@SanfedisimoGlorious Thanks for the comment. Ignatius' ecclesiology was a prudent development in early conceptions of the role of bishops. Note also that in the provided quote (Smyrn. 8.1a) Ignatius sees presbyters, not bishops, as inheritors of the apostolic office. But this bears, of course, no relation to icon veneration.
Ignatius is a far better witness to the developing cult of the saints and the heroic martyrs including Polycarp, Perpetua, Agnes, Lucy, Peter, Paul, and so on. Their bones and their relics are honored and even venerated. This was not seen as idolatry. The adding of images to that is simply a natural progression. Especially in the pagan world filled with mosaics and paintings. I see icon veneration as simply an offshoot of these kinds of relics based honors and venerations. Not an accretion, but a desire to enter into, in a deeper way, the story of Christ, the apostles, of salvation itself. The criticisms of icons in the early period have pagan idols in mind, but are often very heavily tainted by a platonic hatred for creation. And the question of Platonism is one I wish Gavin would look at more carefully in the context of this discussion. I get the impression that he is just straight up ignoring this as a problem for the iconoclast or aniconic side. Platonic thinking is very tightly wed to many of the most harsh critics of icons. Origin in particular. But also others who follow on Origin, such as Eusebius.
@@danielcarriere1958 I can't believe they ignored your comment, It's really interesting when you say what is true and they ignore you. Cause it's undeniable.
That is the difficulty, faith based on printed text, not in the spirit of the Church. The Church is as a living document to shepherd us through difficult times, which is always, as the comfortable, unchallenged life is the most dangerous, - the lukewarm, and this is not at all implying Pastor Ortlund, but our present Western culture. And finishing up hearing the football player’s speech at Benedictine more thoroughly this am, he is spot on regarding many local dioceses across the country in their teaching mission.
Hi Dr. Ortlund- thanks so much for the engagement and the kind words. We hope to have a reply video posted sometime during the summer, around the time that Michael's book is published. Much love in Christ- please remember us in your prayers!
I would love to see more sit down conversation between you both discussing these topics. You both are so charitable and easy to listen to. These types of dialogue are so necessary in order to find common ground. God Bless you both, you’re in my prayers.
Thank you, Gavin, for actually taking James 3 seriously. I see the deliberation in your engaging these topics which is a sign, I believe, of your reverence for God and the role of teaching in the body of Christ. I see so much haphazard, puffed-up, reactionary teaching online and it's a breath of fresh air to see you so painstakingly and even-handedly address these crucial topics. We need this kind of earnest teaching in every local church.
The ultimate justification of images is God's incarnation in Christ: by taking a human body and nature, God made himself visible and material. The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone. And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his likeness (εικονα) with ever increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit (II Corinthians 3:18; NIV; Greek original inserted). Cope Calvinist Free Will is in the scriptures heretic predestination is antithetical to Christianity you might as well be a Muslim
Get ready for these comments : "I was an Orthodox before watching this, and I am still an Orthodox " "That's just your interpretation" "You are proving you don't understand Orthodoxy" "Eastern Orthodox is pre-denominational.." "Luke painted the first icon" "Don't you venerate your parents and have pictures?"
Absolutely thrilled you've addressed these responses. I never found them strong at all, yet they lacked response. Praise God for your extensive work in this field!
I just hope everyone who clicks on this video watches it in its entirety with an open mind and heart before forming any views about it. You have no idea how long I've waited for this video, and I'm happy to say it lived up to my expectations
So this image being produced helped you in your walk of faith? Did godsomehow use creation as a window to reveal to you some divine principle? It’s almost as if creation itself is icon veneration 🤔
@@tookie36you have perfectly demonstrated the principle of equivocation the Gavin so eloquently described. A video is not an icon or image in the Nicaea II sense, nor is learning from a video veneration in any form. As Gavin repeatedly emphasized, use of images for teaching is not the same as veneration.
@@timothyhodgson9572 you missed my point. Which is to say that veneration should be a continuous act like prayer. If you don’t see how Jesus died and rose for all of creation and creation itself is meant to be an icon/a reflection of the image of god, then we miss the point of veneration. We have special prayer and veneration in order to pray and venerate continuously.
Thank you Dr. Ortlund. You put your finger on the very reason why I follow Christian apologetics: the thirst for something solid, for assurance and certainty, and a deep-seated dread of being deceived. In part thanks to your work, I have found that there is no certainty anywhere except in the Word of God, "which liveth and abideth forever."
Gavins church is inherently LIBERAL. It will go the way of the Scottish Church, the English church and the Presbyterian church.... Female clergy with multicolored hair and a distinctly LIBERAL theology that doesn't REQUIRE anything of you.
The Bible isn't infallible. The interpretation of the Bible isn't infallible. Men and churches have varied on its interpretation. No man nor church has infallibly interpreted the Bible. There isn't 100% certainty. That doesn't mean you can't still have enough faith in Christ to compensate for your lack of knowledge or understanding in the deposit of the faith.
The Word of God is Jesus: John 1:1. The Holy Spirit guides councils: Acts 15. So the Canon of the Bible, which was canonized in an ecumenical council, is guided by the Holy Spirit and infallible.
@@charlesmcgarraugh9595An infallible Council of the Apostles does not translate into infallibility of all Councils, and those who believe in the infallibility of the Church are completely incoherent as to when & where & to what extent & how we can know the Church has infallibly spoken.
@@stephenwright4973 it's not all councils, it's the Ecumenical councils. If you don't believe that the Ecumenical councils are infallible then you believe the Bible is a fallible set of infallible books which means you have no way of knowing which books in the Bible are infallible, you are operating in a realm of pure skepticism where you don't trust God's church or even the Bible because it necessarily lays out that Christ built a visible church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it.
I grew up Baptist, and I really love the worship of the EO church. I have been attending one for some time, and I am still unsure of how I will proceed. I am thoroughly disillusioned with ANY church’s claims of having perfectly preserved all apostolic traditions, but I still think the historical ecclesiology, unique spirituality, and time-proven consistency of the EO church are big points in favor of it. Thank you for these videos, Gavin.
Stay the course and trust God. If Christ didn't historically start a Church you join now... then there's no point. The Orthodox Church is most definitely the Church Christ is head of. God be with you!
@@ChristianHagoodyeah, keep idol worshipping! It worked out for all the Jews who did it in the bible. Also, I love how all these Orthodox and Catholic people flocked to a protestant country only to turn it into the countries that held their churches view 🤔. Drives me nuts!
You are not getting truth here. You are getting OPINION, 2000 years after the facts . Reading your own opinions into the gistorical record is a LIBERAL doctrine bone of post modernism. In otherwords, it is a pile of B U L L S H I T that you shouldn't step in.
The heart of the matter is the consideration of "What is apostolic teaching?" For us non-Catholics, Apostolic teachings was the teaching of the Apostles that was handed on to the early church. If it wasn't taught by the Apostles then it is not part of the Apostolic Deposit of Faith. That doesn't mean we can't alter our traditions as culture and technology change and advance. But it does mean that any traditions we have can't negate or add to the Gospel message by introducing things that either ignore or negate or make additional requirements of what it means to be "In Christ". Dr. Ortlund has made a great case that Icon veneration was not part of the Apostolic Deposit of faith. Instead, it became the practice of Christians in later centuries.
This is right on the money. That’s why a departure from scripture as the highest authority is a problem. Traditions and authority are great, they just must be grounded by scripture. Rome and EO had to leave that clear teaching and belief of the early church behind and elevate themselves in order to develop the power structure they now enjoy.
I never thought I would find this topic so interesting but you do a really great job of explaining the history of this practice. Video was engaging the whole way through. Thank you!
Thank you gavin, your videos have been an answer to my prayers. I was really trouble in my faith and came across your channel, by the grace of God. May God continue to use you greatly
Gavin, if our confidence in the 7th ecumenical council is so shattered, would you consider doing a video covering which of the councils are reliable, and why? Ex-Orthodox here, trying to get my bearings. Deeply appreciate the fantastic work you do!
Personally, I think there’s a huge difference between reliable and infallible. Reliable is something like the Westminster confession of faith. It’s scripturally sound, but ,being a work of man, it is subject to error. The only thing that is infallible is scripture being the very Word of God. I’m not sure about the ecumenical councils. I’m sure many are great. But there’s a vast difference between being great and being the Word of God. God bless
Im Catholic but I have strong Protestant sympathies. And that informs my response here. The way tradition, things like ecumenical councils, can be used, is by holding up their teachings to your eyes like a pair of glasses, and using them as a framework or grid or prism through which you view revelation, Scripture, history, Christian experience, etc. For example, Scripture can be a little difficult to make sense of regarding the Trinity, the hypostatic union, etc. it would be difficult to make sense of the data on your own. But if you take the traditional teaching on that subject, and hold it up as lens through which you analyze and take in all the data, you will see how it makes the best sense of all the data, and works very well for doing so.
@@taylorbarrett384 The issue is that it isn't evident that the Ecumenical Councils are infallible (because they do contradict or make seemingly false statements) for the very reasons that Gavin has been arguing, which makes it hard to use them as a pair of glasses when you know the glasses have breaks, scratches, or might even be the wrong prescription in general. The notion that Veneration of Icons in the Orthodox sense was a tradition dating back to the apostles is a fabrication of history and reality as far as we can tell. We have no records of it in the early churches and no records of anything resembling it, no records of it in the New Testament, plenty of Jewish traditions are outright AGAINST it, there are Roman traditions that mirror it, and we don't see it show up in history until the 7th century. The fact that an Ecumenical Council can apparently be so wrong AND be completely biased to whatever political leanings were popular at that time makes me highly skeptical about whatever authority they claim to have.
Gavin, you’re such a blessing for, especially as an ex-eastern-orthodox. You make me want to dive into the church history so much more! And the situation with icons and any other church tradition is sad, because the mentioned churches have committed to be infallible and now it’s just impossible to confess that they were wrong and correct anything that has creeped in. It’s sad… I don’t want to offend anyone, but it is very much like the situation with the Pharisees
I really hope you look into the history during the reign of Emperor Heraclius. The contemporary sources document processions of miraculous icons around cities under siege, icons placed on the bow of ships before launching a rebellion against his tyrannical predecessor, and undisputed veneration of the True Cross before 630's. Any source that states iconography emerged in the 700s is either ill informed or lying. Further, I would also encourage you to look into emperor Constantine the Great. If images were not treated with veneration as early as the 300s, why would they say "in this sign conquer?"
Thank you for bringing your fine scholarship for the blessing of the body of Christ. Continue to serve the Lord and leave the results with him. Thank you brother, a fellow servant. Andrew.
I'm really glad you adressed the core of the responses to this topic. Even though they weren't very good in the first place, it helps to be clear about why. Hope people get it. Maybe a dialogue on this very point with a reasonable catholic would also help.
Thanks be to Jesus Christ for his holy Church, which He established on Peter and the apostles and their successors, and guaranteed it would teach His truth, in His name, in every generation, until the end. Save us Lord from the doctrinal chaos and division of the Sola Scriptura practice... Until 1930, every single Protestant sect held that the Bible taught contraception was a sin. "The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1Tim 3:15) and not a twit running around with a Bible.
@@dougy6237 The twits running around w/ the bibles comprise the church, as the church is also Christ's body on this earth. You can't have one w/ out the other.
Those audio bits from and orthodox source that were trying so hard to prove icon veneration from pagan sources, and pagan cup art and such were stretching so hard, they'd outshine a ballerina. There has been the protestant accusation for centuries that the early church got infiltrated w/ pagan practices. I don't go there anymore, but they are going directly there. Explicitly laying out, here are these early pagan practices, this is what the Romans did, here is our foundation It's stunning really.
@@Bbos2383 No, not "shouting into the void", because I make the point that Ortlund has once again abused scripture and history to fit his Protestant traditions of men. The Church has the divine guarantee, not a fool running around with a Bible. Sola Scriptura, by its very nature, gives doctrinal chaos and continual division, and is clearly of Satan. Christ said to Peter and the apostles and their successors "He who hears you, hears me" and NOT "He who hears the private interpretations of an individual or group, hears me". Pax
Icon veneration is an accretion. You can argue or respond from emotions, however it's clear that the evidence is against icon veneration. God bless you immensely, Gavin ❤️✝️🙏
@wordforever117 That position is potentially worse for you. You are essentially saying that when you kiss a particular image you are literally kissing the saint. Sounds a lot like the beliefs people have/had about their idols.
Someone keeps making a comment with dishonest accusations against Seraphim Hamilton and then deleting the comment whenever other people respond with more accurate information. Seraphim Hamilton, as Dr. Ortlund himself acknowledges, is a good, honest man. If that person makes his comment with accusations again and then tries to delete it, feel free to comment the truth here.
Thanks for pointing this out -- my only observations and interactions with Seraphim have been positive. To everyone reading this, let's keep it respectful in the comments.
@@TruthUnites His name is @philoalethia. I've interacted with him under Seraphim's icon videos and I can assure you that he was NOT blocked because of his arguments. I once had a 20+ conversation with him where he basically insulted me the entire time. I'm only saying this because I think that his caricature of Seraphim is unfair and don't think that you would approve of slander under your videos.
As someone who has known Seraphim personally for years, I've never found him to be anything other than a gentleman and certainly someone who is tolerant and respectful towards those he disagrees with. I've seen him change his views multiple times in response to other people disagreeing with him. @philoalethia 's comments do not correspond to reality. @@alpinefool8814
@@AmericanwrCymraeg Same! I don't know him IRL but his videos helped me find Orthodoxy (and return to Christianity as whole from atheism) and I've been Facebook friends with him for years.
@SanfedisimoGlorious As soon as anyone mentions William Albrecht, I immediately know they have no credibility. William Albrecht is not worthy of Dr. Ortlund's attention. He has shown his true colors on multiple occasions.
Good video! The veneration of icons is historically problematic. I could in principle be open to perhaps this being a legitimate doctrinal development, but it still wouldn't eliminate the problem of an infallible council making historically problematic claims. Perhaps someone could say that the Council taught correctly as far as dogma is concerned, but in terms of the historicity of the doctrine, it could be mistaken. If I remember correctly, Trent Horn presented something like this somewhere. I just don't know if the 2nd Council of Nicea allows this way of thinking, as it would seem to defend theology (venetration of icons) with historical arguments (it is of apostolic origin). It would be great to see a debate/dialogue on the topic.
Time-stamp 7:50 - Exactly. The reason why icon veneration is an issue is because Eastern Orthodoxy **makes** it an issue. It’s bizarre to be part of a church that casts an anathema and just shrug your shoulders. They need to own it. 27:20 - Eusebius is most decisive, I think. 1:15:20 - Frankfurt 1:16:32 - Slam dunk 1:16:53 - “787 was a human event.”
They won't. Their Triumphalism will not let them admit their tradition can ever have gotten something wrong. ... Also, humility is the Orthodox' #1 virtue
There’s an Orthodox chap in the comments this very moment claiming that Orthodoxy doesn’t make icon veneration mandatory, but merely an acceptable practice. It’s as if they’re literally just ignoring everything being said. Very bizarre behavior.
I would say orthodoxy tends to own the anathema. I havent seen much inconsistency there but could be overlooking. I still think an anathema over veneration of icons is super silly and nonsensical, but i appreciate that ive seen them own the anathema vs roman catholicism completely downplaying the seriousness of that charge by trent horn, akin, suan.
Dr Ortlund, greetings from Australia. I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for your lovingly charitable approach to apologetics. I am currently studying the classics at a catholic college here in Australia. Almost all of my contemporaries are practicing well read Catholics. I feel I am constantly in a state of defence for my faith and it can be at times discouraging to constantly have to argue against straw man arguments being made against my faith. Having grown up non-denominational with a slant towards low Anglicanism I never really had my beliefs challenged by fellow brothers and sisters in Christ in this way. Your videos provide a beautiful model to what I wish to achieve, your knowledgeable, gentle, and moral defences of Protestantism are truly an inspiration. Thank you for contributions to scholarship and God bless.
