The BEST and WORST Responses to my Icons Video
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 มิ.ย. 2024
- In this video I work through the best and worst responses to my video on venerating icons, identifying 5 arguments we need to leave behind, and then 3 we need to keep exploring.
Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus.
Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai.
SUPPORT:
Become a patron: / truthunites
One time donation: www.paypal.com/paypalme/truth...
FOLLOW:
Twitter: / gavinortlund
Facebook: / truthunitespage
Website: gavinortlund.com/
MY ACADEMIC WORK:
gavinortlund.com/mypublications/
PODCAST:
anchor.fm/truth-unites
DISCORD SERVER ON PROTESTANTISM
Striving Side By Side: / discord
SOME BOOKS:
www.amazon.com/Makes-Sense-Wo...
www.amazon.com/Theological-Re...
www.amazon.com/Finding-Right-...
00:00 - Introduction
02:00 1. Am I Dishonest?
07:31 2. Moving the Goalposts
10:30 3. Evasive Hermeneutics
17:43 4. Misframed Expectations
21:26 5. Comparing Apples and Oranges
24:28 1. Relics vs. Icons
30:58 2. Development of Doctrine
37:27 3. What About the Oriental Orthodox?
![จังหวะนี้ - เม้ก อภิสิทธิ์ [ Official MV ] จอนนี่มิวสิค](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4gQRZCkRyiU/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Full Episode] MasterChef Junior Thailand มาสเตอร์เชฟ จูเนียร์ ประเทศไทย Season 3 Episode 2](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YpQnHoQvZt4/mqdefault.jpg)
Forcing believers to kiss icons via the threat of being anathematized and dishonoring previous church saints and fathers who did not kiss icons by making it an anathema is very problematic for me.
Your problem is with authority. It’s clear historically that Orthodoxy is the 1 true church.
It's clear only if it is taken as granted (theologically rather than historically)
@@protestanttoorthodox3625 Thank you for responding and it has opened a door …Anathemas remind me of Old Testament times when God’s people were under a system of laws (lots of laws) and massive authority and legalism and access to God only through a religious system of laws and priests and authority figures and no real assurance of salvation and the requirement of perpetual sacrifices such as was Judaism. To me, what made the gospel such Good News was Jesus coming and fundamentally changing the religious system. When he said “my yoke is easy and my burden is light,” Jesus is calling all who were weary and burdened to come to Him for rest from the heavy burden of the system of works that the Pharisees laid on the backs of the people. It seems that it didn’t take long for a similar system to replace the legalistic, works based system after the apostles were gone. Protestants try to bring back the grace-filled, ever forgiving, easy yoke Jesus gifted us with. The anathemas seem the antithesis of Jesus’ nature and it seems the head of the church, Jesus, has been laid across the guillotine.
@@onepingonlyplease Paul the apostle anathematized people who preached a different gospel than what the apostles taught.
@@onepingonlyplease Your personal thoughts feelings and opinions and the way you personally interpret scripture is interesting. But if it isn’t in submission to the Church Jesus established it’s useless
I’m not against icons or religious art in of itself.
I’m just against people kissing and bowing down to paintings / statues and forcing other Christians to also do so with the threat of anathema if they don’t.
There is no threat. You are either a Christian, or you’re not. You choose. The Way is open to all.
@@bradleyperry1735 This is one of the reasons I LOVE knowing scripture well. You ever read the book 1John? The book is a series of tests. John writes at the end that he wrote the book to show fellow believers " I write this so that you may know you are in the faith" No Catholic dogmas are in the tests and there's 10 of them! It's all about Christ and changes you should see in yourself if you are following him. No icons, no Mary, no baptism, no eucharist, no saint praying, NOTHING. It's just so much simpler than the RCC control freaks try to make it. Jesus is amazing!
@@bairfreedom Unfortunately, you don’t know the Scriptures well. While 1 John is, in fact, a commentary in the Christian life, it is not an exhaustive one. You still have some idea that the Scriptures are where Christians derive our doctrines. This is incorrect, and also not what the Scriptures teach. The Scriptures are a part of the Holy Traditions of the Church. And the Scriptures say, explicitly, that the Church is the pillar and ground of Truth. The Scriptures do not say that about themselves. Furthermore, when Saint John is writing this epistle, is he writing it to unbelievers? No. He is writing it to the Church. So this is not an exhaustive theological treatise, nor is it a liturgical guidebook. Does 1 John cover everything else found in the Scriptures? If the answer is no, then your point has been refuted.
PS: I’m not Roman Catholic, so I’m not concerned with their dogmas.
@@bradleyperry1735 Who would you believe the church is? I believe it to be the catholicity of all confessed believers in his identity and work on the cross and putting our faith in that truth. I see that consistent theme in scripture.
@@bairfreedom That isn’t at all what the Scriptures portray. The Church is visible and has borders. There are those within, and those without. Baptism and the Eucharist have fulfilled the purposes of circumcision and the Old Testament Passover meal. The Church is not an organization of individual believers. It is the Body of Christ. This is why children can be part of the Church despite the fact that they cannot be “professing believers.” Your conception of the Church limits it to converts only. The Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. It is the Eastern Orthodox Church.
I am a Catholic teen Who loves you and this channel. Apologetics Is about the Truth, but I really have fun in these dialogues and debates. It's very fascinating and exciting! Thank you
Glad to be connected to you, thanks for the kind words!
Reason and theology has a great discussion called Are Icons Idols and Accretions? w/ Dr. Jim Papandrea
@@annb9029 I do watch Reason and Theology. It's Amazing! Thank you for the suggestion. I missed this response
As a Catholic I find this conversation extremely fascinating. Thank you Gavin for furthering this discussion.
