask “Why is that man suffering?” or “Who is that child?” In today’s society, you could walk through many stores without any image of Christ during that holiday season and be unaware or reminded of the sacrifices of Christ. A "winter wonderland" or a basket of eggs doesn’t make most people reflect on the sacrifices of Christ. I guess the ultimate question about images or icons is whether it focuses on distracts from the individual's worship of Christ. Because even something as simple as cross can put someone in the mental space to pray.
Well written and a great point. We live in a world full of icons and symbols. But people don’t realize it. They are happy to unwittingly have secular icons point their minds to sex and mammon which then get weaved into their lives. These secular icons are windows to a darkened & blinded soul.
Even before the “Coke-A-Cola Santa” became a commercialization juggernaut 90 years ago, all the post-Reformation struggles to find the “right” balance in symbolism accomplished was to continually water them all down. I get to thinking about Charles Dickens’s “A Child’s History of England”, as a prime example of this struggle to walk Elizabeth’s “Via Media” line leading to deep misunderstanding and slander of deeply pious people. “When did the Roman Church go astray”, (thus necessitating Henry 8ths eventual separation), is the riddle many people like him had been struggling with. His amateur analysis in that book was based on a rather silly assumption, that after era of the Martyrs, and “GENUINE saints” would have gone out of their way to avoid being found out. Well, they do generally TRY. He seemed to assume that God wouldn’t have allowed so many of them to fail at avoiding being found out during their earthly lives or after their reposes. Ergo, most of them must have been “frauds”, either supposedly acting out their piety to gain attention in the hopes of being regarded as a saint, or others may have been fairly ordinary people whose sincere but very basic Christian behavior was posthumously grossly exaggerated by a local community who eagerly wanted a piece of the Pilgrimage tourist action for their local economy, so got some favors from a local bishop to officially recognize the supposed exaggerations about the proposed Saint, to push through their official canonization. The moderate HighChurch position of Dickens simply assumes most of these saints were phonies, not all, but most. But he does not actually offer much PROOF for these assumptions, other than incredulity that so many were found out. I bring this up because it’s indicative of the general Protestant tendency to amble in the dark on these subtler issues, which ultimately just WEAKENS the foundations upon which the an ancient faith had originally been built.
"When it comes to icon venerate, to be deep in history is to cease to be Orthodox." That quote is aging like milk in a Georgia summer. Thank you Michael Garten for your work on this!
@@MichaelGarten Nor does he ever address the most current scholarship or archeological evidence. Then he can still honestly keep saying, "I'm not aware of any evidence that supports X".
To Protestants who are convinced that the Shroud of Turin is truly the burial cloth of Christ, would not His first act upon Resurrecting have been to have torn it to shreds to prevent it from being venerated, if God was, indeed, against Iconography?
I have purchased the book and read half of it. Essential information for those who want extra evidence to evaluate the early church practices. But, people don't need to read this sort of information if they can follow a simple argument rather than be distracted by red herrings such as the claim from Gavin that icon veneration is an accretion. I usually make the argument like this: Jews venerated holy objects (first and second temple, evidence from scripture and archaeology) 1st century Jesus followers venerated holy objects (evidence from scripture, writings and archaeology) Pre-Nicaean Christians venerated holy objects (evidence from writings and archaeology) Post-Nicaean Christians venerated holy objects (evidence from writings and archaeology) Who is doing the innovating and accretion? Clearly the anti-veneration camp.
It's also worth bringing up all the objects that "Orthodox Jews" who are supposed to follow Torah, kiss and give reverence to. This worth better with evangelicals especially since they think Jews are somehow closer to God than EO/RC.
@@tymon1928 I'm just curious, how many evangelicals do you believe think that Jews are closer to God than EO/RC? And where are you getting this information?
@@AllDayMLJumping in here. American Christians who are pro-Israel because they think that blessing the 20th century Israel will cause them to be blessed, while not caring (probably because they’re unaware) that Orthodox Christians live in areas being devastated by unbelieving Israel.
@@AllDayML I wen to Israel with a group of about 30 evangelicals. We went to the various holy sites, not only Christian, but also Jewish and Muslim holy sites. I saw Jews, Muslims, Orthodox and Catholic Christians all engage in some form of veneration. The protestant evangelicals I was with stood firm like statues at best, or looked things over as if they were in a museum and observing some quaint artifact from some bygone era. It was on that trip that I decided to convert to Orthodoxy.
Gavin Ortland: "The Seventh Ecumenical Council reversed the view of the early Church ... The fact is, when it comes to this issue, the veneration of icons, to be deep in history necessitates being Protestant." Me: "Words have no meaning. Nothing matters."
Been following the Seraphim Hamilton and Michael Garten vs Gavin Ortlund debates about this. Pumped to see the book is finally released! Does "Volume 1" imply there's more to come?
Yes! This is from Michael "The plan is that vol 2 will cover post-Nicene sources (Eusebius etc) giving attestation to pre-325 veneration; enemy sources; surviving artifacts; manuscript and epigraphy evidence; and pre325 views of Old Testament images. Probably 1-1.5 yrs from completion, 20% written now"
@@barrelagedfaith Nice, looking forward to it! Watching the debates and recaps on Dr. Ortlund and Transfigured Life's channels really helped convince me of the Iconodule position.