I'm having the same experience but as a protestant inquiring into EO with hopes of becoming a catechumen, the majority of my friends and family are protestant and I regularly defend my stance. Videos like these are helpful to understand their views and strengthen mine.
@@miguelv765may i ask what it is about EO that attracts you? Second question: Do you consider baptized believers in other faith traditions Christians indwelled by the Holy Spirit?
@@miguelv765Just know that if you become EO you agree with the church that all your Protestant family members are on their well to eternal hell fires.
@@miguelv765 As long is all is seasoned w/ grace. Sometimes protestants that convert remain gracious and remember that they served the Lord and were every bit as Christian before they converted to an apostolic church. Sometimes they become the worst hardliners, and become quite hardened to their protestant brethren.
Gavin, Thanks for this video, came at a great time. Been talking to friends who are discouraged with protestantism and attracted to EO, so this video a great resource to have
Extremely well researched and thorough. I personally found this very edifying and a powerful testimony for the Protestant view on this topic. Thanks so much for sharing Gavin!
I have decided to leave Christianity, as clearly the Church does not have divine guidance from the Holy Spirit to bind and loose, there is no standard of authority, and that means I can't trust any part of Christianity, including the Bible.
@@EpistemicAnthony so the argument is that if the Catholic church is not infallible in its teaching....... then it is impossible for Christianity to be true? Im not sure that logic follows at all. Indeed one of the many arguments Gavin presented in this video is that the doctrine out forth at Nicea 2 was unbiblical in addition to not being true. I would ask you to re evaluate your faith through the lens of God and the Bible.....and not rely on fallible teachings of post apostolic men.
@@tims3247 "then it is impossible for Christianity to be true?" It is impossible to tell what Christianity is. You say it is unbiblical, but so what? The fallible church identified and assembled the canon, and as Gavin showed, that Church has no basis for authority in doing so, and we have no reason to trust their decrees.
@@EpistemicAnthony You are grossly misrepresenting Gavin's point. No where does he say that the church has no authority to make doctrine. This is something that he points out again and again in his videos. You are confusing "infallible authority" with "any kind of" authority. Indeed...the whole point of Protestantism is that people can make mistakes. If we have good reason to doubt doctrine...then we should reform it.....such as with Nicaea 2 on icons. If you want to go make a video about doubting the canon of Scripture go right ahead and present your case. If you have strong evidence....maybe you will convince some people. But absent such evidence it is rational to accept the authority of the church on this and to continue to define your faith through the lens of the Bible.
@@tims3247 "If we have good reason to doubt doctrine...then we should reform it.....such as with Nicaea 2 on icons." Reform it in light of what, exactly? What is the higher authority that we can look to? Scripture? Nope, sorry, the fallible church identified scripture. There were many heretics who claimed the church got the canon wrong, but if the church is fallible, then I cannot disregard them as mere heretics, nor can I verify that their claims were incorrect any other way. There is no other standard of authority by which to judge, and my own reasonin certainly doesn't cut it. Why shouldn't I trust Marcion's canon? Heretics and alternate views have existed from the beginning, and if the church is fallible, we have no way to refute those.
Going back to early Christianity when it became legal, Constantine who is alleged to have started the Roman Catholic Church, never was baptized until days before his death, as emperors kill alot of people. SS Peter and Paul established the Church purely for ecclesial reasons, not temporal.
@@KathleenGuloy The Church in Rome is in the New Testamnt, so one lie there. Constatine didn't get baptized because he believed (most likely told wrong) that water baptism washes sins, so he waited until his deathbed for it.
@@thomasc9036 It is not a lie if they distinguish the Roman Catholic Church from the Church in Rome. I think there is a valid argument to be made that they are distinct.
Uppn Peter’s arrival, Nazarene Jews were already there. It is Peter and his son Mark who assisted him. One sign of an apostolic founder is their martrydom and Peter was martyred in Rome. It would be good for the Dioceses to teach the roots of the papacy. The first 33 popes were all martyrs for the faith.
Personally I think the evidence is clear that this wasn’t practiced by the Early Church. It was slowly brought in by pagans who converted, and is definitely an accretion. Sadly we as people easily get trapped in our own traditions and sometimes blinded by them too. The work you’re doing and the light you’re shining on these issues is important and appreciated. I’ll continue to pray the Lord protects you and blesses your ministry brother. We need more like you. 🙏✝️🙏
That isn't the point. You don't disprove a negative. An unfalsifiable claim is just that: unfalsifiable. One cannot prove unfalsifiable claims. The Orthodox position amounts to "we trust the current practice of icon veneration because the Church sanctions it." Period. Sola Ecclesia. We don't need history (except when we're trying to prove our position or disprove yours). @@caseycardenas1668
@NathanielJ.Franco Thank you. I suspect you're being insincere. We're not iconclasts in Lutheranism; except if the definition of iconoclast includes not venerating images.
Why does this even matter: Gavin is a Calvinist Protestant whose implications and apologetics exclude wide swaths of Christianity in a more extreme way than the EO does?
Great job. Protestant apologists often spend a lot of time discussing miriads of other topics with Catholics and orthodox, but your videos goes to the heart of the matter. Catholic/EO house of cards stands on topics like this one. It would be a death blow to the false catholic church, but sadly it functions like a cult for centuries and many will follow it no matter the truth.
Indeed. This video clearly shows why Christianity as a religion is false: The whole thing is based on the assumption that one group has authority to decide things, and if Dr. Gavin is correct, there is no trustworthy Church with authority, and therefore all of Christianity is a house of cards.
@@fantasia55the early church fathers were not Roman Catholic as you believe it today. They were not Roman Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Eastern Orthodox. They were just the church fathers and they were “Catholic” in the sense of having the faith of the universal church which held to the gospel as handed down in the scriptures by the apostles and prophets. Everyone who believes in the gospel news as presented by scripture is Catholic.
@KnightFel Someone, maybe you, posted that text on another video. My reply, again, is that Church Fathers celebrated Mass, acknowledged the papacy, believed in the Real Presence and respected the authority of apostolic succession bishops - making them Catholic priests.
Gavin, I would like to ask you, if saluting the American flag is not venerating an image, what is it? You say that placing your hand over your chest is "qualitatively different" from bowing and kissing, but how so?
Civil respect vs Religious respect. One is done as a public pledge of serving one's country in front of others, the other is done as devotion to the saint for more religious benefits like answered prayers, healing, etc. and praying through them as "windows to heaven". They both are "respect" but what kind of respect and for what end distinguishes them.
@@xrt1241 You also admit here that honor paid to the image (flag) passes to the prototype (nation). If the nation is itself not also a figure--that is, if civil respect is entirely distinct from religious--this is actual idolatry, I am sorry to say.
@@shotinthedark90 It does in the bible. Subjects of the King bow to him to swear their civil loyalty to him, but when the pagans whom the apostles minister to bow down before them or when the apostle John bows down before the angel, this bowing is qualitatively different(religious respect) and condemned. Furthermore iconodules also agree there are different types of venerating acts, one for latria due to God alone, another of dulia to saints as well. So we all fundamentally agree there are different kinds and levels of veneration and respect in our life.
@@xrt1241no, what is condemned is the attempt to worship the angel. Bowing is not inherently idolatrous, as you just demonstrated: the Bible tells us to bow and kiss kings, to honor emperors, etc. the justification for this is explicitly given as religious, it actually demonstrates devotion to God and a certain submission to his servants.
Amen! It clearly shows that the church is fallible, and therefore we cannot trust anything the Church did, including identifying the canon. Christianity is refuted.
Im always amazed by the difference in the evidence. It often feels like this- Iconoclast sources: no Christian ever use images! Images are not spiritual! We would never make an image to bow down to. Iconophile sources: we use decorations sometimes. The cross is like a flag for us. We have cups.
@@Gunfighter95 oh yeah, definitely. 😅 this is not fully serious, more of a comparison of how the quotes used feel. It seems like the iconoclastic proof texts are always direct and explicit, while it takes a few layers to get to the point from any of the iconophilic quotes.
That's too simple. Being aniconic is a spectrum and can include those who are more rigorously against any use of images such as Origen of Alexandria, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian of Carthage and so on. On the other hand you have those who are less rigorous who do accept images, but only in their decorative, commemorative or didactivee usage. Gregory the Great in the 600s is an example of it, where he forbade the destruction and veneration of images since they had a didactive usage.
Many cultures bow down, light candles and incense in front of their ancestors' pictures as veneration. When they become Christians, we tell them not to do this. Why should it be ok for Christians with the icons? Obviously, I'm not saying art, candles and incenses shouldn't be inside churches. In the same way, we are not saying to cultures who venerate their ancestors to throw their family photos in the garbage once they become Christians. It's the way it is used that is problematic.
Because there is a huge difference between one’s non-Christian ancestors and Christians Saints and Christ Himself. It’s the same distinction between praying to false gods and praying to the One True God.
I recently learned in the Rites Controversy, the church decided Chinese Christians did not need to stop doing venerative rituals for Confucius or their ancestors, because of its civic and not worship role
I’m a little confused because you said that very early churches did have images (they just didn’t venerate them) but then you use the quotes from the fathers that say there is NO use of images in the early church whatsoever. So if we know there were images in the early church, despite the quotes of the fathers that say there weren’t images at all, is it possible that they were just referring to pagan imagery? Currently a Catholic very much considering Protestantism and I love your videos, but I’m trying to think as critically as I can.
Gavin, thank you so much for identifying the equivocation of veneration around 35:30 with the example of hand-over-heart vs. bowing down praying. This was very helpful to me.
You might want to check out Augustine's Reply to Faustus Book 20, paragraph 21. But read the whole thing or whatever amount you need to get the context
Serious question, how do you reconcile your position with the fact that the two other ancient churches (Non-Chalcedonians, and the Nestorians) both venerate icons despite never accepting Nicea II? It's rather universal in the ancient communions today, and is practiced by ancient churches that were far away from the influence of the Roman Empire. The only record of iconoclasm we have was the controversy in Byzantium, Charlemagne, and some Protestants. Those aren't early enough to contend as apostolic. So is the position that Rabbinics don't venerate icons today, therefore it wasn't originally there? Because the Biblical argument from the ten commandments is undercut by things like Joshua 7:6.
Image veneration didn’t begin with the NT era apostles. Kissing images of royalty and pagan prophets or idols is a practice that has been around since Moses all over the world. Replacing the images with the apostles and Christ doesn’t suddenly make it apostolic.
@@whomptalosis22 So then it's disputed that they did, and the only evidence we could use to find out if they did would be a ceasing in icon veneration, no? If we see the practice is universal very early on, and we are to believe it is explicitly not what Christ or the apostles would allow for then the Church fell away very early and the gates of hell prevailed.
@@TheMeatyOne360 by that line of reasoning, the Israelites would never have succumbed to idolatry because of the plethora of warnings, books, and prophets warning them against it. We know they still did, so the claim that pagans or uneducated Christians were venerating images at the same time as the apostles and ECF warning about it, doesn’t mean that they didn’t warn about it. Early church image venerstion is not disputed by modern scholarship. The ECF unanimously rejected images as sacred. Not a single ante-nicene father wrote in support of image veneration, even post Nicea I catechetical lectures and tomes such as chrysostom and Cyril lack ANY mention of prostrating before paintings, let alone it being necessary (this WOULD be in a catechism, don’t you think?) “Gates of Hell shall not prevail” does not mean your specific institution will never make a theological error. It’s at the point where you just have to place your faith in whatever canonical boundaries you consider your church, contrary to the Scriptures/History/archaeology/prophets/apostles.
Its strange you posted this video now becouse just yesterday i watched some videos of yours about icons. I am finnish eastern orthodox. I dont think we are doing idolatry by venerating icons but i like your respectful way of talking. I will watch this.
Take note, the main thing here is not necessarily whether it is idolatry but whether it was the practice of the early church or whether these things were wrongfully made to be church dogma with anathema’s pronounced on anyone who doesn’t agree with Nicea 2 and kiss the icons.
@@cole141000 i see what you mean. Even if you might be right, lets say that that was not apostolic practise. And lets say the anathemas are quite too extreme. And lets say we could somehow show that EO church is not hundred percent correct. I still could not think to leav our church and join another denominations. I just cannot see any of protestant denominations to be more authentic. Also i cannot understand the protestant way of prayer. You dont have any rule or any certain way how to pray so it would be easy not just pray at all. Also i dont find any holyness and dignity in protestant services. I have been in protestnt services. I saw some couples hugging and even kissing each other. Some were dancing. Some were laying down during prayer. They were speaking to All mighty God as if he was their ordinary friend. They were handling Holy Bible like it was a news paper. They were casually giving prophesies and i cannot tell what was their source. And the way how protestants should interpret the Holy Bible just does not make any sence since anyone can claim they found a certain meaning from it. Orthodox Church gives us clear and save way to worship the Lord and it has been good two thousand years I dont see any reason to find a new way.
@@gabrielgabriel5177 my dear friend, I am not interested in persuading you to or from any church but to the living Christ. And if you were near me we’d have fellowship in Christ, regardless of where we attend worship and which church we submit ourselves to, since Christ is the head of the church, he is our sovereign and has our full allegiance and I think in that, we share much joy.
@@cole141000 well i appreciate the mutual respect even the fact that we dont agree in many things. God is our judge. We cannot take his place. May God have mercy on us all.
Gavin, I don't believe that the pull quote you cite from Humpries is *his* conclusion, much less a summary of consensus scholarship, but rather it seems to be Humphries' summary in the introduction to the volume, of some of the most "radical" and "revisionist" (his words) positions in that collection of essays, in particular from Brubaker and Haldon. Read the full context of that section again. It seems to mean nearly the opposite of how you presented it. Some more context from that section might help: "Even more radically revisionist was the work of Paul Speck. He argued for an even greater level of iconophile intervention, with large-scale mythmaking and the rewriting of texts." "While Brubaker and Haldon do not adopt all of Speck’s conclusions, and nuance others, they do endorse the majority. They then weave these together with the work of others, including Auzépy, both on iconoclasm and Byzantium in general during the period. The result is a massive and closely argued synthesis in which one can see the culmination of many strands of scholarship. The first is a highly sceptical approach to the sources. " "These and the many other arguments, both particular and general, have elicited much debate and a wide range of reactions.3° What all can agree on is that to understand Byzantine iconoclasm one must have some idea of the context in which the debate took place." Am *I* misreading this? Happy to be wrong here, but I don't think you've contextualized this quote accurately.