@@CamGaylor how about "pray for Unity"? And what is the error in the Catholic Church?
@@CamGaylor hey, what would you consider as the most egregious error ?
@@calson814 where do you start?
@@calson814 I just read the other comments... and agree with Cameron Gaylor
@@CamGaylor thanks for the reply, when I get time I will try looking into the sources you cited. Let us pray for unity so that the wounds and scars in the body of Christ May be healed by God's good grace and that the Church May be one. May God bless you brother and keep you safe.
As a traditionally minded Catholic I wanted to take a moment to personally attack you for making these videos....I kid! I used to believe largely in the stereotype that Protestants just didn't think about these topics at all, you have shown that that is not necessarily true. While I disagree with you on much, your videos have helped me to realize I must act more charitable towards other traditions and denominations, yet while being uncompromising on my Catholic faith. After exploring your channel for a little while I have certainly grown in this regard. Much appreciated and I look forward to further discussions!
I appreciate the sentiment but I do not understand how the Church has repeatedly softened its stances on very important issues like ecumenism and tightened its stance on dubious issues like Icons.
@@Lotterywinnerify The post Vatican II Church certainly begs these questions on ecumenism, particularly with other religions.
Where do you find an answer?@@Beaverboy_
I’m a Protestant revisiting church history and traditions as I’m more mystical in my approach to the faith and feel a bit alone with my reformed friends. Your channel has been super helpful in my journey of enlightenment.
If you want some mystery us Lutherans allow for that. Not all of God is explainable in the words of men. Hopefully with the Spirit and careful thought we can approach a simulacrum of the complete truth.
Too often, I find that the common sense, logical view of things ends up siding with the Protestant camp and Catholics and Eastern Orthodox tend to defer to tradition, theology, and eventually justify those with the magisterium.
In this case, it is plainly clear, without a doubt, that icon veneration was a historical accretion. That’s just that. The fact that this has blown up shows just how strong your argument has been, that it makes you a danger to the theology of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.
Perhaps on this one matter, but I feel like most of Gavin’s arguments on other topics amount to “Why be Catholic/Orthodox when you could find most of their traditions within Protestantism?” That’s the main trouble with his formula; he tries to defend Protestantism as a whole, when it itself is an extraordinarily diverse movement. Catholics and Orthodox meanwhile have a concrete, more or less unified theology that they can readily fall back on. Ultimately, the issue with Protestantism is that it is cut off from the traditions of the early church, with most modern Protestants existing in a temporal island of sorts, where the body of Christ lives and dies with the lives of individuals, rather than spanning across time as well as space.
@@bernardoohigginsvevo2974 Ehh I would respond more but I think we can just agree to disagree on the unity of Protestantism. But don’t get me wrong I have a great deal of respect and admiration for Catholicism.
A danger to Catholic and or Orthodox Theology? No.
A danger to those in need of the truth of Orthodox and Catholic theology on this matter? Yes.
Hence the need to address it.
@@aubreygmcghee It means OT and RC lied.
@@internautaoriginal9951 How have they lied? The Doctrines of the deposit of faith have all developed over time. We see the veneration of rejects to some degree in Scripture itself, both Old and New Testament. We also see the use of icons in Scripture in the Temple of God and the Tabernacle. We also see the use of the snake as an icon of Christ. We see the historic use of icons in the early Church as well as the use of relics..we also see the veneration of the saints early on..the veneration of icons developed out of this background of acceptable practice.
There is nothing dishonest here. There is only a lack of understanding. The arguments put forth against the veneration of icons haven't changed anything but to better educate the uninformed on where the discussion is.
Gavin Ortlund must have them worried otherwise they wouldn't put out so many videos about his videos.
Or he misguides many?
(Just an alternate perspective)
@unionofsa an alternative perspective doesn't mean a right perspective.
Gavin is high on their radar as he is a protestant making intelligent and well researched arguments. Unfortunately, that is not the case for many prots.
Gavin, I really appreciate your work. Please continue your efforts they have had a tremendous effect on me and others I know.
Thanks, great to hear that!
Another helpful video. Your avoidance of nastiness and not simply dismissing opposing viewpoints are commendable. I visited an Eastern Orthodox church a few times. One time Mary's "dormition" was the focus. A man bowed down on the ground to a fabric with Mary's image woven into it. Thinking back, I wish I had said " you must not do that!" like the angel in Revelation. Nobody stopped him. It boggles my mind how central icons are to these people. Thanks for all the amazing information and staying grounded in the scriptures. Keep it up and the Lord bless you!
@ThoskaBrah …that doesn’t follow. Believing that God manifested himself in material form does not mean you must worship images of that material form.
A. Hettinga...... couldn't have said it better myself
Veneration is definitely off-putting to protestants (I was one so I understand your sentiment) but that's because protestants don't call themselves out on the same thing often times. Many mainline reformation groups (Lutherans, Anglicans) will bow towards the cross or the altar, which is veneration. This practice goes back to the people of Israel bowing to the Ark of the Covenant, or the Temple, or kissing the piece of wood in their door way. The manner in which people have venerated things depends on where you are in the world. In the East, kissing and bowing are common place. The protestant argument is inconsistent with the historic practice of God's people to me, which follows because I am no longer protestant.
@@Kdriggs15 it’s not really inconsistent. The Jewish people had a clear divine prohibition against religious devotion to images. The brass serpent was eventually destroyed because people were burning incense to it. We have very little in the way of ancient Jewish art because all artistic depictions were seen as a slippery slope to idolatry. Mainline Protestant denominations with a high church liturgy sometimes bow towards the communion table but that is an acknowledgment of Christ’s presence in the elements. Very few Protestants would be comfortable bowing down or kissing a picture or sculpture of Jesus or the saints. These types of acts might have made some sense in an ancient eastern context where bowing and kissing was something commonly offered to authority figures like state officials but in our modern context they are reserved almost exclusively for religious worship.