The most strange thing for me - is when the Protestants are raging so much against the icons. I really do not understand why they hate them. These are just the same images which we create inside our mind.
It’s icon veneration that we are against. Go ahead and make all the art you wish. The mechanism of veneration presented by Nicea II is simply pagan imo. You believe the veneration given to the type passes to the prototype. That is the exact same logic used by the pagans to defend their practice. Regardless, Scripture commands one to “proskyneo” to God. See Rev 19:10
It’s because Protestants worship their intellect and their imagination (or at least the version of Christ they conjure there). This is why they hate icons. Because the icons reveal to them the deeper Truth of reality, of being itself through Christ and His saints - Christ AS HE TRULY IS, not the version they cling to in their mind. Protestants with soft hearts full of love for God and man see this immediately and convert. Some take a bit longer not for lack of love but because of the intellectual and imagination idols they must smash. And some are so smitten by their love of these idols (which most never acknowledge as such), they will blaspheme Christ in His own name out of pride and rebellion. This is the final stage of delusion that ceases the Protestant who, when consistently presented the Truth, continues to reject it. So for most Protestants, it is not a matter of having the right arguments and answers but is entirely a matter of the heart. And because Western Christianity has been so iconoclastic for so long, when these folks finally encounter Christ (AS HE IS, that is, in the icon) and His saints (AS THEY ARE, holy and sanctified by the grace of the Living God), they don’t know what to do with it. Because now for the first time, their heart beholds the Truth. And for those who persist in lies and half truths the longest and have the most to lose from letting those errant ideas go, they react viciously and with immense vitriol. We must above all pray for them and allow the grace and energies of God we receive as blessings flowing from the icons to fill us with the fullness of God’s love (which I so miserably fail at doing for my part) so that we ourselves become the most powerful icon of all to them, one they cannot ignore or dismiss as a mere “picture”.
I’ve appreciated hearing about the research that went into this book and look forward to reading it. But, I doubt it changes anyone’s mind. We live in an age where information that contradicts our preconceived notions is intentionally ignored, or summarily dismissed. People, in the west especially, place an extremely high value on their (often, uninformed) opinions, beliefs and feelings. Just listen to any of Gavin Ortlund’s videos on this subject and you will hear, “I believe . . .” and “My conscience . . .” These type of people believe that their own subjective application of humanistic rationalism (within the western scholastic tradition) is the arbiter of all truth and they are resolute in their position regardless of facts they fail to overcome. “Well, that’s just your opinion,” is an acceptable response for them, facts be damned.
I suspect people who are on the fence will have their minds changed. I was undecided on it (long time Gospel Simplicity viewer) and watching the discussions between them along with the post-debate reviews on both Dr. Ortlund and the Transfigured Life channels put me much more in the Iconodule/affirm Nicea II camp. Will people already firmly on one side or the other have their minds changed? Probably not, but isn't that true for debates on any issue? People are probably less rational than they think (both for better and worse).
It will certainly help with those who are open minded truth seekers rather than confirmation seekers. Additionally I believe it will help with demonstrating that much of the argumentation from those in the anti-veneration camp is made in bad faith and for proselytising purposes rather than truth seeking.
@@etheretherether I hope you are right. I believe debates are, for the most part, pointless. I’m not of fan of Orthodox Christians debating this issue at all - we shouldn’t debate the truth. It’s like Havel f a debate over how many hydrogen molecules are in water.
@@cassidyanderson3722 The debates are pointless, but the evidence is useful. I catechise people all the time and I like to be able to point to sources I have read even if I know that only 1% of people will go and check them out. It's very helpful to be able to put forth your position with confidence having evaluated the truthfulness of the evidence. Gavin does the opposite of this when he carefully avoids all the strong arguments against his position for fear that this might result in people abandoning his position.
The summaries of the evidence and arguments at the end of each chapter are really great and could do with being published on a website so that people understand what evidence is being presented in the book.
Thank you for this. I guess Roman Catholics have a different understanding of the word "icon" than the Orthodox since I've never seen a single icon in an RC church. For clarity, perhaps you could use the word "image" instead.
Which argument? His initial argument where he claimed iconography was forbidden in the early church and was a 6th century accretion, or his later ones after he moved the goalposts?
As a non-Orthodox I can appreciate Icon veneration, for example, the icon of the feast or saint being commemorated in the Liturgy or particular wonder-working icons. But I have a question about other forms of religious paintings in Orthodox Temples, viz., the ones painted more naturalistically high up on walls of Christ or the Mother of God and also icons that are written especially for didactic purposes rather than devotional purposes. Are these venerated or are they treated as preaching the gospel through painting like in medieval western churches?
There is a kind of visual veneration we engage in, looking with reverence. But the high up images are also a great avenue for expressing prayers to whoever is depicted, since you are in some sense beholding them in their capacity to help you (enthroned or looking down with love upon you)
Have you read the book yet? If you have, were there any quotes from the first 3 or 4 centuries that you could give us, instead of just Theodore the Studite in the 8th-9th Century time frame?