Just to be sure, I went back and re-read the whole introduction again, and it's clear that Gavin's use of that quote is completely out of context, and does in fact mean nearly the opposite of how he presented it. From this section here, I will quote Dr. Ortlund to be fair and make sure the full context of the citation is obvious: th-cam.com/video/gNEw8PxXky8/w-d-xo.htmlsi=i4nZXtou5h4hJOxA&t=1742 Dr. Ortlund says: “That position, what Price says is just representative of what nearly everybody says except for a few outlier views. You can see Mike Humphreys, in his outstanding article in a more recent book if you want to get a really recent overview of both the historical evidence and the scholarship, what he concludes is that: ‘What they were reacting against was the recent, from ca. 680, transformation of images of Christ and the saints into icons through which the holy person depicted could be manifested, thus making unconsecrated and uncontrollable icons into something akin to relics. Any mentions of icon veneration before this point are either interpolations or referring to the acheiropoieta images, which were relics.’ [Note: that’s the full quote from the Humphries text]” OK, again, this is not Humphries own view but rather a summary of Brubaker and Haldon. To get the full context for this, you have to have read the whole introduction, starting from page 4: “Inevitably this means that it is in part reacting to recent scholarship and its priorities.4 As even a casual glance at the footnotes will reveal, that means above all the work of Leslie Brubaker and John Haldon, especially their magisterial Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era, c.680-850: A History, published in 2011.5 Not only is this a monumental piece of scholarship in itself, it represents something of a culmination of a wave of revisionist scholarship that has challenged virtually every facet of our understanding of Byzantine iconoclasm. Every contributor to this Companion, to greater or lesser extents, has been influenced by this wave in general and by this book in particular. Overall, the present volume, or more precisely its individual components, pushes back against some of Brubaker and Haldon’s arguments, especially those based on the brilliant but often speculative work of Paul Speck. However, it remains indispensable reading for anyone interested in Byzantine iconoclasm or Byzantium in the period. To understand both Brubaker and Haldon and the present Companion, it is necessary to briefly survey the historiography.” Then Humphries gives an overview of this “revisionist” trend, from Paul Speck to Avergny and then concludes with a summary of Brubaker and Haldon, which is the section of the introduction that Gavin pulls that quote from. So, again, the quote that Dr. Ortlund is highlighting here, according to Humphreys himself, represents a more "radical" and "revisionist" view, and in fact is the view that is frequently challenged by essays in that volume.
I would also point out that Robin Jensen, who dates iconography and at least some iconodule practice centuries earlier than Brubaker and Haldon, and whose position Dr. Ortlund dismisses out of hand as a "outlier" is the author of the very first essay in the volume Dr. Ortlund is quoting.
Interesting how the gentlemen “rebutting” Gavin argues from Roman standard traditions and Pliny’s instructions on signet rings. They are literally arguing from pagan traditions to justify icon veneration. They literally proved Gavin’s thesis.
Christianity is the intersection of Hebrew spirituality, Roman law, and Greek philosophy. This is why The Incarnation happened where and when it did. This is how the Church formed.
So are Protestants who appeal to pagan literature to demonstrate that "hilastērion" should be translated as "propitiation" in Romans 3:25 also conceding that their position comes from paganism?
You're not distinguishing between 1) worshiping idols, 2) venerating idols, and 3) venerating icons. Pagans both worship and venerate idols. They're idols not only because they are worshiped but also because they are images of pagan deities. Icons are neither worshiped nor images of pagan deities. Gavin's thesis is that icon veneration is a late development. By demonstrating that icon veneration existed in the 2nd century, Seraphim and Michael disproved his thesis. Whether you think it's "pagan" or not is another issue and has no significance for the historical question.
@@jamesbradwell8556 sigh. "Late" here means "well after the Apostles were gone" Good grief why is Orthodox argumentation and rhetoric so poor? Oh that's right: you guys skipped Scholasticism and the Renaissance
I am so glad I found you Gavin. I have been visiting an Orthodox Church for five months now. I have much respect for many things they do, but my spirit is uneasy with some of their practices and claims. This is God's Spirit telling mine than something is wrong, so I began a deeper examination of their doctrines and tradition. I am now more at peace with not joining them.
Thank you Gavin! You have been instrumental in my conversion to Orthodoxy. I dont mean that as a slight either. I watched many of your videos during my searching and you are one of the first people I heard speak about it. You make great content, shame we disagree! God bless my friend.
Thank you for being so clear in your arguments. It makes it easy to pinpoint the disagreements I have with you (as a long-time Orthodox viewer). Your response makes it clear that in regarding Seraphim and Michael's arguments as equivocation, the difference between you is a *philosophical* difference, not a *historical* one. The key is in your denial that various objects are inherently objects of veneration, such as a national flag, a standard, or a signet ring. This is a desacralisation of the world that I would argue is clearly inconsistent with the incarnation, and that is in fact the key argument of St John of Damascus. There is no such thing as "non-venerating honouring". The category that you are making does not align with reality and I would argue would not make sense to any of these early church writers, even the more aniconic ones. Take a look at how you argue against baptismal regeneration, something that is totally unanimous in the church fathers, and then how you argue against icon veneration, which I will happily grant is much harder to find. This is about philosophical presuppositions, not the weight of evidence. We can't come at these issues in the way you want to, without the guidance of the church, as Fr Stephen tried to get across in his discussion with you on Sola Scriptura, or we end up in tangles where you have this theology of your own making. Talk to Sam Tideman at the TH-cam channel "Transfigured", the Unitarian who rejects Nicaea 1, or at least listen to one of his videos, to hear that his arguments are just as reasonable as yours against Nicaea 2! To emphasise the point about philosophical coherence: If I was convinced of your arguments against icon veneration, I wouldn't become a protestant, I'd become an Orthodox Jew or Noahide, because at least they actually have a coherent tradition that fits with aniconism! I.e. protestantism is so fundamentally methodologically flawed that being convinced it was the approach most true to Christianity would kill my faith in the very resurrection of Christ (which, God willing, won't happen, don't worry!). God bless you, and I mean that sincerely. I hope that one day you find our mother the church. Sorry for writing such a long comment. There's a level of investment I have about this because of that weird parasocial relationship that watching so many hours of a TH-camr creates. In Christ, Zac
Hi Zac! Thanks for the comment. I want to clarify. You wrote: "The key is in your denial that various objects are inherently objects of veneration, such as a national flag, a standard, or a signet ring." I made no such denial. Rather, I pointed out that this is using the word "veneration" in a different sense than Nicaea 2 uses it. Again, the primary issue here is simply that Nicaea 2's claims are simply false.
@@TruthUnites Thanks for the clarification, but my point is precisely that there is no such meaningful distinction to be made. The difference between my veneration of my national flag and my veneration of an image of the Mother of God is primarily one of degree, not of kind. Please correct me if I'm wrong, you have more familiarity with the text of the acts of the council than I do, but the bishops of Nicaea 2 do not conclude that in the time of the apostles there was widespread kissing of portrait panel icons. What has to be shown is that the practices that were done in the time of the apostles are in the same category of action as kissing of portrait panel icons/crossing oneself in front of icons/any other actions that we consider worthy actions of veneration of the holy images today. That is what would make veneration of images an apostolic practice. What's under dispute is the claim that veneration as defined by Nicaea 2 is a concept that includes the things Michael and Seraphim bring up. I say it is, you say it isn't.
My opinion on this issue is that religious art is not bad and should actually be encouraged. I’m so tired of seeing churches that are bare rooms with not effort out into them. However, I am also against giving images a type of honor they were never meant to be given, such as kissing and lighting candles too.
I just reread the anathemas of the council for the first time in awhile. They don't say what Dr Ortlund seems to think that they say. They don't say that the form of veneration itself is Apostolic, nor do they mention kissing specifically, as far as I can see. They do, however, say: "We keep unchanged all the traditions of the Church handed down to us, whether written to verbally. One of which is the making of holy images consistent with history of the Gospel, a tradition useful in many respects, especially in demonstrating that the Incarnation of the Word of God as real, not a phantasm, for these have mutual indications and mutual significations." That claims that making icons is apostolic and a confession of the incarnation, not that the form of veneration itself is unchanged and universal. It's not at all necessary to our Orthodox claim for icons to have been made and venerated everywhere in exactly the way we do now. Eusebius testifies that images of Christ and the Apostles go back to the Apostolic period. They were used more in some places than in others. However, in denying their legitimacy, the iconoclasts clearly fell into christological heresies in defending their views. Just like with the Creed, the word "theotokos," etc., after these things became controversies leading to christological error, the Church was completely within her rights to require specific terminology and praxis going forward in order to safeguard the Apostolic faith. Justin Martyr didn't have to confess that Christ was homoousios with the Father in order to be Orthodox, having lived before Arianism. We do, because heresy led to terminological clarification. Icons existed from the beginning, but their use didn't need to be the same everywhere before iconoclasm made an issue if it, and thus the incarnation. Now, their uniform use is prescribed, and doing so is perfectly apostolic in faith. This is how the Church's immune system has always worked. When there's an infection, antibodies are left behind to prevent reinfection.
It is necessary, though, that they were venerated (at all) in the early church for this to make sense. I think Ortlund's position would be that they weren't.
Gavin, thanks for all you do. I was heavily in the process of joining the Orthodox Church (from a non-denomination church) and saw your first icon video and it made me tap the brakes. Thanks to you and Dr Jordan B. Cooper I am now attending a LCMS church.
Let me just add too that it is a cop out to say all Protestant churches have “gone woke” there is plenty of good left in the Protestant circles and very conservative branches. You can use that as an excuse to leave or try to be part of the solution.
@@Ozzy864_25 It is shocking how much of Catholicism has gone woke. There is even a bit of getting into Orthodoxy. They are the strongest link against woke, but it comes at a cost. I find prohibitive legalism in Orthodoxy. More than I see in almost any other branch. We're too worried about woke these days (and should be), but I've been under the yoke of legalism in my earlier days as a Christian, because I so wanted to please my Lord. It is a deep bondage, very hard to break free from and a hard task master.
Dr. Ortlund why is it that Session 7 from Price’s Acts of Nicaea 2 are not found in the papal encyclicals? Is it not considered by the RCC as infallible? If so, is it viable to continue to use it?
Ignatius speaks of the altar here: “Be careful, therefore, to take part only in the one eucharist; for there is only one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup to unite us with his blood, one altar and one bishop with the presbyters and deacons, who are his fellow servants. Then, whatever you do, you will do according to God.
Can’t wait to watch the video when I get off of work! Your videos, especially the ones on icon veneration always reassures me with my anxiety for not venerating icons. I’m curious to know, what is your opinion on icons as religious art NOT as an object of veneration but just as a piece for appreciation and remembrance?
I know you aren’t asking me but I would ask you if you would have a Buddha statue for artistic purposes in your house? Many spooky spiritual things happen around icons, I myself have experienced demonic stuff and heard a few testimonies about them. Including poltergeist type stuff, mental oppression and physical manifestation through the wood
@@ArcticBlits This sounds like some foolish charismatic nonsense, Buddha is from another religion that people worship not having any affiliation with Christianity, I have icons in my room and never have experienced any of the nonsense you just described.
Regardless on where one falls on the icon veneration issue, possessing icons in and of themselves is fine. To argue you can’t depict Christ in an imagine would typical lead to a Nestorian Christology, which is condemned universally in Christianity.
@@miguelv765 I’m not charismatic in any practicing sense, but when I first encountered EO I was considering it after going to three nights of Pascha at an Antiochian church with my then gf. Later that day after waking up. Going to bed at 7am lol. And all through that sleep I got physically ill and ended up having a 20 hour panic attack. It every time I tried to pray I had a voice telling me I was going to die and that I needed to be orthodox. Not in any particular order, just disrupting my prayers. Anyways, the Holy Spirit led me to pray the names of God and focus solely on Him. As Christ is the only one who sets us free. And after 20 minutes of that with the Spirit bringing names to mind from scripture the voice left and I had peace. Soon after that my ex texted me freaking out that her icon of Mary started weeping oil while she was out. Only after I had rejected the demon did it cry. That was no saint let me tell you. Her family has a whole shrine to these things in their house and it’s no wonder they are a broken dysfunctional mess. So much evil energy in that house.
Brilliant, as always! I've visited some of the most ancient churches in India that trace their origin to St. Thomas. They do not venerate images. The only image they keep in their homes and in their churches is a photograph of the current patriarch. Of course, the Thomas churches that were forced by the Portuguese to submit to Rome follow the practice of venerating images. So Gavin is right from the living evidence I've seen.
Enjoyed this a lot. Even though I'm leaning towards the other end (due to the fact that virtually all churches that split prior to Nicaea 2 have and venerate icons in almost the same manner, and due to the West having a high amount of, frankly, gross religious art that involves nudity and strange non-biblical depictions of cherubim as a direct result of their lack of sacramental understanding of art), I still think this is a valid discussion and critique of the way EO Apologetics work. I would love to see you and Sam Tideman sit down and have a chat as well. I'm curious how far the skepticism can go. Might be fun to have a chat with Paul Vanderklay as well.
@@TruthUnites Oh wow, I must've missed it. I'll check it out! I will say as a Protestant I'm personally invested in these discussions. So I appreciate these videos a ton!
This is a great video, and definitely one of the things that kept me from going full Anglo-Catholic despite my own sympathies. I think you successfully refute the claim of Nicaea II of apostolicity, and *certainly* you refute the notion that anyone who doesn't venerate icons is damned. What do you think about this construal as a kind of resuscitation of a due and good use of icons, as an attempt to affirm as much of the tradition of the church as is reasonable in light of the apostolic teaching. I tend to think we can rightly bow before icons *if* we do not see those icons as mediating the presence of that which they signify. The mediation of the presence of what's portrayed is exactly what idols do. Nevertheless, insofar as we can see the icons as catalysts which spring our imaginations into the company of heaven, we can find a good and right use for icons and a limited sort of veneration in that sense. Bowing, then, is an expression of participation in the heavenly worship. What do you think of this?
I don't think it is accurate to say that idols mediate presence. Idols were thought to *contain* the presence of whatever it was they represented, not simply mediate it. Think of it this way, icons are arrows that point away from themselves to the heavenly reality beyond them. Idols are not arrows at all, but claim to be the reality itself, causing the gaze to remain fixed on the material image (idolatry). The reason I can affirm the veneration of icons-though I will grant that in practice the way I do this is very different than Orthodoxy-is because I recognize the icons as distinct from idols in that they direct my gaze away from themselves toward Christ in whom the saints participate. In this sense, they are windows into heaven, with heaven being Christ himself. Thoughts?
If one can take someone as staunchly aniconic as Clement and unconvincingly force an iconodule interpretation onto one very specific quote of his, I think it says a lot more about that person’s agenda and style of argumentation than it does about the subject matter at hand. To echo Gavin, if these are the best arguments to be made, that itself is very telling.
I think them including that and some of their other more speculative evidence was a mistake, because it allows Dr Ortlund and others to grab into that and act like it was the best that can be offered in defense of icons. Really, however, Seraphim et al. included much better, stronger evidence that wasn't addressed in this
As a Jew, I say that if Christians can get around the 2nd commandment (some count it as the 1st) and its prohibition of idols and images of the Divine, then I never want to hear them cite Scripture again as the "infallible source" of God's will.
@@EricBryant The fixation on anathemas seems dishonest considering the historical context. Iconoclasts had been brutalizing Christians and destroying/defacing holy objects and places of worship leading up to this council. It reminds me of how some Muslims and ant-Christians complain about crusades as if there wasn't 700 years of Muslim aggression leading up to the crusades.
@@klemperal What "icons"? And what distinction are you making between 2nd Temple Judaism and 1st Temple Judaism (if any)? At any rate, we honor and express love for God's Torah and His commandments, but there's no sense whatsoever that these things are God or represent God. Gavin makes this distinction in the video and, of course, Judaism is stricter than Protestantism in that it doesn't allow for any statues, images, or depictions of the Divine.
@@EricBryant I was just expressing my amazement that some Christians can reinterpret the 2nd commandment to that degree. Even if they're not "SOLA Scriptura," you'd think Scripture would matter at least to the extent of not making idols. What's more "anathematized" in the Bible than that?
@@KingoftheJuice18 Dura-Europos synagogue, one of the oldest in the world, was covered in icons. I mention second temple Judaism not to differentiate it from first temple Judaism, but because it was the Judaism of Christ's time as apposed to the Judaism of today which is quite different. Still, to this current day, Jews venerate objects by kissing: the mezuzah, the fringes, and the Torah. Since you brought up that Judaism doesn't allow depictions of the divine, why did God instruct Moses to make images of cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant? Why did the Jews bow before it in prayer? I would argue that iconoclasm, in Judaism and Christianity, is the accretion.