@@hettinga359 First of all, I disagree with your assessment of Jewish practices prior to Christ. The Archeological evidence of Jewish places of worship points to there being images I.e Dura Europos.
It’s also important to point out I’d say all apostolic churches with the exceptions of the Nestorians, venerate images and relics.
Our context in the West and what we’re comfortable with doesn’t change the historic practice of Christians for two thousand years. God bless
This series has been more than helpful. Faith affirming and eye-opening! My prayer is this channel grows like crazy!!! Thank you, Gavin, for the time and work you have put into these videos.
Not only do I feel like I can relate to you because I’m Baptist but I’m also obsessed with “Michael Scott”. Makes your channel that much better. Thank you for the video Dr. Ortlund!
Very dense and valuable resources! We are so grateful for your ministry through this channel. May the Lord bless you and your family even greater this year 🙏 🙏 🙏
Thank you! Glad you find the channel helpful!
Great Gavin. Thanks again. So clear.
The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him.
Proverbs 18:17
Great examination 👍🏼👍🏼
I thank God for this Gavin, we need protestant apologist.
@@BryceCarmony Because protestants are condemned by all traditional churches, we will stop when y’all remove the anathema or recognize we are real churches.
@@BryceCarmony The body of Christ is spiritual it’s not determined by a physical place, until you stop condemning us we will stop protesting against the all the traditions of men y’all added.
@@BryceCarmony The bride of Christ would never paint God the father, the bride of Christ would never sell the Papacy 3 times, neither they would murder people for not being believers, the Roman Church is the whore of Babylon.
@@BryceCarmony Jesus used the principles of Sola Scriptura when rejecting the traditions of man. The Apostles used scripture to settle disputes during the Jerusalem council. Many church fathers like Augustine and John Chrysostom used the principles of sola scriptura.
@@BryceCarmony How Jesús dealt with the Pharisees ?
My book list keeps growing. Thank you for the amazing work as always!
Also, the new mic sounds great!
I am so grateful these things are getting talked about. It's so helpful to have dialog that points to different texts and arguments. These talks have really helped me focus on more productive areas of study and prayerfully considering these things.
Love your channel!! You are very balanced and thorough in your responses. All while being kind and smart. I love your grace. May God richly bless you for your expression of God's grace and truth in your responses!
If this much people rebutted you
That proves how strong your arguments are.
God bless you pastor!!
"If this much people rebutted you
That proves how strong your arguments are."
Please know that I would give this criticism to a Catholic made this same type of argument:
I really don't think that this is true: Just because a lot of people felt a need to rebut a video doesn't mean that the position is a strong one. I think we could both easily find popular atheists that dozens of Christians felt a need to rebut to in video form and thousands of commenters rebutted; but we would still agree that those atheists didn't all have particularly strong arguments.
I do agree with the sentiment of "God bless" to Gavin and everyone on both sides of this discussion though.
@@elvisisacs3955 yep, I’ve seen several who were to the point of questioning their system over his argument
Does that follow? It doesn’t mean that the arguments are strong. But if you really want to conclude something out of that, if anything, it shows that it’s rebuttable hence the several rebuttals. Haven’t had the chance to watch them though. I think I was even just a third through Gavin’s original video too.
Not necessarily. I’m Orthodox and I appreciate this discussion he’s having with Truglia, I have new respect for Ortlund though I am firmly on Craig’s side that iconodulia is more historically attested than iconoclasm, but I do appreciate this conversation. However no it is not true that the proof of a claim is verified by its level of controversy 😂
@@CHURCHISAWESUM It is more that the controversy of a claim is proof of its importance. If no one cared, there would be no controversy, just a meh, and move on.
Thanks for doing the Lord’s work Pastor Ortlund.
Thank you for this charitable and insightful video!
Brother, greetings from Russia! I wish you God bless you and your family.
Thanks for your concise verbiage. I truly appreciate it when you keep things specific and non-repetitive.
Thank you for your hard work in this area. It has been very helpful. The knee jerk “Protestants are always wrong” approach on the part of some Roman Catholic apologists is so counter productive. These people are not interested in advancing the dialogue.
I would have to say it goes both ways. That's why this channel is important, because it seeks unity among the brethren. Yes, we have quibbles w/ some traditions of Christianity, but they are still Christians. We don't claim to be perfect in all our doctrines either. For now, we see through a glass darkly.
Suan Sonna of Intellectual Catholicism spent many weeks preparing a thoughtful answer to Gavin's Iconoclasm video. It was four hours long, and he didn't even cover the anathema part. The reason it takes so long to properly refute Gavin's attack is because high-quality research takes a tremendous amount of care. That is, Suan is very careful with his work. Contrast that with Gavin's iconoclasm video, where he made a mess of things. And I have proof.
You know the word venerate? Have you ever looked it up in a dictionary? Gavin should have. Veneration: "To treat with reverence or respect." Revernce and venerate con from the same root word - to revere. You know what else comes that root? Reverend. How many pastors on the planet go by Revernd? Who accuses people of worshipping their pastor if they call him Reverend? You can't have it both ways: either Reverend and venerate are synonymous with "worship" or they aren't. We traditional Christians know the difference between veneration and worship. It's not that hard. No one thanks a block of wood for saving them.
So please tell me, do Gavin and his followers care about the Truth? What if he's wrong - will he ever admit it? Would you?