That quote from St. Theodore was is connection to my older video clip on C.S. Lewis. Michael's book is filled with early material from the first 4 centuries!
Gregory the Great (? -604 AD) Furthermore we notify to you that it has come to our ears that your Fraternity, seeing certain adorers of images, broke and threw down these same images in Churches. And we commend you indeed for your zeal against anything made with hands being an object of adoration; but we signify to you that you ought not to have broken these images. For pictorial representation is made use of in Churches for this reason; that such as are ignorant of letters may at least read by looking at the walls what they cannot read in books. Your Fraternity therefore should have both preserved the images and prohibited the people from adoration of them, to the end that both those who are ignorant of letters might have wherewith to gather a knowledge of the history, and that the people might by no means sin by adoration of a pictorial representation. (Written to Bishop Serenus of Marseilles) Epiphanius (310-403 AD) Moreover, I have heard that certain persons have this grievance against me: When I accompanied you to the holy place called Bethel, there to join you in celebrating the Collect, after the use of the Church, I came to a villa called Anablatha and, as I was passing, saw a lamp burning there. Asking what place it was, and learning it to be a church, I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loth that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ’s church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person. They, however, murmured, and said that if I made up my mind to tear it, it was only fair that I should give them another curtain in its place. As soon as I heard this, I promised that I would give one, and said that I would send it at once. Since then there has been some little delay, due to the fact that I have been seeking a curtain of the best quality to give to them instead of the former one, and thought it right to send to Cyprus for one. I have now sent the best that I could find, and I beg that you will order the presbyter of the place to take the curtain which I have sent from the hands of the Reader, and that you will afterwards give directions that curtains of the other sort-opposed as they are to our religion-shall not be hung up in any church of Christ. A man of your uprightness should be careful to remove an occasion of offence unworthy alike of the Church of Christ and of those Christians who are committed to your charge. - AD 394 Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD) [W]hat is made is similar and the same to that of which it is made, as that which is made of ivory is ivory, and that which is made of gold golden. Now the images and temples constructed by mechanics are made of inert matter; so that they too are inert, and material, and profane . . . Works of art cannot then be sacred and divine. (Stromata 7.5 ANF) Moses ages before enacted expressly, that neither a graven, nor molten, nor moulded, nor painted likeness should be made; so that we may not cleave to things of sense, but pass to intellectual objects: for familiarity with the sight disparages the reverence of what is divine; and to worship that which is immaterial by matter, is to dishonour it by sense. (Stromata 5.5 ANF) Arnobius (255-330 AD) For if you are assured that the gods exist whom you suppose, and that they live in the highest regions of heaven, what cause, what reason, is there that those images should be fashioned by you, when you have true beings to whom you may pour forth prayers, and from whom you may ask help in trying circumstances? . . . We worship the gods, you say, by means of images. What then? Without these, do the gods not know that they are worshipped, and will they not think that any honour is shown to them by you? . . . And what greater wrong, disgrace, hardship, can be inflicted than to acknowledge one god, and yet make supplication to something else-to hope for help from a deity, and pray to an image without feeling? (Against the Heathen 6.8-6.9 ANF) [A]ccept true methods and views from dumb creatures, and let these teach you that there is nothing divine in images (Against the Heathen 6.16) Origen (185-253 AD) “Insane” would be the more appropriate word for those who hasten to temples and worship images or animals as divinities. And they too are not less insane who think that images, fashioned by men of worthless and sometimes most wicked character, confer any honour upon genuine divinities. (Against Celsus 3.76) [W]e, on the other hand, deem those to be “uninstructed” who are not ashamed to address (supplications) to inanimate objects, and to call upon those for health that have no strength, and to ask the dead for life, and to entreat the helpless for assistance. And although some may say that these objects are not gods, but only imitations and symbols of real divinities, nevertheless these very individuals, in imagining that the hands of low mechanics can frame imitations of divinity, are “uninstructed, and servile, and ignorant;” for we assert that the lowest among us have been set free from this ignorance and want of knowledge, while the most intelligent can understand and grasp the divine hope. (Against Celsus 6.14 ANF) Lactantius (240-320 AD) “It is manifest that those who either make prayers to the dead, or venerate the earth, or make over their souls to unclean spirits, do not act as becomes men, and that they will suffer punishment for their impiety and guilt, who, rebelling against God, the Father of the human race, have undertaken inexpiable rites, and violated every sacred law.” (Lactantius, Divine Institutes 2:18) Wherefore it is undoubted that there is no religion wherever there is an image. (The Divine Institutes 2.18-2.19 ANF) Irenaeus (120/140-200/203 AD) Nor does she (the Church) perform anything by means of angelic invocations, or by incantations, or by any other wicked curious art; but, directing her prayers to the Lord, who made all things, in a pure, sincere, and straightforward spirit, and calling upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, she has been accustomed to work miracles for the advantage of mankind, and not to lead them into error.” (Against Heresies, Book II, Chap. 32) Athanasius (296/298-373 AD) "No one, for instance, would pray to receive from God and the Angels, or from any other creature, nor would any one say, 'May God and the Angel give you;' but from Father and the Son, because of their oneness and the oneness of Their giving.” (Against the Arians)
Many if not all of these quotes are handled by Horn, Akin, Albrecht and others online. I do talk about the alleged aniconism of Clement, Origen, and Tertullian though. Hard to view them as aniconic if they endorse veneration of some images. Take a look in the book, you’ll see
@@MichaelGarten Even protestant scholars like JND Kelly said this. In arguing for it Origen appealed to the communion of saints, advancing the view that the Church in heaven assists the Church on earth with its prayers. . . . By the middle of the same [4th] century, according to Cyril of Jerusalem, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles and martyrs were commemorated in the liturgy ‘so that by their prayers and intercessions God may receive our supplications’.