The problem is, if honor placed upon an image (an image of Christ for instance) is passed onto to the prototype, why are we just giving Christ honor and not worship? How exactly does veneration pass to the prototype as worship? Not to mention, saints and other church figures (Basil for instance) can be venerated in these traditions, so in that case the veneration is being passed to the prototype as honor but not worship, but in the instance of Christ it is? Seems very inconsistent and incoherent.
Worship in the Catholic context, is the offering up of Christ, body and blood to God the Father in the eucharistic. That is why all this talk of venerating icons just misses the point. There is no worship going on there. Worship of God is primarily done at mass. This is where we are united to the Holy Trinity, along with all the saints, living and dead and all the angels.
No. And neither does the Catholic Church. Those anathemas were targeted at 8th century iconoclasts. They are not applicable today. The positive doctrine is this. It is perfectly acceptable to kiss and icon if that floats your boat. You are not committing idolatry by doing so.
Long reply but here's your answer. God bless, man. When it comes to worship of Christ: We give honor to Christ in the same way we do the saints. If you're looking for the additional worship of the Scripture, thay does NOT go to the saints, that is located in the liturgical sacrifice. (No, we don't re-sacrifice Christ) If you ever attend an Orthodox or even Catholic service, our life of worship is centered around Christ's gift to us: His Body and Blood, which He Himself told us repeatedly in John 6:32-58 we could not have eternal life without. No saint, nor mary is included in this consecration. It's all Jesus, and He's on the altar. Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable, it's just Scripture! (1 Cor 11:26) We take Him into ourselves, and cast Him back out into the world each and every day through the newfound love and grace offered to us through Christ. So yes, we are not making sacrificial offerings to anyone but God, and that is the stricter definition of the English word worship. In regard to icons of saints: Saints themselves only get veneration. Any looser definition of the English word "worship" would be called 'relative worship'. We recognize the good work and glory of God IN the lives of saints depicted in icons. It's God we're glorifying, He just so happened to show up in our lives THROUGH HIS CHRISTIAN MEN AND WOMEN. Do you not also live in this undeniable reality, where our brothers and sisters in Christ do good unto us, but undoubtedly also God must be doing good to you THROUGH them? So you understand any thanks you offer that person, or glory you give in that moment, ALL BELONGS TO GOD. Good! Because that's how we understand it, too. The logic's pretty simple. P1) All good things come from God P2) The person depicted in the icon did verified good things. C) God did good through that person, we will honor the person for their participation and glorify God in the Holy Spirit for these events. Ergo, we worship Him in all His glory relative to the person and deeds represented in the icon. In this act, we recognize God's Glory and Providence throughout all of history. The primary difference in our thinking is that we accept the possibility that God and Man can co-operate without it diminishing the fullness or sovereignty of God's will. It's not a zero sum game for us. God can do 100% of the work, and Man can participate in 1% of God's 100% Good Work, without taking away from that 100%. I hope that helps you understand the difference in how we think. There is no double standard. If you want to know more about the definitions of prayer, worship, and more details of veneration practices and how they're not that stricter definition of "worship" you can check out Catholic Apologist Trent Horn's material on Intercession/his responses to Ortlund and I highly recommend checking out Seraphim Hamilton's content on the issue. (The guy in the thumbnail/video)
@@onepingonlyplease None of you are under anathema for not kissing icons, and none of you, including Dr. Ortlund, seem to understand the Apostolic/Historic interpretation of these events (hence him just quoting it and making his own conclusions) If you ever choose to listen to our apologists, Catholic or Orthodox explain our actual beliefs, you'd know this. The anathemas of Nicaea 2 (which come after 2 whole centuries of wanton destruction of property and an erasure of God's glorious works through Christians) were placed in effect to prevent anyone of secretly holding this wrong teaching as a private begrudgement, to act as if it's unclean, to persist in this wrong understanding of iconodulia. That was applied to those people at that time. None of you are in the Chruch, so it is not even possible to apply it to you. Anathemas separate you from Church communion. We do not have any magic spell to separate you from God, and we never have, no matter how much exagerative poetic language Greeks use. You are always welcome, if you realize your errors, to renounce those and become members of Christ's Church. But there is no ecclesial authority to exert over people that aren't in the communion to begin with.
Even though Baptists get a bad rap on their individualism, Gavin acted very educated and has impressed me both in morals, respect, and Honesty. Does that make him right? Not necessarily, but he has a good case against the iconodules.
Baptists get a bad rap because fideism has conquered most of our Church. That being said, there are still many great Baptist scholars and teachers who've trudged through all the anti-intellectual mud to get where they are. Besides Gavin, there's also William Lane Craig, Mike Winger, Leighton Flowers, D.A. Carson, and probably a few others.
Everything about him as a person is great, he is a stand up guy. But yeah his approach to history and theology is very Baptist. It’s tainted with this individualistic bent and I can’t see past that.
I’m leaving Protestantism for Orthodoxy over the very thing Luther said which is that all councils can err. I couldn’t reconcile this with the Holy Spirit guiding the church. I just don’t see how Protestantism can help someone genuinely seeking Christ escape from a cycle of relativism if everything could be an error. It brings everything into question including the legitimacy of the Bible, trinity, and deity of Christ. I know Dr. Ortlund is trying to be as faithful as he knows how because he views Tradition as dangerous but not following tradition is also dangerous. In short staying Protestant didn’t really help me ‘escape’ errors. Ultimately when I discovered there was an apostolic church which never had a reformation and never had a pope I was convinced the Protestants should have just joined this church instead of trying to reinvent what they thought the early church was which was fraught with danger.
@@theosophicalwanderings7696 honestly you’re right. For example in the second council of nicea the whole church accepted the teaching of iconadulia and rejected the iconoclast teaching of the council of Hieria. So yes the whole church was guided by the Holy Spirit. For why Protestants rejected it later I believe it has a lot to do with a misunderstanding of what the church is in my opinion.
@@steadydividends571 The whole church cannot have accepted the teaching, or there would have been no uproar and division in the first place. Certainly, the Holy Spirit guides all of us, and especially those of us called to positions of leadership. But we aren't perfect. We can refuse that guidance, individually and in aggregate. The model of Old Testament Judah really seems appropriate. We have a kingdom (Judah/Christianity) comprised of citizens (OT Jews/Christians) led by individuals (Officers and Kings/Bishops and Archbishops/Popes). Most of the time, that old kingdom of Judah (and Israel before it) was stuck in a cycle of first error and accretion, then repentance, with the latter growing less and less frequent. Official teaching even had pagan sacrifices made in the temple, IIRC. I have yet to see anything that convinces me the second kingdom (Christianity) is wholesale protected against the same mistakes as the former (Judah). We have some definite advantages this side of Pentecost, but even in Revelation, the churches were already dealing with accretions - the Nicolatians and Jezebels referred to in the letters to the seven churches. If these early converts who were privileged to know and see the Apostles and even early miracles and theophanies could go that wrong, I believe we certainly can if we are not vigilant in faith. If you find a home in Orthodoxy, then God bless your time there. I hope you will not condemn those of us who remain Protestant.
@@steadydividends571errr... the council of Hieria (before) and Frankfurt (after) totally concluded otherwise. Together more bishops than were present at Nicaea II. Not the "whole" church for sure.
Interestingly, reading through Fr Richard Price, whom Dr Ortlund relies on extensively as an authority, he has something interesting to say about the "Letter to Constantia" which is cited at 26:50. Price accepts the authenticity of the letter, although he acknowledges that some argue against it because, as Price says, "In his Ecclesiastical Histories, Eusebius is happy to mention images of Christ and the apostles." Price's answer, however, is that Eusebius happily mentions early images of Christ and the Apostles merely as past history, referring to an earlier period in the Church when people hadn't yet learned not to imitate pagan practices, but that Eusebius believes those things should no longer be done. Note: that's not him quoting Eusebius, but rather giving his opinion of why Eusebius would be pro-image in his Ecclesiastical Histories but anti-icon in the Letter to Constantia. But if that is true, if Price is right, that's very important. Dr. Ortlund used Eusebius as a witness that there were no images of Christ, that such a thing was unheard of and, as Dr. Ortlund says, he would know, as the greatest Church historian of his day. But Price says that Eusebius was not making a historical argument, that he positively acknowledged early icons, but rather he was making a theological argument that it shouldn't happen. I myself think there's a good likelihood that the "Letter to Constantia" is not an authentic work of Eusebius, but even if it is, even if Price's expert opinion is the correct one, this **does not** support a "scholarly consensus" that aniconism was universal in the first few centuries (indeed, such an opinion is not in keeping with abundant historical evidence). Rather, it shows a scholarly arguing that Eusebius's supposed aniconism would be a historical innovation, not a continuing of an apostolic practice.
Excellent video and most persuasive. I only wish commenters here, especially those who wish to rebutt, would stick to the topic and state why they disagree..
I was raised in Protestant churches, namely a Southern Baptist school (strong reformed theology influence in my particular school) and Assemblies of God on Sunday. I have not been a member of a Church in some years, and am currently looking to join a Church as I recognize now that I'm about to have a son how important it is to have a community around which will reinforce what you teach your children. I have long been dissatisfied with the churches I was raised in for a perceived lack of theological rigor (generally, some churches I've visited were better than others) so I was investigating whether Orthodoxy would provide the structure I was looking for. I find a lot of the Orthodox theology interesting, and I appreciate their different perspective on many things, but I cannot bring myself to accept iconography. To me, icon veneration seems to contradict scripture, but even if we accept that it does not, the view that it is a requirement as a member of the Church seems similar to the practices of the Pharisees which Jesus criticized (elevating religious traditions and man-made rules to the same level or even greater than God's commandments). That's not to say that I believe all of the Orthodox practices are man-made traditions. On the contrary, I believe many Orthodox traditions align more fully with Scripture than the western counterpart. I wish wholeheartedly that I was not so convicted on this matter that I could commune with the Orthodox, but I cannot lie to myself or to the Church.
@iiscd5970, hello friend.😊 I just read your comment on Gavin’s video on icons. I am a Catholic (new) and I wonder if it would help you if you decided on the Eucharist. I believe that the Orthodox and Latin Catholics have the True Body and Blood
@iiscd5970, I wonder if you put your focus on the Eucharist and if you pray, study and if you decided whether the Eucharist is True, then the understanding to the Icon issue would be revealed to you. Does that make sense? I mean if the Eucharist is true that is the MOST important thing and if Jesus has entrusted either of these two groups with apostolic succession … you can trust the rest of it bc the Bible says the Holy Spirit will guide the Church into ALL truth!😀❤️🙏🏻 blessings to you on your journey!❤🙏🏻
Hello! I can try to offer my perspective after spending a few years in Orthdoxy. The problem with not participating in the full liturgical life of the Church is that you are 1) Treating other family members of the Church as if they aren't welcome, or that God's work through them was somehow false, that God isn't working through people each and every day. And 2) in abstaining, you are implying there is something inherently wrong with that behavior others recognize as Orthodox spiritual life. This *was* the immediate context of those anathemas (which don't apply to anybody today sitting outside of communion). Imagine for 200 years, that people had been ripping a Bible or communion out of your hands and burning it all, that it had been going on for 10+ generations. The requirement is to forever decree the validity of the practice, and for you and me to have full participation in the life of the Church. These icons we give the ancient kiss of peace David gave Jonathan in the fields is our sign of fraternity. It shows the world that we showed up at church today to celebrate Christ's salvific work for us WITH heaven and all the angels and saints! What a wonderful thing! I feel terrible that my family has been deprived of such a thing for so long. God bless the Providence that led me through that door to the Church.
If you wish for more theological rigor, well, you can find that in many places. I'd commend to you more historical forms of protestantism (like more conservative denominations within Presbyterianism, or Lutheranism; I would also say Anglicanism, but that varies a lot more), as my sense is that they're more likely to have people in general learn a little more deeply. But really, there's so much theological writing out there, you can go deep in many traditions. I go to a Presbyterian church myself. I see another response from a Catholic talking about the Lord's Supper, and I would emphasize that in Roman Catholicism the icon issue would still apply (not the only problem, but the problem you mentioned here), that I don't think the Eucharist is transubstantiated, and even if you at some point become convicted of a more real-presence-y view, Lutherans hold to that without having to do things contrary to scripture like icon veneration.
Basing your Church on the Bible is not how Jesus started His Church. The Bible is not a Koran. The Bible was compiled by the Church as a premier set of documents within its Tradition (that which is handed down). Keep in mind, it's not about the Church aligning with Scripture, so much as is it True-or not? Being an iconoclast is an Islamic position. Even Jewish synagogues once had iconography. Even the Ark of the Covenant had statues of Cherubim and the curtain images of it. The issue is that thr word translated as "graven-image" (in Hebrew and Greek) specifically refers to pagan idols and not all images. Otherwise almost any picture of anything would be a form of idolatry. As an ex-Protestant I get the hang-up, but have Faith. There were icons in the catacombs and early Christians had relics.
I have been listening to Michael Heiser recently, and the way he describes idol worship is almost, if not actually, identical to icon veneration. I struggle to see how it can be anything other than the same thing. I really do.
Heiser never saw what he talked about. Go to an Orthodox church and then go to a Hindu temple. Then you'll know the difference between icon veneration and idolatry.
@@jamesbradwell8556 Heiser says no church gets it right just be in a church where the gospel isn't muddied. He saw himself more as a biblical scholar than a church historian. While he's very well versed in it that is not his approach I remember one time he borrowed the concept of Theosis to clarify sanctification when talking about it. I think alot of Orthodox folks like his divine council approach too. So this would be a conclusion someone came to seperate from what he had to say on the matter.
Oriental orthodoxy largely developed independently after chalceldon due to the Monophysite accusations against them and the disputes; political, theological, and even civil between them and the chalceldonians. The Coptic Church held to theology of the first 3 councils, and our theology didn’t flourish in particular depth, compared to Byzantium, due to the persecution and invasion of the arabs in the early 7th century, well before nicea 2, yet our iconography is extremely embedded in our tradition as an integral part of Church life, albeit without the same delineations of specific rites and practices approaching veneration as in Eastern Orthodoxy. Additionally, the Armenian apostolic, Jacobite syriac orthodox, Ethiopian, Eritrean, who were also largely separated from the theological debates of Christendom, still have prominent iconography in their churches… attacking nicae 2’s principles is specific to the theology of Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism, but doesn’t hold against oriental orthodoxy and iconography use in our Churches, thus these arguments don’t hold weight, nor do we have anathemas or enforcements against those who don’t venerate
In that case, the theological arguments against icon veneration are still in effect here. I appreciate that your church doesn't condemn me to hell for not worshipping images, but your church is still engaged in mass idolatry.
@@Jimmy-iy9plTheological arguments against will be defeated shortly, but this fact alone already puts doubt as to the historical argument the Protestant of this video emphasis. Nicea 2 happened in 8th century, yet Oriental Orthodox split was 5th century, many centuries before. The fact that Oriental developed their own iconography (separated by time, region and clergy) shows the practice or acceptance was perhaps not as new as the Protestant suggests
Glory be to God. Gavin Ortlund, in my opinion, is the best apologist against the false arguments and attacks from Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.
Serious and dedicated research went into this video, in fact into all the videos. I do have an honest question, though. The Church of the East and the Oriental Orthodox both left the Ancient Church centuries before the iconoclastic conflict. Do either of these traditions have churches in which icons are truly venerated? Are there any writings from these churches that might also shed some light as to when this practice developed? Again, these people left before the 7th Council. Certainly someone here is knowledgeable about these churches.