@@enshala6401. Any Reverend worth his salt would react in the same way angels & apostles reacted in Scripture…don’t you dare bow down before me.
I don’t go to a museum & bow & kiss the incredible religious art…but I certainly appreciate it. Veneration has become much more than honoring a piece of art, & I believe you know that.
@bethl yeah right, because Asians bowing to each other are worshipping each other.
Lord have mercy, I don't know how to deal with this level of tedium.
Please, if you have even a modicum of love for Jesus, step up and take on :actual: challenges rather than wasting people's time on vapid nonsense. Real spiritual warriors are on the front lines while you play armchair quarterback.
Go to Church.
@@enshala6401 Thanks for the suggestion. Oh wait, I do go to church & have been studying this issue for a while, as I want to understand my Orthodox friends better.
There is a considerable difference between showing respect culturally (as the Asians do), & incorporating bowing, lighting candles, praying through them, etc, as part of the worship service. You also have the issue of venerating icons not in a continuous line from the early church, as Gavin Ortlund details in his videos. But I wish you all the best!
Thank you Dr Ortlund! Cool microphone, sounds great…
Keep fighting the good fight Gavin!
😂
I’ve been really really disgruntled by the lack of Protestant interaction with early church history. Gabon is doing a work that so few are willing and able to do. God blues you brother
You are getting these conversations out to more and more folks. 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 Loving it!
You know it's serious the higher Dr. Ortlund's hands get
Underrated comment.
who would have thought that differences over Icons would be making a comeback in 2023
Dr. Ortlund, separate from content, on which I think you make a strong case, I have come to conclude that you win the argument on tone and humility alone. You have shaken a strongly held tree, and the tone and polemicism of some of the responses when compared to your approach demonstrate this.
Have you listened to the responses to his arguments? I don't see a difference in approach by either side. The responses are very well thought out and cordial in nature.
I think Jonathan Pageau makes a decent case for icon veneration as an extension of the principle of the Son being the image of the Father and theosis restoring the image of God within man. I think it is a bit concerning that the Orthodox dogmatically declare it to be an apostolic tradition despite the significant evidence from the Fathers that it was not present in the early church.
It isn't good though. How in the world does it logically follow that due to the incarnation occuring we must not only create, but near worship images of him and saints? There is a large, large burden of evidence to justify it that is not being met.
@@AlexDestroyerOfEarth tbh I'm not convinced that Jesus wasn't just a really skilled magician who did effectively the same thing as Aleister Crowley and L. Ron Hubbard, with the additional caveat of haunting Paul.
@@k98killer I won't personally partake in blasphemy like that. My issues are with icon veneration. Not the Lord.
If my memory serves me correct, even Pliny the Younger (AD 61-113), writes about christians NOT venerating the local idols. And apparently this had the general public up in arms.
That's talking about the pagan idols. Whether Christian icons are idols or not is debated.
@@ChristendomGaming It would depend on how they are treated. I can always appreciate the artistry of beautiful stain glass, and statues and pictures of saints. In no way am I going to bow to them, kiss them, pray to them, or otherwise supplicate and ask favours from them. That is idolatry.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 what would you do if I dug up the cross of Jesus Christ? Would you not hug and kiss it? Would you not embrace it in tears?
Keep up the good work, brother!
That Augustine quote around 16:30 is powerful.
It does seem to be taken out of the context of being a disputation against paganism, especially considering some of St. Augustine's other quotes about imagery, such as:
"The first commandment, in which we are forbidden to worship any likeness of God made by human contrivance, we are to understand as referring to the Father: this prohibition being made, not because God has no image, but because no image of Him but that One which is the same with Himself, ought to be worshipped; and this One not in His stead, but along with Him."
-St. Augustine Letter 55, Ch.11
St. Augustine's perspective here seems to align with the Orthodox practice of disallowing iconography that depicts the Father, rather than Christ.
@@kaiserkong6587 I don't think that is a correct understanding at all. It seems pretty clear to me Augustine is saying that the issue ISN'T that the issue is that God himself can't be depicted, but that worship itself is due only to Christ, and not images.
Keep up the good work. Watching this from Ethiopia
Brilliant! Thank you!
Oh, boy, I'm excited for this one.
Solid case. Dr. Ortlunds original thesis has been proven. It’s just that simple. This is reality.
Which can only mean that the claim of continuity and ancient, original worship falls apart. As do many other things!
Not solid. For example, his take on Eusebius. The only time Eusebius is iconoclastic is in his alleged letter to Constantia. This letter only goes back to the time of the Iconoclasts. How convenient! Before that, it was unknown.
@@jimmu2008 Respectfully, this comes across as grasping at straws. The thesis does not hang on the minor point you brought up. Scholars (including non Protestant) more qualified than me or you attest that the letter is more than likely genuine. Either way more than just this letter was used in reference to Eusebius on this and your point really is inconsequential to the over all case. At this point, It seems many EO and RCs are looking for arguments to cause just enough doubt to continue in their own beliefs as opposed to evidence that renders Dr. Ortlunds thesis as incorrect. If you wanna throw out the letter than we need to throw out all the documents the iconodules used that happen to only appear around the time of the council as well. Thanks for your comment but Dr. Ortlunds case remains solid. God bless.
@@Athabrose Eusebius's letter actually contradicts his other writings. But that's not my only objection. Gavin doesn't take seriously the argument from the incarnation, but he simply dismisses it as rhetoric. (If you're interested, please see the comments I left on the CLEARLY video a couple of days ago.) Yet, he fills his own argument with rhetoric. I don't even have time to address all the issues. But I will try to comment on other issues soon, including more on Eusebius. (And thanks for being curtious.)