I grew up Roman Catholic, we never, ever vernerated icons, never. No other Catholics around me venerated icons. I saw my older relatives sometimes light a candle and say a prayer in front of a statue, but other than that, post Vatican II Catholicm is bereft of verneration in general. Trent Horn can toot his "horn" (pun intended) about how Catholics venerate icons all he wants, but the practice is slim to none in modern Catholicism. Trent Horn has a very idealistic image of Roman Catholicism that is truncated compared to the Roman Catholicism my parents and grandparents grew up with. You can have respect for him but I really don't. If he was truly as logical as he claims he is, he would be Orthodox.
Keep in mind that Trent Horn was Eastern Catholic for many years and directly venerated icons during the Divine Liturgy so he may be more passionate about the topic. He also holds to Nicaea II. Obviously, I disagree with him on some issues =) Personally, I didn't see much of it during Mass in the Latin West in the modern era like I saw in the Divine Liturgy in Eastern churches. There was more of it in the devotional life of Western Catholics in varying forms such as kissing/venerating the cross (most often times a crucifix) during the Good Friday Service or kneeling toward the 14 images during stations of the cross on Fridays during Lent. The image of Guadeloupe seems to be venerated more directly. I also saw veneration of relics that sometimes had images of saints on them. So it is certainly much more subdued in the Latin West and it doesn't follow the same sort of canonical tradition like you see in the East. Icon veneration can also look a bit different in other traditions as well such as the Assyrian Church of the East where it has been very subdued (mostly due to severe persecution) but they still hold to the theology. They have a very high view of venerating the cross and practice it quite often.
@@barrelagedfaith That just proves m'ty point that RC's are really not that much different from Protestants, individuals deciding what they prefer on the buffet line, picking and choosing what they like and discharding what they don't. I'd have respect for him if he becomes Orthodox.
It Sounds quite Strange. It is true that veneration of icons have two faces. - An Objektive side: veneration of the Icon involves veneration of the Person represented by the Icon. - A subjektive side: an Icon as a means to Raise FAITH and devotion. Some Saints defend the First or the second aspect more strongly. For example, Saint John of the Cross favored almost exclusively the second aspect and advised about the risks of Icon veneration, TRUE, but his writtings Must be understood in his context. In the End, However, i think that Orthodox Church is Right here: the Objektive Aspekt of Icon veneration is the relevant one..
How does my book get an endorsement 😂!
Lol, let's ask Trent for an endorsement on your book on the Papacy =) I really enjoyed it, and I think it does a good job demonstrating the conciliar model. amzn.to/3DiNGau I am also really excited to read your book on Job! People should definitely check it out: amzn.to/3VHhtQx
@barrelagedfaith trent's endorsement actually changed the end of my film on icons.
Will it be available in print eventually ?
Growing up evangelical it hit me yesterday that Protestants will bow and “worship at the foot of the cross”. It never struck me before but this is literally icon veneration.
Is their theological understanding of what they’re doing the same though?
The Protestants just made an excellent new movie, the Best Christmas Pagent ever, and a central theme in this movie is how an Icon of Our Lady and Christ Child brought these children to Our Lord.
I'm like, the people behind this movie are going to become Apostolic Christians
@@americanvendee I would say they unknowingly participate in the concept without intending to. What I mean by this is they are using the icon of the cross to pass worship to Jesus and thanks for his sacrifice. If you asked them they would just say it helps remind them of Christ’s sacrifice as they worship him alone. Considering they reject icon veneration this particular practice seems like a log in their eye and theology.
@@jd3jefferson556 I’m gonna have to review this now!
@@joelrobertsonmusic it was a touching movie and I was shocked how central the theme of an image of Mary and wanting to be like her is one of the main messages of the movie
I have gone back and forth on this subject, but walking through the world that has replaced images of Christ with images of cartoons (e.g. snowmen, bunnies, snoopy, Santa) during the holidays of Easter and Christmas shows me how images can change the focus of individuals. By removing icons of Christ people have replaced these icons with images of commercialism. Icons acted as literature in an ancient world that couldn’t read, but it still has purpose in a literate world that has no focus. Whenever I see a Christmas or Easter parade filled with floats and balloons of the latest Hollywood action movie, I wonder about the effect on children who now see this time to reflect on salvation solely as a time for buying presents and candy. If instead they were taken to a procession with a crucifix or nativity scene they would ask “Why is that man suffering?” or “Who is that child?” In today’s society, you could walk through many stores without any image of Christ during that holiday season and be unaware or reminded of the sacrifices of Christ. A "winter wonderland" or a basket of eggs doesn’t make most people reflect on the sacrifices of Christ.