Certainly, the Coptic, Syriac, and Ethiopian traditions possess a rich iconographic heritage that evolved independently of Byzantine and Roman influences. This aspect appears to be a blind spot in Gavin's analysis. Furthermore, these ancient churches assert their apostolicity, claiming an equal stake and right as Rome and Constantinople. Interestingly, if Gavin's argument holds true, it only applies primarily to the Eastern Church and overlooks the churches of the Orient that experienced schism in the mid-5th century. This implies that the concept of icon veneration within the "Great Church" (encompassing Rome, Constantinople, and the Churches of the Orient) must have been deeply ingrained as a spiritual devotion and ethos throughout the entire church. This reality poses a significant challenge to Gavin's overall premise.
Not too hard of Google search will lead to Coptic sites that show you that the Coptic Orthodox not only incorporate icons into their liturgy but do so by bowing, kissing, and burning incense ./candles. Wouldn't be surprised to find the same in Ethiopia and Armenians. Not so sure about the Ancient Church of the East (so called "Nestorians")
@@icxcnika7722 I felt the same. Although icon veneration in the "other" traditions does NOT prove apostolic sanction, it WOULD show that the practice was widespread before AD 451. I am trying to remain unbiased, and the issue should be examined from all possible angles. In the interest of transparency, I HAVE found the Orthodox arguments often presented to be weak, and am surprised that none that I heard mentioned the other parts of the ancient church. Of course, none have also brought up exactly how much a Christian is bound to the strict letter of the Law of Moses. That is another issue.
The Eastern Churches were still in the same cultural context as the Orthodox Church, and did not evolve comepletly separately like you claim. Egypt was Roman until the 7th century, and Armenia had constant Roman influence. It simply developed from the same culture/very similar that developed icon veneration in the Western and EO church.
Hi Gavin, loved the video as usual. a topic i would really appreciate you one day making a video on would be contemporary christian worship music and the historical case for or against it
As an Orthodox Christian and staunch iconophile in the most traditional way, I must say that the St Ignatius passage has nothing to do with icons or veneration. The St Dionysius passage (which I affirm as authentically his), has nothing to do with icons. It's embarrassing seeing my side grasp at straws.
And brother what I can say is thats still okay, the issue most Protestants and post Reformation brethren take are the anethemas. Just as your church and the miaphytes are slowly coming to a consenses of fellowship, we are asking for the same treatment
Yet your church damns us to hell. What does the Bible say about condemning or judging? Have you found anything damnable with Christians like Gavin and myself? Be careful who you associate with.
What standard will God judge you when you're willing to practice in a church that stands by this? Hope reasonable, spirit filled brethren like you can have some day lift this atrocity! God bless and go in peace.
@@TheForbiddenLean I get that, but your church you freely choose to go to has condemned me to hell. See, I can accept you as my brother in Christ Jesus, but you can't because your church has condemned me. So, tell me how I should I feel and respond?
I did see that unfortunate comment on that Orthodox podcast calling you a wolf in sheep's clothing. I think some people must feel threatened by your well-reasoned and researched arguments.
I wonder how good this argument will work on us oriental Orthodox Christians since we don't hold to nicaea 2. We have been separated from the eastern and catholic churches since the 6th century yet we still hold to Icon veneration just like them. If Icon veneration was a late 6th century and 7th century accretion then why do we hold to it when we were separated from the majority of Christendom since the 6th century. Not only us the assyrian church of the east also holds to it and they seperated from the rest of Christendom even before us.
The assyrians are more conflicted about it and they don't have images except the Cross in their church. There was mutual influence and interaction between the Melkite/Chalcedonians and Orientals so it could've developed as a valid practice through these interactions. What would disprove Ortlund's point here would be Oriental Orthodox or Assyrian saints(there are many) pre-Nicaea II approving of Icon/Image veneration.
You holding to the same practice is not in and of itself proof that it was part of Christian tradition is I believe what Dr. Ortlund stated to another commenter. I am paraphrasing.
@@xrt1241 The Church of the East used to have icons though, but stopped using them due to pressure by Muslims. There's an article called "Icons in the Church of the East" by Rev. Tower Andrious where he cites examples of the CoE having icons in the past, such as a ruined church in Persian where they found the beheaded statue of Christ or a Saint in a church. Even the website of the "Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East" admits that it had icons in the past but they fell out of disuse.
@alpinefool8814 At the very least there is more evidence for this practice that has come under criticism then for example, Sola Scriptura. I think it's interesting to take issue with icons and not that idea as an accretion since we don't really see any examples of the Church operating under that Sola scripture premise until the reformation. At least nothing that appears concrete to show that this was a mainstream idea among Christians.
It's only airtight for us. Orthodox are far too attached to it and will do no matter what. They come from the one perfect church, w/ all perfect doctrine and Never make mistakes. You can't convince them otherwise, not when their church is perfect in all ways. Catholics are not as super glued to icon veneration, and may accept a bit of it. As one of Gavin's sources is Catholic and admits the early church did not practice it. I don't know what kind of cognitive dissonance thing they need to do to justify that one of their infallible councils obviously made some mistakes in its decrees, but they'll find something. These churches are perfect in tall their teaching. No mistakes, magesteriums, papal decrees are infallible, the teaching infallible. No room for error, no room for correction.
When Dr Ortlund starts carrying on about anathemas around 8 minutes I just shake my head and roll my eyes. Every Baptist I knew growing up said I wasn’t saved bc I was baptized when I was a baby and I didn’t believe I needed to be re-baptized when I was older after I made a decision and asked Jesus to come into my life. As if Baptists don’t arbitrarily tell people they’re cut off from Christ and not saved.
Ortlund is not making a positive case for Baptist theology or Baptist churches here, but simply negating the Orthodox claim. The Orthodox claim of anathema for such trivial matters is similar to what these Baptists church also say and he disagrees with both for the same reason: his view of catholicity
@@xrt1241 when you take this video in totality with his other videos, you realize that his term “Protestant Consensus” as being the correct beliefs and set of positions one should hold is his shorthand for Baptist theology. So, he himself holds to the theology as a Baptist that is really ecumenical and holds Protestantism together. He ignores the fact that even within the so called “Protestant Consensus” that all the various factions think the other Protestants are cut off from Christ and not saved. Another example would be that the Lutheran confessions say that anyone who denies the necessity of baptism for infants for salvation is: anathema. So a confessional Lutheran should not be out there cheerleading Ortlund when according to their theology he is going to hell for persistence in teaching false doctrine. He thinks that the fact that Orthodox have anathemas against those who don’t venerate icons is such a huge deal, but he down plays all the various ways Protestants condemn each other to hell all the time for their disagreements to create this fictional Protestant consensus one should belong to bc the Protestant side is allegedly so nice and inclusive and doesn’t go around saying folks are cut off from Christ over doctrinal differences.
@@Mklg7012 Gavin has never said, neither taught that the Protestant Consensus is "Baptist Theology". That is flat out wrong. The Lutheran Confessions do not anathemize any Reformed, neither do any Reformed Confessions anathemize Lutherans. Show me any historic Protestant denomination that say there are no Christians outside of them. It was a universal Protestant teaching that the Church was not just one institution but spread out over the world under various Confessions that preach the Word and administer Sacraments. This is the same reason they do not say that Roman Catholics are not Christians. Yes the Lutheran Confessions condemn other denoms as teaching errors, but does not teach that there are no Christians in other denominations who disagree with them unlike the Eastern Orthodox where a trivial matter like Images leads to them anathemizing everyone else.
@@dman7668 Yeah! He's concerned about the truth. That's what matters. He's more loyal to the truth than his position. That's why they can't refute his position
I think Dr. Ortlund is a well intentioned man with a Christian heart who is sincerely interested in Christ and so I want to respond in that spirit. That having been said, I think in his eagerness to state his case, he unfortunately overstates it dramatically in ways that are inherently self contradictory. As someone else already pointed out, he cites early authors who seem to say that Christians do not have images like Pagans do. Dr. Ortlund finds it curious that they wouldn't say, "Well, we do, but we use them differently..." Then, however, he concedes that there are numerous early examples of Christians having images, but argues that they weren't using them in a Nicea II sort of way. Both things can't be true. You can't argue that images did not exist at all (which is what's implied by saying that if the images existed at all, they would have acknowledged that but explained they used them differently) and admit there are numerous examples of them existing. Clearly, either those authors are wrong, ignorant, or their words are being misinterpreted. Likewise, he uses the supposed letter of Eusebius to Constantia as strong evidence against icon veneration in the early Church, pointing out that he's the first Church historian, that he could hardly be ignorant, etc. And yet, Eusebius mentions several Christian images as having existed for a long time, praises Constantine for erecting a Cross crushing a serpent on his palace, for erecting images of the Good Shepherd (ie Christ), of Daniel, and so forth. Nowhere does he seem to express disapproval. Those passages are all from his works that everyone accepts. Unsurprisingly, the genuineness of the Letter to Constantia (which first appears over four centuries after Eusebius) is questioned. Some accept it as genuine while many others reject it. Even if Dr. Ortlund accepts it, it seems like a slight of hand not to even mention its questionable status and ignore the other things Eusebius says about images. I understand and respect Dr. Ortlund's passion for his Protestant beliefs and its good having him around as someone to dialogue with and we can all be improved by good, honest, meaty discussion. I think, however, that this video clearly overstates things and leaves out important information and nuance in an attempt to push his understanding as an unchallengeable scholarly consensus which is not the case.
Thank you for the response. On your first point, I think most of the statements in question are in reference to cultic use of images, not things like engravings on furniture or other more modest uses of art. So I don't think there is any contradiction in most of these statements. People can debate precisely what they mean, but the one thing that is certain they do not mean is Nicaea 2 type veneration was happening. Differing species of aniconism are not an argument for iconodulia. On your second point, I addressed the legitimacy of letter to Constantia in my initial video briefly; here I was just summarizing some of the data. When you say "many others" reject it, which scholars do you have in mind that you think make good arguments? Price accepts it, and Stephen Gero's older article is quite decisive in its favor, in my opinion. Eusebius' position can again be seen as consistent in that his other statements are not referencing any sort of cultic use of images, which is the concern in his letter to Constantia. Thanks for the respectful comment.
I was also confused by this apparent contradiction in Dr.Ortlund's argument: how could the early Church have thought that it was "improper that such things ever be exhibited to others," while simultaneously producing religious imagery? Something I thought was lacking in this video was thorough explanations of the contexts surrounding the Patristic quotes referenced. I think it is incredibly important to understand what these Fathers were responding to...was it Nicea II-type icon veneration, I have yet to be convinced of this. If the Church Fathers were writing to pagans, they were probably speaking against those practices, and thus, their relevancy to this discussion comes in question. What do you think?
@@TruthUnites @TruthUnites Thank you for your response! I truly appreciate good conversation like this and have always found you to approach these things as a Christian. So thank you. On the first point, I don't think that really answers the objection. You say "I think most of the statements in question are in reference to cultic use of images, not things like engravings on furniture or other more modest uses of art" - but that doesn't fit with what the quotes seem to say or how you interpret them. They seem to deny the existence of Christian images completely and you take that approach when you say that if they even had images, but used them in a different way, they wouldn't have spoken so categorically against them but would have explained the distinction in how they were used. You do not, as I relisten to it, appear to me to claim that these early Christian writers approved of images within the four uses you outline, but rather that they rejected all images outright, like the quote from the Letter to Constantia makes clear. And yet, there are numerous early examples of approved images, from the catacombs on (and also of mocking responses from outsiders, like the Alexamenos graffito). The making and using of images even if only for didactic purposes, for decoration, etc. is not a "species of aniconism." Aniconism is "opposition to the use of icons or visual images to depict living creatures or religious figures." It's on the pro-icon spectrum, even if it falls short of Nicea II. To state unequivocally, as you do in this video, that every single piece of evidence from the early Church is against icons is going far beyond the evidence. True aniconism would be like those radical Reformers (or Byzantine iconoclasts) who actively sought out and destroyed images, believing their existence, regardless of use, to be biblically forbidden. In terms of Nicea II, I'd be interested in exploring that further, but just quickly - I understand why you see it the way you do, but I think there's another way of understanding what the council is saying. I don't believe it's saying (and I could reread it to be sure) that the specific *form* of veneration, which is obviously a rigorous form of veneration, has always been the case since the Apostles. Rather, I think it's saying that the making and honoring of images in general is Apostolic and since the Church had just gone through such a troubled time defending them, going forward, this specific form is now a test of Orthodoxy. That's similar to, for example, theological terms that accurately reflect the Apostolic faith, but are much stronger and starker than earlier terminology, because conflict required greater clarity. "Homoousios" was controversial for being a new term and it expressed the relation between the Father and the Son far more clearly and unambiguously than was the case before. The word "homoousios" isn't Apostolic. And yet, it's still an accurate expression of the Apostolic faith and, after the dust settled from Nicea, no longer optional. Likewise for other christological controversies - terminology got clarified, it was incorporated into the Liturgy and hymnology of the Church, and was no longer optional. Icons were less clear before Nicea II. However, in attacking them, the iconoclasts fell into different christological heresies that needed to be addressed and so the form of veneration was clarified and strengthened in a way that was an accurate expression of the Apostolic faith, just like the term "homoousios."