@@jimmu2008 Lol, even if the letter was true is not evidence for Cultic use of images, is an invention and they needed false evidence for it.
This thumbnail is hilarious, love the channel Gavin
Thank you so much this helps me in my debates.
Great video and microphone, Gavin
Here before someone clips 35:15 and says, "Gavin Ortlund compared Catholicism to CANCER." 🤣
Great response as always, Gavin.
@@YAJUNYUAN thanks, fixed
This is going to be a good one!
You really nailed the thumbnail this time!
I have the same mic, and I'm able to get the cleanest audio by turning the gain all the way down (counterclockwise) and by using the cardioid pattern (2nd from right). Thanks for all of your efforts and God bless!
Thank you, I’ve been having issues with my audio lately, so I’ll give this a try
Love it, thanks
Another banger! Great job.
I notice he didn't mention Pageau's response
@@danielsmulders9451 Pageau is a sleeper Bro Danielvich Smuldersoffski, only the hypnotized can't put up with it.
Excellent video!
What I got the most out of this was you saying Celsus with a hard C. I genuinely have no idea which way is right but it made me feel better when you made that slip.
Outstanding!
Gavin the fact of the matter is you are right on this issue and they are wrong. They have no solid argument because a solid argument doesn't exist.
Great video. Thorough!
I've recently been going through Calvin's Institutes and it's been interesting. Calvin takes an approach that is not too far from the modern arguments. It's fascinating how old this conversation is.
This likely won't end, but there is nothing new under the sun. The right thing is to continue working
Exactly - all of these debates have been had. Read Turretin and Chemnitz next. The debate stopped with them as far as I'm concerned - their arguments still stand today.
That being said, modern RCs and their Newmanite doctrinal development arguments are relatively new, and are absent in the time of the reformation... the Church's argument then was that "We look like the Fathers and believe as they did." And they made their arguments based on that. Now, this new development hypothesis is used, which completely undercuts the Roman church's appeal to history. "We look like the fathers and believe as they did, except for when we don't, then it was an organic development." It does not sound at all like the historic Catholic church.
What resource of Turretin have you read on this? Navigating both arguments, so appreciate any new resources.
@bbdl2147 sir, I purposely did not use the word exactly. My point is simply that Roman Catholic arguments against protestantism today are drastically different than those in the time of the reformation and post reformation eras. They did not attempt to face the protestant charges of accretions by hiding behind claims of doctrinal development; they faced them by claiming history was on their side (a famous example is Sadoletto's letter to Geneva, although you could also go for Bellarmine or other Jesuit writers. They argue nothing like modern RC apologists.)
Why are modern RC apologetics so different than those of the past, when the best protestant arguments are almost exactly as they were when Turretin and Chemnitz penned them in the 15th-16th centuries?
The "unchanging, historic, one true church founded by Jesus" assertions lose their muster very quickly when RCs start allowing for drastic doctrinal development.
@bbdl2147 as to your questions of textual variants - I have to lovingly say I find this ironic, friend. You later say that "we don't look at the Fathers as protestants look at the Bible" but that's exactly what you do here.
Of course, protestantism allows and even encourages good and necessary doctrinal development, but only based on the infallible scriptures. We have no presupposition of an infallible magisterium, or any sort of infallible interpreting body - the RC ideas of papal and magisterial infallibility are read into the text, and into the Father's, not from them. Yes, the Spirit is surely alive in His guidance of His people. We are in agreement there, in a sense, but not to the extent that the Spirit keeps certain ecumenical gatherings or teaching from error - that is an idea that itself developed long after the writing of the new testament had ceased. Scripture is breathed out by God, and it is entirely sufficient to stand on its own (again, something that was taught against by the Partum Partum RCC up until only the last couple hundred of years.)
@@TheB1nary try Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Volume Two, Eleventh topic, questions Nine and Ten
Can't wait to watch this
As another would put it, “let the church fathers be the church fathers.”
That is a very good response, and applies to both Catholics and Protestants.
@@NP-vk8de
And Orthodox
On your "apples and oranges" point, which is completely correct, a decent point to bring up is that a parallel case wouldn't do anything to dissolve the problem that the other side has. It's like tu quoque. How does saying that someone else has a similar problem do anything to show that the original topic isn't still a problem? It doesn't seem to me that it does. The problem of the cultic use of images, and anathemas surrounding that topic, still remains a problem for the Catholic church, even if we bite the bullet and say that--for the sake of conversation--that the canon may be problematic for Protestantism. After this, only two things remain: (1) the question of how Catholicism deals with the images problem (which must be dealt with first, since it is the topic at hand) and (2) the question of how Protestantism deals with the canon problem (which is not that difficult of a task, in my opinion (but that's a separate conversation from the topic at hand).
Well said. The whole criticism of Dr. Ortlund's Baptist beliefs in this context is basically whataboutism on the part of his responders.
Eventually, diving into the Canon and the approach to it from the other traditions would be interesting, but I have a feeling Truth Unites' plate is pretty full at present.
Thank you Gavin. I notice some of the objections made to you might include fallacies like ad hominem, straw man and equivocation. Great responses by the way, and the thumbnail!
It's important for us Christians to remember that Who we worship is the most important thing. Debates on the hows and the whys is good but let's remind ourselves that we are already saved.
Praise be to God our Father and His Son Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour and to our Helper the Holy Spirit.
Thank you for an informative response to your critics.
I am so glad you addressed that the early scriptures were always around, even though they weren't officially canonized into the bible text we know now. Scripture often refers to scripture. There is evidence in the bible that the early epistles and letters were widely read and circulated among churches. I'd love to see an indepth video on this. I'll look to see if you already have one.