I guess the ultimate question about images or icons is whether it focuses on distracts from the individual's worship of Christ. Because even something as simple as cross can put someone in the mental space to pray.
Well written and a great point. We live in a world full of icons and symbols. But people don’t realize it. They are happy to unwittingly have secular icons point their minds to sex and mammon which then get weaved into their lives. These secular icons are windows to a darkened & blinded soul.
Even before the “Coke-A-Cola Santa” became a commercialization juggernaut 90 years ago, all the post-Reformation struggles to find the “right” balance in symbolism accomplished was to continually water them all down.
I get to thinking about Charles Dickens’s “A Child’s History of England”, as a prime example of this struggle to walk Elizabeth’s “Via Media” line leading to deep misunderstanding and slander of deeply pious people.
“When did the Roman Church go astray”, (thus necessitating Henry 8ths eventual separation), is the riddle many people like him had been struggling with.
His amateur analysis in that book was based on a rather silly assumption, that after era of the Martyrs, and “GENUINE saints” would have gone out of their way to avoid being found out. Well, they do generally TRY. He seemed to assume that God wouldn’t have allowed so many of them to fail at avoiding being found out during their earthly lives or after their reposes. Ergo, most of them must have been “frauds”, either supposedly acting out their piety to gain attention in the hopes of being regarded as a saint, or others may have been fairly ordinary people whose sincere but very basic Christian behavior was posthumously grossly exaggerated by a local community who eagerly wanted a piece of the Pilgrimage tourist action for their local economy, so got some favors from a local bishop to officially recognize the supposed exaggerations about the proposed Saint, to push through their official canonization.
The moderate HighChurch position of Dickens simply assumes most of these saints were phonies, not all, but most.
But he does not actually offer much PROOF for these assumptions, other than incredulity that so many were found out.
I bring this up because it’s indicative of the general Protestant tendency to amble in the dark on these subtler issues, which ultimately just WEAKENS the foundations upon which the an ancient faith had originally been built.
@@nmorissis anyone else seeing a lot of posts vanish?
"When it comes to icon venerate, to be deep in history is to cease to be Orthodox."
That quote is aging like milk in a Georgia summer. Thank you Michael Garten for your work on this!
How is it aging like milk?
@@OMNIBUBBneither scholarly consensus nor written evidence is on Dr Ortlund’s side, and he has basically not addressed the archeological evidence
@@MichaelGarten Nor does he ever address the most current scholarship or archeological evidence. Then he can still honestly keep saying, "I'm not aware of any evidence that supports X".
@@MichaelGarten
PreTalmudic Jews clearly venerated Icons, the Archaeology PROVES it.
@@billcynic1815 he is wrong even in referring icon veneration to the doctrinal part of faith. Rites can change, doctrines - no
To Protestants who are convinced that the Shroud of Turin is truly the burial cloth of Christ, would not His first act upon Resurrecting have been to have torn it to shreds to prevent it from being venerated, if God was, indeed, against Iconography?
I have purchased the book and read half of it. Essential information for those who want extra evidence to evaluate the early church practices.
But, people don't need to read this sort of information if they can follow a simple argument rather than be distracted by red herrings such as the claim from Gavin that icon veneration is an accretion.
I usually make the argument like this:
Jews venerated holy objects (first and second temple, evidence from scripture and archaeology)
1st century Jesus followers venerated holy objects (evidence from scripture, writings and archaeology)
Pre-Nicaean Christians venerated holy objects (evidence from writings and archaeology)
Post-Nicaean Christians venerated holy objects (evidence from writings and archaeology)
Who is doing the innovating and accretion? Clearly the anti-veneration camp.
It's also worth bringing up all the objects that "Orthodox Jews" who are supposed to follow Torah, kiss and give reverence to. This worth better with evangelicals especially since they think Jews are somehow closer to God than EO/RC.
@@tymon1928 I'm just curious, how many evangelicals do you believe think that Jews are closer to God than EO/RC? And where are you getting this information?
@@AllDayMLJumping in here. American Christians who are pro-Israel because they think that blessing the 20th century Israel will cause them to be blessed, while not caring (probably because they’re unaware) that Orthodox Christians live in areas being devastated by unbelieving Israel.
@@AllDayMLDispensationalists, mostly.
@@AllDayML I wen to Israel with a group of about 30 evangelicals. We went to the various holy sites, not only Christian, but also Jewish and Muslim holy sites. I saw Jews, Muslims, Orthodox and Catholic Christians all engage in some form of veneration. The protestant evangelicals I was with stood firm like statues at best, or looked things over as if they were in a museum and observing some quaint artifact from some bygone era. It was on that trip that I decided to convert to Orthodoxy.
Gavin Ortland: "The Seventh Ecumenical Council reversed the view of the early Church ... The fact is, when it comes to this issue, the veneration of icons, to be deep in history necessitates being Protestant."
Me: "Words have no meaning. Nothing matters."
Been following the Seraphim Hamilton and Michael Garten vs Gavin Ortlund debates about this. Pumped to see the book is finally released! Does "Volume 1" imply there's more to come?