@@TruthUnitesStephen gero was rebutted by later textual scholars and in his own work in the same paper says its still a debated issue. Even gero didn't think his case was solid enough but so far scholarship is undecided
Hello Gavin. I've seen Christ in a dream while being a non-believer back in November 2017. He forever changed my life. Long story-short, before having this dream I was struck for around 3 months with his presence and incredible amount of peace and self-control. There were no thoughts of violence, no anger, no need to prove a point around an argument, just pure love, compassion and overwhelming understanding about everyone around me to the point of tears. His presence is so real. Wanted to share this because I think it is essential to understand the very essence of the topic of which I'm about to present. To be honest there are thousands of non-believers that had an encounter with Christ throughout dreams/visions where their lives were transformed and all of them speak about his presence of love and peace. I've watched your first video regarding this topic since I was drawn into Eastern Orthodoxy because of their claims of being the actual original church. Due to this I've studied the history of the church, ecumenical councils and so on in order to have an idea and be able to discern properly, since still I do not attend any church, but instead I am self-taught and proceed with a lot of caution beforehand. Personally venerating an Icon aside of Jesus just feels wrong, there's something very odd and I've seen it happens to a lot of people. Whenever I worship Jesus I always try to remember his face and recreate this encounter. Whenever I see a picture of Jesus (TV, streets, etc) it always brings me joy and deep love towards him. However, I cannot grasp why should I do the same to another figure that is not Jesus himself. For me the rest are simply humans, that lived their lives for Christ obviously, they were martyrs, "saints" and so on. But in the end aren't these just "titles" created by men? I wouldn't want to be considered a saint, but rather meet with Jesus and be in eternity with him. This whole idea of "being recognized" "being honored" by men seems to point to Pride rather than something else born of the Holy Spirit. Just like if it was a silly bait elaborated by Satan. I believe the critical point here is that we should try to discern this: Constantine's true intentions and Christianity being the official religion. According to history, prior to the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312 AD, Constantine had a vision in which he saw a symbol in the sky which, in some accounts, was the Cross (in others, the “chrismon,” a monogram representing Christ) with the Latin words “In hoc signo vinces” (“By this sign you shall conquer”). He subsequently adopted this symbol as an emblem on his soldiers’ shields, and after his victory, he interpreted this as a sign that God had supported him in his struggle. The fact that God could have influenced an emperor to win a violent battle seems to fly in the face of the essence of Christ's message. Jesus preached non-violence, love for enemies, and forgiveness. Examples of this include: - The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), where Jesus calls not to resist evil with violence, but to turn the other cheek. - Also In Gethsemane, when Peter cut off the ear of one of the men who was arresting Jesus, Jesus rebuked him and healed the man, saying, “He who kills with the sword dies by the sword” (Matthew 26:52). In light of this context, the idea that God would be encouraging a war seems contradictory to the message that Jesus left for his followers. Rather than encouraging violence, early Christianity was distinguished by its peaceful resistance, even in the midst of persecution. Constantine was a Roman emperor who, while leaning towards Christianity at this point, had been raised in a pagan context, where war and conquest were seen as evidence of divine approval. In Roman culture, seeing signs in the sky and acting on those visions was not unusual, as Romans were known to interpret omens, stars and signs as messages from the "gods" to guide their actions, especially on the battlefield. The "blending" of this heavenly vision with military victory is a very pagan combination. In fact, it can be argued that Constantine fused Christian ideas with his pagan mindset, adopting a cross (or a Christian symbol) as a victory amulet in war. Rather than fully embracing the Gospel message of non-violence and spiritual redemption, it seems that Constantine used Christian symbols within a political and military framework, something more in keeping with the mindset of an emperor who had to maintain and expand his power. It is entirely logical to question whether this event could have been an influence from Lucifer himself. From a biblical perspective, Lucifer often appears as a deceiver, someone who can mix truth with lies to lead people astray from the true path. The Apostle Paul warns in 2 Corinthians 11:14 that “Satan masquerades as an angel of light,” meaning that seemingly “good signs” may be motivated by dark purposes. In the case of Constantine, you could argue that although he used Christian symbols, he did so to gain earthly power, something that could be interpreted as a spiritual trap. Indeed, the idea of using the cross of Christ as a symbol of military victory does not seem to align with Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, which was a display of humility and not violent power. From this perspective, you could suspect that this view was a trap that led Christianity to become integrated with imperial power, something that Jesus himself might have rejected in the first place. If the central message of Christianity is love, peace and forgiveness, and if Jesus himself rejected the use of violence to expand his kingdom (remember that at his trial before Pilate, he said that his kingdom “is not of this world” - John 18:36), then doesn't it seems inconsistent for God to support a military battle under the symbol of the cross. If this vision really came from God, why would it not lead Constantine toward an approach more in keeping with the pacifist principles of the Gospel? Instead, it led him to a bloody victory that consolidated his political power. The fact that Constantine used military force to consolidate his empire under the influence of this vision suggests that he may have "misinterpreted" the sign or that this sign did not come from GOD at all, but from a dark source that intended to use Christianity for other purposes. The fusion of the cross with the sword in the time of Constantine seems more like a distortion of the Christian message rather than an authentic continuation of Jesus’ teachings. This "heavenly" vision could have been interpreted through Constantine’s pagan lens, and the result was a Christianization of power rather than a sanctification of faith. So, yes, there are strong reasons to consider that this event could have had a dark influence, at least in part, as Lucifer could have tried to corrupt the purity of the church by using earthly power as a temptation.
Well done presentation. I love my Orthodox and Roman brothers and sisters. We all can at least take comfort in the reality behind our symbols not the symbols themselves, namely the reality of Jesus Christ healing the world and us. Our symbols will be gone one day but the reality they point to is eternal. This is where we can unify.
![The Wall Song ร้องข้ามกำแพง | EP.215 | พาเวล นเรศ - พูห์ กฤติน | 17 ต.ค. 67 [1/5]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IUzrjuf60P4/mqdefault.jpg)
For a bit more on Ignatius, see this video: th-cam.com/video/d90gjlgI8tA/w-d-xo.htmlsi=l-5RIGBsD3xOtCyt
@SanfedisimoGlorious Literally has nothing to do with icons, completely different theme, with a completely different approach
@SanfedisimoGlorious Thanks for the comment. Ignatius' ecclesiology was a prudent development in early conceptions of the role of bishops. Note also that in the provided quote (Smyrn. 8.1a) Ignatius sees presbyters, not bishops, as inheritors of the apostolic office. But this bears, of course, no relation to icon veneration.
Ignatius is a far better witness to the developing cult of the saints and the heroic martyrs including Polycarp, Perpetua, Agnes, Lucy, Peter, Paul, and so on. Their bones and their relics are honored and even venerated. This was not seen as idolatry.
The adding of images to that is simply a natural progression. Especially in the pagan world filled with mosaics and paintings.
I see icon veneration as simply an offshoot of these kinds of relics based honors and venerations. Not an accretion, but a desire to enter into, in a deeper way, the story of Christ, the apostles, of salvation itself.
The criticisms of icons in the early period have pagan idols in mind, but are often very heavily tainted by a platonic hatred for creation.
And the question of Platonism is one I wish Gavin would look at more carefully in the context of this discussion. I get the impression that he is just straight up ignoring this as a problem for the iconoclast or aniconic side.
Platonic thinking is very tightly wed to many of the most harsh critics of icons. Origin in particular. But also others who follow on Origin, such as Eusebius.
@@danielcarriere1958 I can't believe they ignored your comment, It's really interesting when you say what is true and they ignore you. Cause it's undeniable.
That is the difficulty, faith based on printed text, not in the spirit of the Church.
The Church is as a living document to shepherd us through difficult times, which is always, as the comfortable, unchallenged life is the most dangerous, - the lukewarm, and this is not at all implying Pastor Ortlund, but our present Western culture.
And finishing up hearing the football player’s speech at Benedictine more thoroughly this am, he is spot on regarding many local dioceses across the country in their teaching mission.
Hi Dr. Ortlund- thanks so much for the engagement and the kind words. We hope to have a reply video posted sometime during the summer, around the time that Michael's book is published. Much love in Christ- please remember us in your prayers!
Thank you Seraphim! I look forward to watching and hope the conversation can continue -- God bless.
This is precisely what we need more of, on all sides. Kind, respectful dialogue about truth. God bless you both!
I would love to see more sit down conversation between you both discussing these topics. You both are so charitable and easy to listen to.
These types of dialogue are so necessary in order to find common ground.
God Bless you both, you’re in my prayers.
Love this on both sides! We are brothers in Christ. Glad to see people acting like it even when they disagree so strongly.
@Seraphim-Hamilton I haven’t seen a rebuttal. Is there one out there?
Thank you, Gavin, for actually taking James 3 seriously. I see the deliberation in your engaging these topics which is a sign, I believe, of your reverence for God and the role of teaching in the body of Christ. I see so much haphazard, puffed-up, reactionary teaching online and it's a breath of fresh air to see you so painstakingly and even-handedly address these crucial topics. We need this kind of earnest teaching in every local church.
Catholic Apologist Jimmy Akin has most excellently dealt with Ortlund's claims. Google "Gavin Ortlund on Icons (REBUTTED)". Pax
Phew, thankfully you guys were able to keep James!
@@bobbobberson5627 I know, right? Thank God!
The ultimate justification of images is God's incarnation in Christ: by taking a human body and nature, God made himself visible and material. The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone.
And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his likeness (εικονα) with ever increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit (II Corinthians 3:18; NIV; Greek original inserted).
Cope Calvinist Free Will is in the scriptures heretic predestination is antithetical to Christianity you might as well be a Muslim
A truly iconic video, Dr. Ortlund!
😂
It's so good I'm tempted to venerate it.
@@markwebb7576you silly sally😂😂😂😂
@@markwebb7576😂😂
I see what you did there 😄
Get ready for these comments :
"I was an Orthodox before watching this, and I am still an Orthodox "
"That's just your interpretation"
"You are proving you don't understand Orthodoxy"
"Eastern Orthodox is pre-denominational.."
"Luke painted the first icon"
"Don't you venerate your parents and have pictures?"
😂
Protestants punching air.
Basically
Mary birthed the first icon *
Basically. Just goes to show comments are rarely worth reading.
Absolutely thrilled you've addressed these responses. I never found them strong at all, yet they lacked response. Praise God for your extensive work in this field!
I just hope everyone who clicks on this video watches it in its entirety with an open mind and heart before forming any views about it. You have no idea how long I've waited for this video, and I'm happy to say it lived up to my expectations
So this image being produced helped you in your walk of faith? Did godsomehow use creation as a window to reveal to you some divine principle? It’s almost as if creation itself is icon veneration 🤔
Since it targets the Eastern "Orthodox"
I doubt it
@@tookie36you have perfectly demonstrated the principle of equivocation the Gavin so eloquently described. A video is not an icon or image in the Nicaea II sense, nor is learning from a video veneration in any form. As Gavin repeatedly emphasized, use of images for teaching is not the same as veneration.
@@timothyhodgson9572 you missed my point. Which is to say that veneration should be a continuous act like prayer. If you don’t see how Jesus died and rose for all of creation and creation itself is meant to be an icon/a reflection of the image of god, then we miss the point of veneration. We have special prayer and veneration in order to pray and venerate continuously.
@tookie36 Do we then worship the creation expecting it to reach the creator?
Then Hindus worship God more than us.
Thank you for coming back to this topic, Gavin!
Thank you Dr. Ortlund. You put your finger on the very reason why I follow Christian apologetics: the thirst for something solid, for assurance and certainty, and a deep-seated dread of being deceived. In part thanks to your work, I have found that there is no certainty anywhere except in the Word of God, "which liveth and abideth forever."
Gavins church is inherently LIBERAL.
It will go the way of the Scottish Church, the English church and the Presbyterian church....
Female clergy with multicolored hair and a distinctly LIBERAL theology that doesn't REQUIRE anything of you.
The Bible isn't infallible. The interpretation of the Bible isn't infallible. Men and churches have varied on its interpretation. No man nor church has infallibly interpreted the Bible. There isn't 100% certainty. That doesn't mean you can't still have enough faith in Christ to compensate for your lack of knowledge or understanding in the deposit of the faith.
The Word of God is Jesus: John 1:1. The Holy Spirit guides councils: Acts 15. So the Canon of the Bible, which was canonized in an ecumenical council, is guided by the Holy Spirit and infallible.
@@charlesmcgarraugh9595An infallible Council of the Apostles does not translate into infallibility of all Councils, and those who believe in the infallibility of the Church are completely incoherent as to when & where & to what extent & how we can know the Church has infallibly spoken.
@@stephenwright4973 it's not all councils, it's the Ecumenical councils. If you don't believe that the Ecumenical councils are infallible then you believe the Bible is a fallible set of infallible books which means you have no way of knowing which books in the Bible are infallible, you are operating in a realm of pure skepticism where you don't trust God's church or even the Bible because it necessarily lays out that Christ built a visible church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it.
I grew up Baptist, and I really love the worship of the EO church. I have been attending one for some time, and I am still unsure of how I will proceed. I am thoroughly disillusioned with ANY church’s claims of having perfectly preserved all apostolic traditions, but I still think the historical ecclesiology, unique spirituality, and time-proven consistency of the EO church are big points in favor of it. Thank you for these videos, Gavin.
Stay the course and trust God. If Christ didn't historically start a Church you join now... then there's no point. The Orthodox Church is most definitely the Church Christ is head of. God be with you!
Stay true brother, I hope you are soon accepted into the Holy Church!
@@chriscline8901🤣 you didn't watch the video apparently
@@ChristianHagoodyeah, keep idol worshipping! It worked out for all the Jews who did it in the bible. Also, I love how all these Orthodox and Catholic people flocked to a protestant country only to turn it into the countries that held their churches view 🤔. Drives me nuts!
@@ottovonapps and aparently you think you know something about the Orthodox.
You don't.
Why don't you go find out.
Thank you so much for SHOWING the written truth that was clearly recorded from the early church, in many historic writings!
In context to the times when Christians were martyred for refusing to worship pagan statues.
You are not getting truth here.
You are getting OPINION, 2000 years after the facts .
Reading your own opinions into the gistorical record is a LIBERAL doctrine bone of post modernism.
In otherwords, it is a pile of B U L L S H I T that you shouldn't step in.
@user-je8wi5we1b what else can we expect from egotists raised in heresy. Just pray for them and hope they become illumied to the Truth.
The heart of the matter is the consideration of "What is apostolic teaching?" For us non-Catholics, Apostolic teachings was the teaching of the Apostles that was handed on to the early church. If it wasn't taught by the Apostles then it is not part of the Apostolic Deposit of Faith. That doesn't mean we can't alter our traditions as culture and technology change and advance. But it does mean that any traditions we have can't negate or add to the Gospel message by introducing things that either ignore or negate or make additional requirements of what it means to be "In Christ".
Dr. Ortlund has made a great case that Icon veneration was not part of the Apostolic Deposit of faith. Instead, it became the practice of Christians in later centuries.
This is right on the money. That’s why a departure from scripture as the highest authority is a problem. Traditions and authority are great, they just must be grounded by scripture. Rome and EO had to leave that clear teaching and belief of the early church behind and elevate themselves in order to develop the power structure they now enjoy.
Can we even claim to be Christian if we do not obey Christ in such things?
I never thought I would find this topic so interesting but you do a really great job of explaining the history of this practice. Video was engaging the whole way through. Thank you!
We are never spacing out brother. Keep em coming ❤
Gavin, would you be willing to compile a list of citations so that those of us who want to dive in can read through them? Excellent video as always!
Thank you for making these videos, they are a huge blessing.
Thank you for being so firm at the end while also being Christ-like and kind. It needed to be said.
Thank you gavin, your videos have been an answer to my prayers. I was really trouble in my faith and came across your channel, by the grace of God. May God continue to use you greatly
The amount of time you have put into this video boggles my mind. Much appreciated
Gavin, if our confidence in the 7th ecumenical council is so shattered, would you consider doing a video covering which of the councils are reliable, and why? Ex-Orthodox here, trying to get my bearings. Deeply appreciate the fantastic work you do!
Would love to know what led you out of Orthodoxy?
That would be an awesome video!
Personally, I think there’s a huge difference between reliable and infallible. Reliable is something like the Westminster confession of faith. It’s scripturally sound, but ,being a work of man, it is subject to error. The only thing that is infallible is scripture being the very Word of God. I’m not sure about the ecumenical councils. I’m sure many are great. But there’s a vast difference between being great and being the Word of God. God bless
Im Catholic but I have strong Protestant sympathies. And that informs my response here. The way tradition, things like ecumenical councils, can be used, is by holding up their teachings to your eyes like a pair of glasses, and using them as a framework or grid or prism through which you view revelation, Scripture, history, Christian experience, etc. For example, Scripture can be a little difficult to make sense of regarding the Trinity, the hypostatic union, etc. it would be difficult to make sense of the data on your own. But if you take the traditional teaching on that subject, and hold it up as lens through which you analyze and take in all the data, you will see how it makes the best sense of all the data, and works very well for doing so.
@@taylorbarrett384 The issue is that it isn't evident that the Ecumenical Councils are infallible (because they do contradict or make seemingly false statements) for the very reasons that Gavin has been arguing, which makes it hard to use them as a pair of glasses when you know the glasses have breaks, scratches, or might even be the wrong prescription in general. The notion that Veneration of Icons in the Orthodox sense was a tradition dating back to the apostles is a fabrication of history and reality as far as we can tell. We have no records of it in the early churches and no records of anything resembling it, no records of it in the New Testament, plenty of Jewish traditions are outright AGAINST it, there are Roman traditions that mirror it, and we don't see it show up in history until the 7th century.
The fact that an Ecumenical Council can apparently be so wrong AND be completely biased to whatever political leanings were popular at that time makes me highly skeptical about whatever authority they claim to have.
Gavin, you’re such a blessing for, especially as an ex-eastern-orthodox. You make me want to dive into the church history so much more!
And the situation with icons and any other church tradition is sad, because the mentioned churches have committed to be infallible and now it’s just impossible to confess that they were wrong and correct anything that has creeped in. It’s sad…
I don’t want to offend anyone, but it is very much like the situation with the Pharisees
Early Christianity was Catholic/Orthodox. Ortlundism is a gnostic heresy.