Around 35:13 you made a great point. I've heard people say organic as if it's always good, but clearly it's not. Some people have argued with me that marijuana is good because it's organic, and then when they hear my reply of 'and so is poison ivy' they just kind of step back and look like all of the gears in their heads have ground together and stopped. The same thing is true in this situation and I thank you for pointing that out Gavin.
God Bless!
The more I've studied the period of Late Antiquity, the more conspicuous the external pressure of the emerging religion of Islam plays in Church history becomes. I think further ecumenical discussion would be helped by diving into Christendom's response to Islam, not just politically, but culturally and liturgically. I think there is a massive blindspot among the various confessional camps in how they have been respectively impacted by the rise of Islam.
Thank you for this Gavin. Great video.
Have you got any plans to come over to the UK within the next few years?
Thanks! No current plans but I always love visiting. I was born in Scotland and studied abroad in England one semester.
What part of Scotland were you born in?
You look familiar to me for some reason. As in you remind me of someone as opposed to me recognising you. Pastor Peter Lynas perhaps
@@TruthUnites Aha! I knew there was a reason I liked you! 😂 Where were you born? I was born in Fife.
Is that Mic a blue yeti?
Maybe you’ve covered this in another video, but I’d be curious about the argument for the distinction in cultic/worship practice in “dulia” vs “hyperdulia” vs “latria”… I hear this in common RC apologetics, but I’ve never heard anyone discuss the historical background for this argument. I also have never heard a defense of this understanding from scripture. Thanks and you sound great!
Reason and theology has a great discussion called Are Icons Idols and Accretions? w/ Dr. Jim Papandrea
I’m converting from Prot to Cath, but I think I may be able to help. I don’t really like labels, and distinguishing between words like latria and dulia can be like labels if we don’t say what we mean. It’s like saying I love chocolate, and I love my family, and I love God. But obviously I’m not using love the same way all 3 times.
You can also look at the heart. As a Protestant, I’m sure you understand that worship is a lot more than singing songs and saying your prayers. It’s the orientation of your heart. So just because a Protestant sees a Catholic bow before a statue, doesn’t mean he knows what’s in her heart. He doesn’t know bowing means worship anymore than if he sees her kissing her children and then accuses her of worshiping her children when she should be worshiping God.
So if you’re asking if Catholicism teaches that Mary or the saints have the same worth as Jesus, the answer is no. If you read the catechism, you can see the “worship,” or worth ascribed to God is completely different than and utterly beyond the worth ascribed to anything or anyone else. He is majestic. King of kings. He is so worthy, that no one knows his name but himself. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit! It’s a completely different attitude than we take to the saints or our children. We can compliment them and show love to them, but we don’t view them as the all-important deity that holds together the universe. At least, we’re not supposed to. Hopefully that helps.
If you wife tells you not to kiss any woman and you tell her no I won't. Then she finds out you have been kissing other women and you tell her "Dear, I kiss you out of love and all other women i kiss out of respect". Will your wife agree to that distinction? She works drag you to counseling saying you were cheating in her and that you were disloyal to her. It's the same with veneration and worship. In Exodus 34, Aarons casts a golden calf, the Israelites say these are the gods that will lead us to the promised land. Aaron makes an Altar for the calf and identifies it as YHWH. So the Israelites think that the golden calf is YHWH. A few Verdes later YHWH tells Moses, he would destroy them for idolatry. Bottomline it doesn't matter what you think is idolatry or not? It doesn't matter what hairsplitting distinctions you make. What maters is what YHWH expects from you and what is His demands on the way you should worship him. For more on this read "what is the Golden Calf?" by Michael Hundley ( it's a scholarly article freely available online)
Gavin, you've been pretty nice. I've read the ECFs. You could have brought in Lactantius as a literal club. The harsh language from earlier works has also not been pushed.
My survey of the criticism of Gavin's icon videos is that the opponents act like he's stating that the evidence is equally stong that (1) the early church fathers [before the 7th century] do not support the iconodule/iconophile perspective; and (2) the early fathers definitively preclude the legitimacy of icon veneration. He has, from my view, definitively demonstrated statement (1), but has taken a more humble position regarding statement (2). What the early fathers put out of bounds is the 7th Ecumenical Council's condemnation of those who conscientiously refuse to venerate icons (which is an accretion), not the practice of venerating icons itself, which can still be seen as a legitimate devotional practice and development within the life of the church.
I'm sure in light of all of this discussion you and Trent will at least mention this topic when you see each other in the upcoming debate, but perhaps in light of all the interest the two of you can make a future discussion/debate topic. I think in many ways the real time back and fourth can cover a lot of ground that the back-and-forth videos can get hung up on.
Your new microphone sounds good!
The thumbnail tells me that Trent Horn will be quoting James White in his opening statement in March.
Thank you for the thumbnails
Your voice sounded great! 😁
As always, I bow down to your explanations. I just hope that you won't leave all this debating affect your personal health. In the end even a scholarly debate or non educated one ends up the same. If people will want to believe something, not even Christ can convince them otherwise. Keep up the great work and may Gods grace and guidance be upon your life, brother!
Gavin can you respond to the common responses of Jesus founded the Catholic or Orthodox church claim? I would love to hear your thoughts on that.
Lol i also would like to hear his responses on that.😂
can you do a video about the incarnation and icons
No church ia exactly like the early church, but confessional Anglican churches are probably the closest to the early church, at least in my opinion.
Thanks again for the wonderful video. I wanted to question what you said about the Bronze Serpent. As I understand that it was looking at the Serpent that was to bring healing. That sounds like a "cultic use of images" to me.