Yes! This is from Michael "The plan is that vol 2 will cover post-Nicene sources (Eusebius etc) giving attestation to pre-325 veneration; enemy sources; surviving artifacts; manuscript and epigraphy evidence; and pre325 views of Old Testament images. Probably 1-1.5 yrs from completion, 20% written now"
@@barrelagedfaith Nice, looking forward to it! Watching the debates and recaps on Dr. Ortlund and Transfigured Life's channels really helped convince me of the Iconodule position.
The most strange thing for me - is when the Protestants are raging so much against the icons. I really do not understand why they hate them. These are just the same images which we create inside our mind.
By the way you can write me a question on this topic. I have some knowledges on it
I'd even say that imagination is more dangerous yet most Protestants wouldn't mind involving imagination during prayer.
Protestants recognize imagery is the root of idolatry. The only way they’ll change is if the Bible stops condemning it.
It’s icon veneration that we are against. Go ahead and make all the art you wish.
The mechanism of veneration presented by Nicea II is simply pagan imo.
You believe the veneration given to the type passes to the prototype.
That is the exact same logic used by the pagans to defend their practice.
Regardless, Scripture commands one to “proskyneo” to God.
See Rev 19:10
It’s because Protestants worship their intellect and their imagination (or at least the version of Christ they conjure there). This is why they hate icons. Because the icons reveal to them the deeper Truth of reality, of being itself through Christ and His saints - Christ AS HE TRULY IS, not the version they cling to in their mind.
Protestants with soft hearts full of love for God and man see this immediately and convert. Some take a bit longer not for lack of love but because of the intellectual and imagination idols they must smash. And some are so smitten by their love of these idols (which most never acknowledge as such), they will blaspheme Christ in His own name out of pride and rebellion.
This is the final stage of delusion that ceases the Protestant who, when consistently presented the Truth, continues to reject it. So for most Protestants, it is not a matter of having the right arguments and answers but is entirely a matter of the heart.
And because Western Christianity has been so iconoclastic for so long, when these folks finally encounter Christ (AS HE IS, that is, in the icon) and His saints (AS THEY ARE, holy and sanctified by the grace of the Living God), they don’t know what to do with it. Because now for the first time, their heart beholds the Truth. And for those who persist in lies and half truths the longest and have the most to lose from letting those errant ideas go, they react viciously and with immense vitriol.
We must above all pray for them and allow the grace and energies of God we receive as blessings flowing from the icons to fill us with the fullness of God’s love (which I so miserably fail at doing for my part) so that we ourselves become the most powerful icon of all to them, one they cannot ignore or dismiss as a mere “picture”.
The documentary was awesome
I’ve appreciated hearing about the research that went into this book and look forward to reading it. But, I doubt it changes anyone’s mind. We live in an age where information that contradicts our preconceived notions is intentionally ignored, or summarily dismissed. People, in the west especially, place an extremely high value on their (often, uninformed) opinions, beliefs and feelings. Just listen to any of Gavin Ortlund’s videos on this subject and you will hear, “I believe . . .” and “My conscience . . .” These type of people believe that their own subjective application of humanistic rationalism (within the western scholastic tradition) is the arbiter of all truth and they are resolute in their position regardless of facts they fail to overcome. “Well, that’s just your opinion,” is an acceptable response for them, facts be damned.
I suspect people who are on the fence will have their minds changed. I was undecided on it (long time Gospel Simplicity viewer) and watching the discussions between them along with the post-debate reviews on both Dr. Ortlund and the Transfigured Life channels put me much more in the Iconodule/affirm Nicea II camp.
Will people already firmly on one side or the other have their minds changed? Probably not, but isn't that true for debates on any issue? People are probably less rational than they think (both for better and worse).
It will certainly help with those who are open minded truth seekers rather than confirmation seekers.
Additionally I believe it will help with demonstrating that much of the argumentation from those in the anti-veneration camp is made in bad faith and for proselytising purposes rather than truth seeking.
@@etheretherether I hope you are right. I believe debates are, for the most part, pointless. I’m not of fan of Orthodox Christians debating this issue at all - we shouldn’t debate the truth. It’s like Havel f a debate over how many hydrogen molecules are in water.
@@Daniel.4321 I hope you’re right.
@@cassidyanderson3722 The debates are pointless, but the evidence is useful. I catechise people all the time and I like to be able to point to sources I have read even if I know that only 1% of people will go and check them out.
It's very helpful to be able to put forth your position with confidence having evaluated the truthfulness of the evidence.
Gavin does the opposite of this when he carefully avoids all the strong arguments against his position for fear that this might result in people abandoning his position.
The summaries of the evidence and arguments at the end of each chapter are really great and could do with being published on a website so that people understand what evidence is being presented in the book.
😊 very good. ❤
👍
Thank you for this. I guess Roman Catholics have a different understanding of the word "icon" than the Orthodox since I've never seen a single icon in an RC church. For clarity, perhaps you could use the word "image" instead.
I have, but often in more Niche churches. Stations of the Cross are Icons.
@eldermillennial8330 Now that you mention it, I have seen that also once in a basilica.