I really hope you look into the history during the reign of Emperor Heraclius. The contemporary sources document processions of miraculous icons around cities under siege, icons placed on the bow of ships before launching a rebellion against his tyrannical predecessor, and undisputed veneration of the True Cross before 630's. Any source that states iconography emerged in the 700s is either ill informed or lying. Further, I would also encourage you to look into emperor Constantine the Great. If images were not treated with veneration as early as the 300s, why would they say "in this sign conquer?"
Thank you for bringing your fine scholarship for the blessing of the body of Christ. Continue to serve the Lord and leave the results with him. Thank you brother, a fellow servant. Andrew.
I just finished your original video on icons. What timing.
To paraphrase Dr. Heinz Doofenshmirtz, "Your Seventh Council is infallible. And by infallible I mean COMPLETELY FALLIBLE!!"
I get that joke 😂 we love phineas and ferb at our house!
Doof could’ve been a great theologian for the Christian faith.
The only issue is the other side has strong evidence
th-cam.com/video/czYK5Q068ww/w-d-xo.htmlsi=bzMBFCFVaLbBDFCE
"A Protestant?"
(puts on hat)
"PERRY THE PROTESTANT!?!?"
@@Impact_PlayerI chuckled at this lol
I'm really glad you adressed the core of the responses to this topic. Even though they weren't very good in the first place, it helps to be clear about why. Hope people get it. Maybe a dialogue on this very point with a reasonable catholic would also help.
Thanks be to Jesus Christ for his holy Church, which He established on Peter and the apostles and their successors, and guaranteed it would teach His truth, in His name, in every generation, until the end. Save us Lord from the doctrinal chaos and division of the Sola Scriptura practice... Until 1930, every single Protestant sect held that the Bible taught contraception was a sin. "The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1Tim 3:15) and not a twit running around with a Bible.
@@dougy6237 The twits running around w/ the bibles comprise the church, as the church is also Christ's body on this earth. You can't have one w/ out the other.
Those audio bits from and orthodox source that were trying so hard to prove icon veneration from pagan sources, and pagan cup art and such were stretching so hard, they'd outshine a ballerina. There has been the protestant accusation for centuries that the early church got infiltrated w/ pagan practices. I don't go there anymore, but they are going directly there. Explicitly laying out, here are these early pagan practices, this is what the Romans did, here is our foundation It's stunning really.
@@dougy6237 shouting into the void here or do you have any counter arguments against the evidence presented in the video?
@@Bbos2383 No, not "shouting into the void", because I make the point that Ortlund has once again abused scripture and history to fit his Protestant traditions of men. The Church has the divine guarantee, not a fool running around with a Bible. Sola Scriptura, by its very nature, gives doctrinal chaos and continual division, and is clearly of Satan. Christ said to Peter and the apostles and their successors "He who hears you, hears me" and NOT "He who hears the private interpretations of an individual or group, hears me". Pax
Best Protestant apology gets a sequel!
or, best on youtube at least
Icon veneration is an accretion. You can argue or respond from emotions, however it's clear that the evidence is against icon veneration. God bless you immensely, Gavin ❤️✝️🙏
The icon is not venerated.
@wordforever117 That position is potentially worse for you. You are essentially saying that when you kiss a particular image you are literally kissing the saint. Sounds a lot like the beliefs people have/had about their idols.
@@Nick_Lamb No I am saying the exact opposite of that.
@@Nick_Lamb Icons must not be venerated or worshipped. They must be respected though as representations standing for the Lord and His saints.
It's not an accretion.
Someone keeps making a comment with dishonest accusations against Seraphim Hamilton and then deleting the comment whenever other people respond with more accurate information. Seraphim Hamilton, as Dr. Ortlund himself acknowledges, is a good, honest man. If that person makes his comment with accusations again and then tries to delete it, feel free to comment the truth here.
Thanks for pointing this out -- my only observations and interactions with Seraphim have been positive. To everyone reading this, let's keep it respectful in the comments.
@@TruthUnites His name is @philoalethia. I've interacted with him under Seraphim's icon videos and I can assure you that he was NOT blocked because of his arguments. I once had a 20+ conversation with him where he basically insulted me the entire time. I'm only saying this because I think that his caricature of Seraphim is unfair and don't think that you would approve of slander under your videos.
As someone who has known Seraphim personally for years, I've never found him to be anything other than a gentleman and certainly someone who is tolerant and respectful towards those he disagrees with. I've seen him change his views multiple times in response to other people disagreeing with him. @philoalethia 's comments do not correspond to reality. @@alpinefool8814
@@AmericanwrCymraeg Same! I don't know him IRL but his videos helped me find Orthodoxy (and return to Christianity as whole from atheism) and I've been Facebook friends with him for years.
@SanfedisimoGlorious As soon as anyone mentions William Albrecht, I immediately know they have no credibility. William Albrecht is not worthy of Dr. Ortlund's attention. He has shown his true colors on multiple occasions.
Good video! The veneration of icons is historically problematic. I could in principle be open to perhaps this being a legitimate doctrinal development, but it still wouldn't eliminate the problem of an infallible council making historically problematic claims. Perhaps someone could say that the Council taught correctly as far as dogma is concerned, but in terms of the historicity of the doctrine, it could be mistaken. If I remember correctly, Trent Horn presented something like this somewhere. I just don't know if the 2nd Council of Nicea allows this way of thinking, as it would seem to defend theology (venetration of icons) with historical arguments (it is of apostolic origin).
It would be great to see a debate/dialogue on the topic.
My learning curve watching your videos has accelerated. Thanks.
Time-stamp
7:50 - Exactly. The reason why icon veneration is an issue is because Eastern Orthodoxy **makes** it an issue. It’s bizarre to be part of a church that casts an anathema and just shrug your shoulders. They need to own it.
27:20 - Eusebius is most decisive, I think.
1:15:20 - Frankfurt
1:16:32 - Slam dunk
1:16:53 - “787 was a human event.”
They won't. Their Triumphalism will not let them admit their tradition can ever have gotten something wrong.
... Also, humility is the Orthodox' #1 virtue
There’s an Orthodox chap in the comments this very moment claiming that Orthodoxy doesn’t make icon veneration mandatory, but merely an acceptable practice. It’s as if they’re literally just ignoring everything being said. Very bizarre behavior.
@@IAMFISH92 yeah that guy is just wrong. If you're against icons you're basically a pseudo-muslim
I would say orthodoxy tends to own the anathema. I havent seen much inconsistency there but could be overlooking. I still think an anathema over veneration of icons is super silly and nonsensical, but i appreciate that ive seen them own the anathema vs roman catholicism completely downplaying the seriousness of that charge by trent horn, akin, suan.
@@jordand5732 Not so much IRL.
Dr Ortlund, greetings from Australia. I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for your lovingly charitable approach to apologetics. I am currently studying the classics at a catholic college here in Australia. Almost all of my contemporaries are practicing well read Catholics. I feel I am constantly in a state of defence for my faith and it can be at times discouraging to constantly have to argue against straw man arguments being made against my faith. Having grown up non-denominational with a slant towards low Anglicanism I never really had my beliefs challenged by fellow brothers and sisters in Christ in this way. Your videos provide a beautiful model to what I wish to achieve, your knowledgeable, gentle, and moral defences of Protestantism are truly an inspiration. Thank you for contributions to scholarship and God bless.
I'm having the same experience but as a protestant inquiring into EO with hopes of becoming a catechumen, the majority of my friends and family are protestant and I regularly defend my stance. Videos like these are helpful to understand their views and strengthen mine.
@@miguelv765may i ask what it is about EO that attracts you? Second question: Do you consider baptized believers in other faith traditions Christians indwelled by the Holy Spirit?
@@miguelv765Just know that if you become EO you agree with the church that all your Protestant family members are on their well to eternal hell fires.
Do you bring up issues to Catholics?
Here in USA, Catholics are usually reacting.
@@miguelv765 As long is all is seasoned w/ grace. Sometimes protestants that convert remain gracious and remember that they served the Lord and were every bit as Christian before they converted to an apostolic church. Sometimes they become the worst hardliners, and become quite hardened to their protestant brethren.
Gavin, Thanks for this video, came at a great time. Been talking to friends who are discouraged with protestantism and attracted to EO, so this video a great resource to have
Extremely well researched and thorough. I personally found this very edifying and a powerful testimony for the Protestant view on this topic. Thanks so much for sharing Gavin!
I have decided to leave Christianity, as clearly the Church does not have divine guidance from the Holy Spirit to bind and loose, there is no standard of authority, and that means I can't trust any part of Christianity, including the Bible.
@@EpistemicAnthony so the argument is that if the Catholic church is not infallible in its teaching....... then it is impossible for Christianity to be true? Im not sure that logic follows at all. Indeed one of the many arguments Gavin presented in this video is that the doctrine out forth at Nicea 2 was unbiblical in addition to not being true. I would ask you to re evaluate your faith through the lens of God and the Bible.....and not rely on fallible teachings of post apostolic men.
@@tims3247 "then it is impossible for Christianity to be true?"
It is impossible to tell what Christianity is. You say it is unbiblical, but so what? The fallible church identified and assembled the canon, and as Gavin showed, that Church has no basis for authority in doing so, and we have no reason to trust their decrees.
@@EpistemicAnthony You are grossly misrepresenting Gavin's point. No where does he say that the church has no authority to make doctrine. This is something that he points out again and again in his videos. You are confusing "infallible authority" with "any kind of" authority. Indeed...the whole point of Protestantism is that people can make mistakes. If we have good reason to doubt doctrine...then we should reform it.....such as with Nicaea 2 on icons.
If you want to go make a video about doubting the canon of Scripture go right ahead and present your case. If you have strong evidence....maybe you will convince some people. But absent such evidence it is rational to accept the authority of the church on this and to continue to define your faith through the lens of the Bible.
@@tims3247 "If we have good reason to doubt doctrine...then we should reform it.....such as with Nicaea 2 on icons."
Reform it in light of what, exactly? What is the higher authority that we can look to? Scripture? Nope, sorry, the fallible church identified scripture. There were many heretics who claimed the church got the canon wrong, but if the church is fallible, then I cannot disregard them as mere heretics, nor can I verify that their claims were incorrect any other way. There is no other standard of authority by which to judge, and my own reasonin certainly doesn't cut it. Why shouldn't I trust Marcion's canon? Heretics and alternate views have existed from the beginning, and if the church is fallible, we have no way to refute those.
Obligatory note that the Empress who called the 2nd Council of Nicaea gouged out of the eyes of her own son leading to his death (Irene of Athens)
Going back to early Christianity when it became legal, Constantine who is alleged to have started the Roman Catholic Church, never was baptized until days before his death, as emperors kill alot of people.
SS Peter and Paul established the Church purely for ecclesial reasons, not temporal.
History is messy. This gave rise to the consecration of Charlamange by Pope Leo III as Roman Emperor on Christmas day 800.
@@KathleenGuloy The Church in Rome is in the New Testamnt, so one lie there. Constatine didn't get baptized because he believed (most likely told wrong) that water baptism washes sins, so he waited until his deathbed for it.
@@thomasc9036 It is not a lie if they distinguish the Roman Catholic Church from the Church in Rome. I think there is a valid argument to be made that they are distinct.
Uppn Peter’s arrival, Nazarene Jews were already there.
It is Peter and his son Mark who assisted him.
One sign of an apostolic founder is their martrydom and Peter was martyred in Rome.
It would be good for the Dioceses to teach the roots of the papacy.
The first 33 popes were all martyrs for the faith.
Personally I think the evidence is clear that this wasn’t practiced by the Early Church. It was slowly brought in by pagans who converted, and is definitely an accretion. Sadly we as people easily get trapped in our own traditions and sometimes blinded by them too. The work you’re doing and the light you’re shining on these issues is important and appreciated. I’ll continue to pray the Lord protects you and blesses your ministry brother. We need more like you. 🙏✝️🙏
That's known as historical theory. Can you provide any sources showing that the practice was non-existent until "pagans" introduced it?
That isn't the point. You don't disprove a negative. An unfalsifiable claim is just that: unfalsifiable. One cannot prove unfalsifiable claims. The Orthodox position amounts to "we trust the current practice of icon veneration because the Church sanctions it." Period. Sola Ecclesia. We don't need history (except when we're trying to prove our position or disprove yours). @@caseycardenas1668
Yea, no. Early Christians were illiterate and used illustrations to tell stories.
Amen!
@@caseycardenas1668
Did you watch the video before commenting?
"Colorful anathemas." Lol. Yes, that is one way to describe them. Thank you for your continued work on this issue, Gavin.
@NathanielJ.Franco Thank you. I suspect you're being insincere.
We're not iconclasts in Lutheranism; except if the definition of iconoclast includes not venerating images.
@@marcuswilliams7448a you mean there are Protestants that aren’t full on iconoclasts?! What?????!!!!
@@marcuswilliams7448 - Lutherans worship bread and wine and they venerate crosses on their altars without any Scriptural justification.
@@marcuswilliams7448 Lutherans worship bread and wine and venerate crosses on their altars without any scriptural justification.
Why does this even matter: Gavin is a Calvinist Protestant whose implications and apologetics exclude wide swaths of Christianity in a more extreme way than the EO does?
Great job. Protestant apologists often spend a lot of time discussing miriads of other topics with Catholics and orthodox, but your videos goes to the heart of the matter. Catholic/EO house of cards stands on topics like this one. It would be a death blow to the false catholic church, but sadly it functions like a cult for centuries and many will follow it no matter the truth.
Indeed. This video clearly shows why Christianity as a religion is false: The whole thing is based on the assumption that one group has authority to decide things, and if Dr. Gavin is correct, there is no trustworthy Church with authority, and therefore all of Christianity is a house of cards.
@RulerofMermaids don't forget about raging homosexual/child molesting bishops and priests! Also, the cover up goes all the way to the top!
I’m sure Gavin would disagree that either established church is a cult
Hello Gavin, do you have a source for the English translation of the Council of Frankfort? I would like to read it.
Great walkthrough and response. Hope this reaches many of those considering converting to the East or Rome
Early Christianity, icon veneration included, was Catholic. Church Fathers were all Catholic priests.
@@fantasia55 If it was Catholic, why did the Catholic Council of Frankfurt repudiate Nicea II?
@@DrakonPhD It was called by Charlemage, not a Pope. The Pope did not repudiate Nicea II.
@@fantasia55the early church fathers were not Roman Catholic as you believe it today. They were not Roman Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Eastern Orthodox. They were just the church fathers and they were “Catholic” in the sense of having the faith of the universal church which held to the gospel as handed down in the scriptures by the apostles and prophets. Everyone who believes in the gospel news as presented by scripture is Catholic.
@KnightFel Someone, maybe you, posted that text on another video. My reply, again, is that Church Fathers celebrated Mass, acknowledged the papacy, believed in the Real Presence and respected the authority of apostolic succession bishops - making them Catholic priests.
Gavin, I would like to ask you, if saluting the American flag is not venerating an image, what is it? You say that placing your hand over your chest is "qualitatively different" from bowing and kissing, but how so?
Civil respect vs Religious respect. One is done as a public pledge of serving one's country in front of others, the other is done as devotion to the saint for more religious benefits like answered prayers, healing, etc. and praying through them as "windows to heaven". They both are "respect" but what kind of respect and for what end distinguishes them.
@@xrt1241 and you think that distinction existed in antiquity? (It didn't)
@@xrt1241 You also admit here that honor paid to the image (flag) passes to the prototype (nation). If the nation is itself not also a figure--that is, if civil respect is entirely distinct from religious--this is actual idolatry, I am sorry to say.