Interesting point. Even though the text only says "Look at the serpent to be spared", one could make an argument that is cultic use of an image.
Possibly even more interesting - the serpent was later destroyed because of imroper cultic use. Might make this a question of where on the cultic use spectrum the line falls.
the serpent was destroyed
@@ottovonbaden6353 It can be argued that the image was used as a form of Divine Magic or quasi "shamanistically." The passage is so intriguing. Why would a Prophet of God use the image of a (crucified) serpent to heal?
Jesus used the Serpent as a type for Himself in John 3, so I think that God allowed it as a foreshadow of salvation by looking upon Christ.
That being said, one must also point out that the same serpent was destroyed after people started offering to it, so idk if it is the best example yo use for icon veneration.
@@samueljennings4809 Why was a Serpent a Type for Jesus. Was it really only a typology? It was a form of Divine, Sacred Magic. Was the Cross a form of Divine, Sacred Magic? Should we then look on the Cross and be healed?
Did you address Jonathan Pageau's video in this? He doesn't name you directly, but refers to recent "polemical videos." I wouldn't characterize your video as polemical. Perhaps there was another out there.
Could you imagine Joshua instructing the Israelites to draw pictures of Moses, bow down, kiss them while praying to Moses? ... really puts things into perspective of how absurd icon veneration really is.
At that time did god incarnate into creation?
Gavin Ortlund is superman for Christ!
Just a simple observation as a missionary and Anthropologist. I went to Bangkok and saw the large image of the Buddha outside a shopping mall and Thais carrying incense towards the statue and making offering for their families. Then I went to Cebu, Philippines cathedral and saw Filipino Catholics carrying white candles to the images of Mary and Jesus and placing the candles as prayers to their families.
Functionally it' was operating exactly the same in both cultures. I could have simply replaced the images of Jesus (Saint Nino.. brought by the explorers Magellan) and Mary with the Buddha and exchange the white candles for incense (not problem with candles or incense) and humanly the same practise was occuring.
The parallel is clearly identical.
That ought to caution any Catholic defense against Gavin's argument.
I’m with you Gavin. I don’t think icon veneration is legit.
The first Commandment answers all the 'questions' and 'controversies.
Good work. I'm drawn to some orthodox teachings, but never could move forward because they venerate and worship icons. I wish their were orthodox churches that didn't practice icon veneration but just had them as art on the walls.
Kneeling to the Lord somewhere surrounded by his creation, and thanking him for the wonderful things he has made, seems a good idea. I.e.( I thank you Lord for this beautiful butterfly, and that you will transform your servants into even better helpers in your purposes as they allow you to alter them for the better by trusting you more fully!) (Thanks for sharing your wisdom too, in God's great cause!)
What is the reference in Joshua 7 employed in this debate? 9:34
Great video Dr.Gavin . God bless you .
I don't understand why,if some would take john 6:53 literally then why is it too hard to take verses which condemn image and idol worship literally too .
Well it seems like images and statues are a great source of income and satans favorite form of lure tactic to pull people into sin
I've really appreciated your videos on this topic. I'm an evangelical, writing a PhD on Russian Orthodoxy and Russian evangelicalism. One issue that I don't think you're addressing is that evangelicals will often engage with something like icon veneration in an ad hoc way and have a 'positive spiritual experience' through it. A lot of your conversation with these RC and EO apologists has looked at icon veneration in the context of whether the RC or EO practice and theology is valid, especially in a historical sense. And that has been immensely helpful. But there is also the spiritual question. What happens when someone venerates Andrei Rublev's icon of the Trinity? It's not just a dead image to the person venerating it but in the act of veneration the image comes alive to the person in some way. What is happening in this spiritual experience? Is this God's condescension (i.e. the Holy Spirit is touching the person even though the act is dangerously close to idolatry -- not unlike the didactic role of icons)? Or is this demonic (a demon using the image of the Trinity, parading as the Holy Spirit, and trying to bind the person to this kind of idolatry)? Or is this spiritual experience just the person's own (human) spirit projecting something onto the 'dead' image? Or could all three be taking place in different times and different ways? What about other icons, like that of Mary and the saints? I don't know if it's your intention to address this issue, which is much more in the realm of phenomenology and spirituality. However, if you do have some thoughts on these questions, I think they would be very helpful.
These are all interesting questions. I think another interesting term that is used for Icons is "the visible Gospel." Coming from a Jewish background I struggled with Icons when I was in Churches where they were displayed. One time, though, I was in an Ukrainian Church where all the walls were literally covered with murals and Icons and as I moved my sight from mural to mural, icon to icon, it suddenly hit me that I was "seeing" the Gospel in visual form. It totally made sense for mostly non-literate cultures to imagine the Gospel this way. Interestingly, I was in a couple of Churches in Ukraine where additionally the most holy name of God (YHVH) was written iconically in Hebrew way at the top of the Churches ceiling as well. I think you are on to something by looking at Icons not just historically or even scripturally but phenomenologically and spiritually as well. What does the visual sense and imaginative faculty mean for our spirituality?
th-cam.com/video/B0delWUGh9M/w-d-xo.html
@@edwinshendelman2501 yes. Gavin has spoken about the didactic role of images and its not a significant jump from there to believe that the Holy Spirit can use images to give a person an experience of spiritual life/renewal/awakening. This makes most sense with narrative images of biblical stories, or icons of Christ, rather than portraits of saints, especially if the individual doesn’t know who the saint is. I think that it’s entirely possible to have a positive spiritual experience as you look on an icon of Jesus but kissing the icon is a different thing.