We have about 20 in ours 🤷♂️
@Bravoeo Nice.
I don’t particularly have an issue with icon veneration. But, simply showing images existed isn’t enough to disprove what Gavin is arguing.
That's not what they do. Pls watch the author's interview with seraphim hamilton
@@Orthoindian would you like to clarify?
That’s ultimately where the crux of this argument is
@@CleavetoAntiquity The arguments in the book are specifically for gestures of honor being done towards pre Nicene Christian images
Which argument? His initial argument where he claimed iconography was forbidden in the early church and was a 6th century accretion, or his later ones after he moved the goalposts?
@@billcynic1815I don’t think he said either of those things …?
As a non-Orthodox I can appreciate Icon veneration, for example, the icon of the feast or saint being commemorated in the Liturgy or particular wonder-working icons. But I have a question about other forms of religious paintings in Orthodox Temples, viz., the ones painted more naturalistically high up on walls of Christ or the Mother of God and also icons that are written especially for didactic purposes rather than devotional purposes. Are these venerated or are they treated as preaching the gospel through painting like in medieval western churches?
There is a kind of visual veneration we engage in, looking with reverence. But the high up images are also a great avenue for expressing prayers to whoever is depicted, since you are in some sense beholding them in their capacity to help you (enthroned or looking down with love upon you)
@MichaelGarten Simply the great cloud of witnesses urging us on and reminding us that we are not alone in running the race that is set before us.
Have you read the book yet? If you have, were there any quotes from the first 3 or 4 centuries that you could give us, instead of just Theodore the Studite in the 8th-9th Century time frame?
That quote from St. Theodore was is connection to my older video clip on C.S. Lewis. Michael's book is filled with early material from the first 4 centuries!
When will this book be available in print?
Now available!
@MichaelGarten thank you very much for telling me personally. I am very excited to read it and tell people about it
Any idea when a paperback will be available?
Any day now
Great, thanks!
Is it only on kindle or does he have a hardcopy?
Supposedly a hardcopy will be coming out soon.
Working on it, should be available this week
Gregory the Great (? -604 AD)
Furthermore we notify to you that it has come to our ears that your Fraternity, seeing certain adorers of images, broke and threw down these same images in Churches. And we commend you indeed for your zeal against anything made with hands being an object of adoration; but we signify to you that you ought not to have broken these images. For pictorial representation is made use of in Churches for this reason; that such as are ignorant of letters may at least read by looking at the walls what they cannot read in books. Your Fraternity therefore should have both preserved the images and prohibited the people from adoration of them, to the end that both those who are ignorant of letters might have wherewith to gather a knowledge of the history, and that the people might by no means sin by adoration of a pictorial representation.
(Written to Bishop Serenus of Marseilles)
Epiphanius (310-403 AD)
Moreover, I have heard that certain persons have this grievance against me: When I accompanied you to the holy place called Bethel, there to join you in celebrating the Collect, after the use of the Church, I came to a villa called Anablatha and, as I was passing, saw a lamp burning there. Asking what place it was, and learning it to be a church, I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loth that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ’s church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person. They, however, murmured, and said that if I made up my mind to tear it, it was only fair that I should give them another curtain in its place. As soon as I heard this, I promised that I would give one, and said that I would send it at once. Since then there has been some little delay, due to the fact that I have been seeking a curtain of the best quality to give to them instead of the former one, and thought it right to send to Cyprus for one. I have now sent the best that I could find, and I beg that you will order the presbyter of the place to take the curtain which I have sent from the hands of the Reader, and that you will afterwards give directions that curtains of the other sort-opposed as they are to our religion-shall not be hung up in any church of Christ. A man of your uprightness should be careful to remove an occasion of offence unworthy alike of the Church of Christ and of those Christians who are committed to your charge.