@@cypl316 And I think if you are moved by a didactic use of an image as I was it is a very small move to venerate them just as people venerate the Holy Book. In Catholic and Orthodox Churches, the Bible is raised and sometimes paraded around. This also takes place in synagogues with the Torah scrolls. In Judaism the understanding is that the Torah scrolls represent the Shehina, the Presence of God, and as they parade it around the synagogue people try to touch and kiss it. This is a very stirring moment in the Jewish prayer service.
@@edwinshendelman2501 I agree entirely. But one key difference with icons is this idea that kissing an icon is an act of communication to the person depicted in the icon. So when I kiss a photo of my wife, while on a work trip, I don’t expect my wife to receive that kiss in any way. It’s veneration but it’s not communication. But by kissing an icon of Mary, a believer is communicating with Mary. I’ve read Orthodox saints saying that “when you feel that you don’t want to stop kissing the icon of Mary, that is a sign that Mary is kissing you back.” So it’s very different to kissing a Bible or the cross because these aren’t considered acts of communication with a living being.
@@cypl316 I can't say about the Christian practice of kissing a Bible but in synagogues when the Torah scrolls are paraded with religious songs the understanding is the that the Queen, the Shehina, is parading through the synagogue so it not simply a matter of honoring the "Torah" but of actually reaching out and touching or kissing the Divine Presence.
I like the new mic
Gavin, I applauded you in trying to reach RC and EO, but both these denominations have huge issues when you give the saints and Mary the same attributes that God has in where they pray to them.
Exactly!! In addition, the failure to understand that kneeling/bowing down, praying, giving praise, giving thanks, etc. are all forms of worship. That is how we worship God. Trying to get around that with word games like latria and dulia is nonsense. Glory and honor are to be given to God alone. It's okay to be grateful and remember those who came before us, but venerating them crosses the line into worship.
@Bb Dl Bad argument. Protestants worship through the ONCE FOR ALL sacrifice of Christ, and we show Him the reverence due only to God. Even if I were to grant the RCC view of re-presentation as not idolatrous (it is), this does not mean that Protestants do not worship through a sacrifice. We conclusively do, but unlike the Jews and the RCC, we do not need to continually sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins.
@bbdl2147 Doing a slight bow to another human as a form of respect is not a problem. If you bow down to that person and pray to them, then that is worship. Likewise, singing a love song to your spouse is okay. Singing is not the same as giving praise and praying to a person (alive or dead). Also, praising your children for doing good is not the same as bowing to them and praying to them. To sum up, bowing, praying, and giving praise to someone is worshipping them.
@@clayw70 They don't slightly bow they kiss icons and pray to them as Gods.
@costamammis9687 Yes, I agree. I was responding to the points that were made that are not equivalent to the argument.
I liked the Christian Wagner's videos on Doctrinal development the most when it comes to understanding the Catholic position on this debate.
Would love to see you two talking about this. Scholastic approach to such topics seems to be better then the Catholic Answers-pop apologetics one
I'm neutral on this topic but I think it's great for Christians to discuss these things in a hopefully constructive fashion.
It's great that you are taking a humble, neutral, stance, but may I ask why you are neutral on the thesis that the early church was against cultic use of images when the evidence seems completely clear (so long as, as Gavin pointed out, that target point remains the focal point)?
I'm not going to dispute about it. I'm just curious about other people's reasoning about the issue.
@@Real_LiamOBryan I probably should have said I am neutral on whether the practice is an acceptable addition, although I am certain it was not practiced or accepted before the 6th or 7th century.
@Bb Dl Why do you assume that I don't believe that?
What is the practice of the Church of the East?
brilliant
Very sexy microphone. Glad you've got your audio/visual gear dialled, all helps in presenting professional content.
I'd love for you to make a response (if even a short one) to the Catholic Brothers video in response to you. It honestly looks like they have a really good point.
He did a great response in the comment section on that video
@@onepingonlyplease No
Great video Gavin... Also, we understand the program 👌: after every video that you upload which touches on their idolatry or ruffles their feathers - grab some popcorn and wait it out a couple weeks until the sure-to-come avalanche of response videos subside, and THEN be on the lookout for your next upload 👍😁
Any chance of a discussion of the big Protestant icon, namely that banner of William of Orange which they insist they are entitled to carry through any Catholic housing estate?
Seeing as he's not an icon there wouldn't be a discussion to have.
I know it's not the main point of the video but the question about the canon stuck out - the issue doesn't rest on what list of books was agreed upon, which list was better or worse, or even when, historically, a certain list appears - the question is where does the authority lie to settle and determine definitively the list of books that constitute divinely inspired scripture? The critique, from the Orthodox perspective, is that protestants place that authority with the individual whether they realize it or not. Many reformers altered Scripture or subtracted books that they deemed did not align with their teaching, theology, or presuppositions.
And I'm no scholar (and I know you say there was no "resounding and unanimous opposition" regarding the Trinity, but I don't believe the claimed points of opposition to iconodulia are "resounding and unanimous" as you imply) but I would argue there WAS great opposition to the Trinity whether from gnostics, docetists, Arians, or unitarians throughout the centuries - and while those groups and many others laid claim to the title "Christian" it was only by the authority of the Church (the Orthodox Catholic Church) that these beliefs were deemed heretical - in the same manner iconoclasm was to be clarified as heresy.
For any protestant (or Catholic) still reading - the Orthodox doctrine of the Essence-Energies distinction is what you need to understand to better grasp the position - as it is not only connected to Iconodulia but the Incarnation itself, the Eucharist, Baptism, all Sacraments and the very manner in which the Holy Trinity interacts and engages with His creation.
Hope you can specifically respond to Craig's new video that just went up not long ago!