- AD 394
Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD)
[W]hat is made is similar and the same to that of which it is made, as that which is made of ivory is ivory, and that which is made of gold golden. Now the images and temples constructed by mechanics are made of inert matter; so that they too are inert, and material, and profane . . . Works of art cannot then be sacred and divine. (Stromata 7.5 ANF)
Moses ages before enacted expressly, that neither a graven, nor molten, nor moulded, nor painted likeness should be made; so that we may not cleave to things of sense, but pass to intellectual objects: for familiarity with the sight disparages the reverence of what is divine; and to worship that which is immaterial by matter, is to dishonour it by sense. (Stromata 5.5 ANF)
Arnobius (255-330 AD)
For if you are assured that the gods exist whom you suppose, and that they live in the highest regions of heaven, what cause, what reason, is there that those images should be fashioned by you, when you have true beings to whom you may pour forth prayers, and from whom you may ask help in trying circumstances? . . . We worship the gods, you say, by means of images. What then? Without these, do the gods not know that they are worshipped, and will they not think that any honour is shown to them by you? . . . And what greater wrong, disgrace, hardship, can be inflicted than to acknowledge one god, and yet make supplication to something else-to hope for help from a deity, and pray to an image without feeling? (Against the Heathen 6.8-6.9 ANF)
[A]ccept true methods and views from dumb creatures, and let these teach you that there is nothing divine in images (Against the Heathen 6.16)
Origen (185-253 AD)
“Insane” would be the more appropriate word for those who hasten to temples and worship images or animals as divinities. And they too are not less insane who think that images, fashioned by men of worthless and sometimes most wicked character, confer any honour upon genuine divinities. (Against Celsus 3.76)
[W]e, on the other hand, deem those to be “uninstructed” who are not ashamed to address (supplications) to inanimate objects, and to call upon those for health that have no strength, and to ask the dead for life, and to entreat the helpless for assistance. And although some may say that these objects are not gods, but only imitations and symbols of real divinities, nevertheless these very individuals, in imagining that the hands of low mechanics can frame imitations of divinity, are “uninstructed, and servile, and ignorant;” for we assert that the lowest among us have been set free from this ignorance and want of knowledge, while the most intelligent can understand and grasp the divine hope. (Against Celsus 6.14 ANF)
Lactantius (240-320 AD)
“It is manifest that those who either make prayers to the dead, or venerate the earth, or make over their souls to unclean spirits, do not act as becomes men, and that they will suffer punishment for their impiety and guilt, who, rebelling against God, the Father of the human race, have undertaken inexpiable rites, and violated every sacred law.” (Lactantius, Divine Institutes 2:18)
Wherefore it is undoubted that there is no religion wherever there is an image. (The Divine Institutes 2.18-2.19 ANF)
Irenaeus (120/140-200/203 AD)
Nor does she (the Church) perform anything by means of angelic invocations, or by incantations, or by any other wicked curious art; but, directing her prayers to the Lord, who made all things, in a pure, sincere, and straightforward spirit, and calling upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, she has been accustomed to work miracles for the advantage of mankind, and not to lead them into error.”
(Against Heresies, Book II, Chap. 32)
Athanasius (296/298-373 AD)
"No one, for instance, would pray to receive from God and the Angels, or from any other creature, nor would any one say, 'May God and the Angel give you;' but from Father and the Son, because of their oneness and the oneness of Their giving.”
(Against the Arians)
Many if not all of these quotes are handled by Horn, Akin, Albrecht and others online.
I do talk about the alleged aniconism of Clement, Origen, and Tertullian though. Hard to view them as aniconic if they endorse veneration of some images. Take a look in the book, you’ll see
@@MichaelGarten Even protestant scholars like JND Kelly said this.
In arguing for it Origen appealed to the communion of saints, advancing the view that the Church in heaven assists the Church on earth with its prayers. . . . By the middle of the same [4th] century, according to Cyril of Jerusalem, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles and martyrs were commemorated in the liturgy ‘so that by their prayers and intercessions God may receive our supplications’.
@@vaderkurt7848 I actually think there’s even earlier evidence of prayer to saints, but that’s a good quote
I grew up Roman Catholic, we never, ever vernerated icons, never. No other Catholics around me venerated icons. I saw my older relatives sometimes light a candle and say a prayer in front of a statue, but other than that, post Vatican II Catholicm is bereft of verneration in general. Trent Horn can toot his "horn" (pun intended) about how Catholics venerate icons all he wants, but the practice is slim to none in modern Catholicism. Trent Horn has a very idealistic image of Roman Catholicism that is truncated compared to the Roman Catholicism my parents and grandparents grew up with. You can have respect for him but I really don't. If he was truly as logical as he claims he is, he would be Orthodox.
Keep in mind that Trent Horn was Eastern Catholic for many years and directly venerated icons during the Divine Liturgy so he may be more passionate about the topic. He also holds to Nicaea II. Obviously, I disagree with him on some issues =) Personally, I didn't see much of it during Mass in the Latin West in the modern era like I saw in the Divine Liturgy in Eastern churches. There was more of it in the devotional life of Western Catholics in varying forms such as kissing/venerating the cross (most often times a crucifix) during the Good Friday Service or kneeling toward the 14 images during stations of the cross on Fridays during Lent. The image of Guadeloupe seems to be venerated more directly. I also saw veneration of relics that sometimes had images of saints on them. So it is certainly much more subdued in the Latin West and it doesn't follow the same sort of canonical tradition like you see in the East. Icon veneration can also look a bit different in other traditions as well such as the Assyrian Church of the East where it has been very subdued (mostly due to severe persecution) but they still hold to the theology. They have a very high view of venerating the cross and practice it quite often.
Stations of the Cross are icons, but have largely fallen into being ignored except once a year.
@@barrelagedfaith That just proves m'ty point that RC's are really not that much different from Protestants, individuals deciding what they prefer on the buffet line, picking and choosing what they like and discharding what they don't. I'd have respect for him if he becomes Orthodox.
It Sounds quite Strange.
It is true that veneration of icons have two faces.
- An Objektive side: veneration of the Icon involves veneration of the Person represented by the Icon.
- A subjektive side: an Icon as a means to Raise FAITH and devotion.
Some Saints defend the First or the second aspect more strongly.
For example, Saint John of the Cross favored almost exclusively the second aspect and advised about the risks of Icon veneration, TRUE, but his writtings Must be understood in his context.
In the End, However, i think that Orthodox Church is Right here: the Objektive Aspekt of Icon veneration is the relevant one..