@@shotinthedark90 It does in the bible. Subjects of the King bow to him to swear their civil loyalty to him, but when the pagans whom the apostles minister to bow down before them or when the apostle John bows down before the angel, this bowing is qualitatively different(religious respect) and condemned.
Furthermore iconodules also agree there are different types of venerating acts, one for latria due to God alone, another of dulia to saints as well. So we all fundamentally agree there are different kinds and levels of veneration and respect in our life.
@@xrt1241no, what is condemned is the attempt to worship the angel. Bowing is not inherently idolatrous, as you just demonstrated: the Bible tells us to bow and kiss kings, to honor emperors, etc. the justification for this is explicitly given as religious, it actually demonstrates devotion to God and a certain submission to his servants.
This is pretty dang strong
Amen! It clearly shows that the church is fallible, and therefore we cannot trust anything the Church did, including identifying the canon. Christianity is refuted.
@@EpistemicAnthony see my comments to you elsewhere in the comment section that address this.
Expect no one is venerating icons. They are venerating people.
@@wordforever117 by using their image, how is that different from an idol? That's exactly how idols were used.
@@thadofalltrades Idols are objects that are worshipped as gods in their own right. Icons are pictures which are used as an aid to prayer.
Im always amazed by the difference in the evidence. It often feels like this-
Iconoclast sources: no Christian ever use images! Images are not spiritual! We would never make an image to bow down to.
Iconophile sources: we use decorations sometimes. The cross is like a flag for us. We have cups.
I think that's an oversimplification of their stance.
21:10
@@Gunfighter95 oh yeah, definitely. 😅 this is not fully serious, more of a comparison of how the quotes used feel. It seems like the iconoclastic proof texts are always direct and explicit, while it takes a few layers to get to the point from any of the iconophilic quotes.
That's too simple. Being aniconic is a spectrum and can include those who are more rigorously against any use of images such as Origen of Alexandria, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian of Carthage and so on. On the other hand you have those who are less rigorous who do accept images, but only in their decorative, commemorative or didactivee usage. Gregory the Great in the 600s is an example of it, where he forbade the destruction and veneration of images since they had a didactive usage.
@TruthUnites Would praying at the Western Wall in Jerusalem be similar to icon veneration?
What an excellent and well-articulated case. Thank you Gavin!
Many cultures bow down, light candles and incense in front of their ancestors' pictures as veneration. When they become Christians, we tell them not to do this. Why should it be ok for Christians with the icons?
Obviously, I'm not saying art, candles and incenses shouldn't be inside churches.
In the same way, we are not saying to cultures who venerate their ancestors to throw their family photos in the garbage once they become Christians. It's the way it is used that is problematic.
Which way?
Your first statement is literally made up.
Because there is a huge difference between one’s non-Christian ancestors and Christians Saints and Christ Himself. It’s the same distinction between praying to false gods and praying to the One True God.
I wouldn't tell them not to do this. We kiss pictures of our family members all the time.
I recently learned in the Rites Controversy, the church decided Chinese Christians did not need to stop doing venerative rituals for Confucius or their ancestors, because of its civic and not worship role
I’m a little confused because you said that very early churches did have images (they just didn’t venerate them) but then you use the quotes from the fathers that say there is NO use of images in the early church whatsoever. So if we know there were images in the early church, despite the quotes of the fathers that say there weren’t images at all, is it possible that they were just referring to pagan imagery? Currently a Catholic very much considering Protestantism and I love your videos, but I’m trying to think as critically as I can.
He was talking about relics not depicted in churches and venerated
Gavin, thank you so much for identifying the equivocation of veneration around 35:30 with the example of hand-over-heart vs. bowing down praying. This was very helpful to me.
You might want to check out Augustine's Reply to Faustus Book 20, paragraph 21. But read the whole thing or whatever amount you need to get the context
Excellent. I really think the iconophile position must grasp at straws these days.
Also, your setup and lighting in this video are on point!
Serious question, how do you reconcile your position with the fact that the two other ancient churches (Non-Chalcedonians, and the Nestorians) both venerate icons despite never accepting Nicea II? It's rather universal in the ancient communions today, and is practiced by ancient churches that were far away from the influence of the Roman Empire.
The only record of iconoclasm we have was the controversy in Byzantium, Charlemagne, and some Protestants. Those aren't early enough to contend as apostolic.
So is the position that Rabbinics don't venerate icons today, therefore it wasn't originally there? Because the Biblical argument from the ten commandments is undercut by things like Joshua 7:6.
Image veneration didn’t begin with the NT era apostles. Kissing images of royalty and pagan prophets or idols is a practice that has been around since Moses all over the world. Replacing the images with the apostles and Christ doesn’t suddenly make it apostolic.
@@whomptalosis22 So people did it from the begining and the apostles didn't correct them? Weird position to take.
@@TheMeatyOne360 they did, the church fathers did, Scripture does. You just won’t agree with the citations
@@whomptalosis22 So then it's disputed that they did, and the only evidence we could use to find out if they did would be a ceasing in icon veneration, no? If we see the practice is universal very early on, and we are to believe it is explicitly not what Christ or the apostles would allow for then the Church fell away very early and the gates of hell prevailed.
@@TheMeatyOne360 by that line of reasoning, the Israelites would never have succumbed to idolatry because of the plethora of warnings, books, and prophets warning them against it. We know they still did, so the claim that pagans or uneducated Christians were venerating images at the same time as the apostles and ECF warning about it, doesn’t mean that they didn’t warn about it.
Early church image venerstion is not disputed by modern scholarship. The ECF unanimously rejected images as sacred. Not a single ante-nicene father wrote in support of image veneration, even post Nicea I catechetical lectures and tomes such as chrysostom and Cyril lack ANY mention of prostrating before paintings, let alone it being necessary (this WOULD be in a catechism, don’t you think?)
“Gates of Hell shall not prevail” does not mean your specific institution will never make a theological error. It’s at the point where you just have to place your faith in whatever canonical boundaries you consider your church, contrary to the Scriptures/History/archaeology/prophets/apostles.
Its strange you posted this video now becouse just yesterday i watched some videos of yours about icons. I am finnish eastern orthodox. I dont think we are doing idolatry by venerating icons but i like your respectful way of talking. I will watch this.
Take note, the main thing here is not necessarily whether it is idolatry but whether it was the practice of the early church or whether these things were wrongfully made to be church dogma with anathema’s pronounced on anyone who doesn’t agree with Nicea 2 and kiss the icons.
@@cole141000 i see what you mean. Even if you might be right, lets say that that was not apostolic practise. And lets say the anathemas are quite too extreme. And lets say we could somehow show that EO church is not hundred percent correct. I still could not think to leav our church and join another denominations. I just cannot see any of protestant denominations to be more authentic.
Also i cannot understand the protestant way of prayer. You dont have any rule or any certain way how to pray so it would be easy not just pray at all. Also i dont find any holyness and dignity in protestant services. I have been in protestnt services. I saw some couples hugging and even kissing each other. Some were dancing. Some were laying down during prayer. They were speaking to All mighty God as if he was their ordinary friend. They were handling Holy Bible like it was a news paper. They were casually giving prophesies and i cannot tell what was their source. And the way how protestants should interpret the Holy Bible just does not make any sence since anyone can claim they found a certain meaning from it.
Orthodox Church gives us clear and save way to worship the Lord and it has been good two thousand years I dont see any reason to find a new way.
@@gabrielgabriel5177 my dear friend, I am not interested in persuading you to or from any church but to the living Christ. And if you were near me we’d have fellowship in Christ, regardless of where we attend worship and which church we submit ourselves to, since Christ is the head of the church, he is our sovereign and has our full allegiance and I think in that, we share much joy.
@@gabrielgabriel5177I respect that.
@@cole141000 well i appreciate the mutual respect even the fact that we dont agree in many things. God is our judge. We cannot take his place. May God have mercy on us all.
Gavin, I don't believe that the pull quote you cite from Humpries is *his* conclusion, much less a summary of consensus scholarship, but rather it seems to be Humphries' summary in the introduction to the volume, of some of the most "radical" and "revisionist" (his words) positions in that collection of essays, in particular from Brubaker and Haldon. Read the full context of that section again. It seems to mean nearly the opposite of how you presented it. Some more context from that section might help:
"Even more radically revisionist was the work of Paul Speck. He argued for an even greater level of iconophile intervention, with large-scale mythmaking and the rewriting of texts."
"While Brubaker and Haldon do not adopt all of Speck’s conclusions, and nuance others, they do endorse the majority. They then weave these together with the work of others, including Auzépy, both on iconoclasm and Byzantium in general during the period. The result is a massive and closely argued synthesis in which one can see the culmination of many strands of scholarship. The first is a highly sceptical approach to the sources. "
"These and the many other arguments, both particular and general, have elicited much debate and a wide range of reactions.3° What all can agree on is that to understand Byzantine iconoclasm one must have some idea of the context in which the debate took place."
Am *I* misreading this? Happy to be wrong here, but I don't think you've contextualized this quote accurately.
thanks for the context. Seems a fair comment
Ortlund hastily reading and misrepresenting scholarship? Shocker’ 😲
Interesting!
Just to be sure, I went back and re-read the whole introduction again, and it's clear that Gavin's use of that quote is completely out of context, and does in fact mean nearly the opposite of how he presented it. From this section here, I will quote Dr. Ortlund to be fair and make sure the full context of the citation is obvious:
th-cam.com/video/gNEw8PxXky8/w-d-xo.htmlsi=i4nZXtou5h4hJOxA&t=1742
Dr. Ortlund says:
“That position, what Price says is just representative of what nearly everybody says except for a few outlier views. You can see Mike Humphreys, in his outstanding article in a more recent book if you want to get a really recent overview of both the historical evidence and the scholarship, what he concludes is that:
‘What they were reacting against was the recent, from ca. 680, transformation of images of Christ and the saints into icons through which the holy person depicted could be manifested, thus making unconsecrated and uncontrollable icons into something akin to relics. Any mentions of icon veneration before this point are either interpolations or referring to the acheiropoieta images, which were relics.’ [Note: that’s the full quote from the Humphries text]”
OK, again, this is not Humphries own view but rather a summary of Brubaker and Haldon. To get the full context for this, you have to have read the whole introduction, starting from page 4:
“Inevitably this means that it is in part reacting to recent scholarship and its priorities.4 As even a casual glance at the footnotes will reveal, that means above all the work of Leslie Brubaker and John Haldon, especially their magisterial Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era, c.680-850: A History, published in 2011.5 Not only is this a monumental piece of scholarship in itself, it represents something of a culmination of a wave of revisionist scholarship that has challenged virtually every facet of our understanding of Byzantine iconoclasm. Every contributor to this Companion, to greater or lesser extents, has been influenced by this wave in general and by this book in particular.
Overall, the present volume, or more precisely its individual components, pushes back against some of Brubaker and Haldon’s arguments, especially those based on the brilliant but often speculative work of Paul Speck. However, it remains indispensable reading for anyone interested in Byzantine iconoclasm or Byzantium in the period. To understand both Brubaker and Haldon and the present Companion, it is necessary to briefly survey the historiography.”
Then Humphries gives an overview of this “revisionist” trend, from Paul Speck to Avergny and then concludes with a summary of Brubaker and Haldon, which is the section of the introduction that Gavin pulls that quote from.
So, again, the quote that Dr. Ortlund is highlighting here, according to Humphreys himself, represents a more "radical" and "revisionist" view, and in fact is the view that is frequently challenged by essays in that volume.
I would also point out that Robin Jensen, who dates iconography and at least some iconodule practice centuries earlier than Brubaker and Haldon, and whose position Dr. Ortlund dismisses out of hand as a "outlier" is the author of the very first essay in the volume Dr. Ortlund is quoting.
The EO argument is thoroughly exposed as an impressionistic gematria, as religious imagination posing as argumentation. Great work!
Impressionistic gematria?
What exactly is “religious imagination”?
You ok?
@@bobbobberson5627 Google it.
@@bobbobberson5627 I think he meant, "superstitious idolatry." And he's right
@@ottovonapps why would you put that in quotes?
You ok?
@@ottovonapps bonehead.
Interesting how the gentlemen “rebutting” Gavin argues from Roman standard traditions and Pliny’s instructions on signet rings. They are literally arguing from pagan traditions to justify icon veneration. They literally proved Gavin’s thesis.
Check. And. Mate.
Christianity is the intersection of Hebrew spirituality, Roman law, and Greek philosophy. This is why The Incarnation happened where and when it did. This is how the Church formed.
So are Protestants who appeal to pagan literature to demonstrate that "hilastērion" should be translated as "propitiation" in Romans 3:25 also conceding that their position comes from paganism?
You're not distinguishing between 1) worshiping idols, 2) venerating idols, and 3) venerating icons. Pagans both worship and venerate idols. They're idols not only because they are worshiped but also because they are images of pagan deities. Icons are neither worshiped nor images of pagan deities.
Gavin's thesis is that icon veneration is a late development. By demonstrating that icon veneration existed in the 2nd century, Seraphim and Michael disproved his thesis. Whether you think it's "pagan" or not is another issue and has no significance for the historical question.
@@jamesbradwell8556 sigh. "Late" here means "well after the Apostles were gone"
Good grief why is Orthodox argumentation and rhetoric so poor?
Oh that's right: you guys skipped Scholasticism and the Renaissance
I am so glad I found you Gavin. I have been visiting an Orthodox Church for five months now. I have much respect for many things they do, but my spirit is uneasy with some of their practices and claims. This is God's Spirit telling mine than something is wrong, so I began a deeper examination of their doctrines and tradition. I am now more at peace with not joining them.
Thank you Gavin! You have been instrumental in my conversion to Orthodoxy. I dont mean that as a slight either. I watched many of your videos during my searching and you are one of the first people I heard speak about it. You make great content, shame we disagree! God bless my friend.
Thank you for being so clear in your arguments. It makes it easy to pinpoint the disagreements I have with you (as a long-time Orthodox viewer). Your response makes it clear that in regarding Seraphim and Michael's arguments as equivocation, the difference between you is a *philosophical* difference, not a *historical* one. The key is in your denial that various objects are inherently objects of veneration, such as a national flag, a standard, or a signet ring. This is a desacralisation of the world that I would argue is clearly inconsistent with the incarnation, and that is in fact the key argument of St John of Damascus. There is no such thing as "non-venerating honouring". The category that you are making does not align with reality and I would argue would not make sense to any of these early church writers, even the more aniconic ones. Take a look at how you argue against baptismal regeneration, something that is totally unanimous in the church fathers, and then how you argue against icon veneration, which I will happily grant is much harder to find. This is about philosophical presuppositions, not the weight of evidence. We can't come at these issues in the way you want to, without the guidance of the church, as Fr Stephen tried to get across in his discussion with you on Sola Scriptura, or we end up in tangles where you have this theology of your own making. Talk to Sam Tideman at the TH-cam channel "Transfigured", the Unitarian who rejects Nicaea 1, or at least listen to one of his videos, to hear that his arguments are just as reasonable as yours against Nicaea 2! To emphasise the point about philosophical coherence: If I was convinced of your arguments against icon veneration, I wouldn't become a protestant, I'd become an Orthodox Jew or Noahide, because at least they actually have a coherent tradition that fits with aniconism! I.e. protestantism is so fundamentally methodologically flawed that being convinced it was the approach most true to Christianity would kill my faith in the very resurrection of Christ (which, God willing, won't happen, don't worry!). God bless you, and I mean that sincerely. I hope that one day you find our mother the church. Sorry for writing such a long comment. There's a level of investment I have about this because of that weird parasocial relationship that watching so many hours of a TH-camr creates. In Christ, Zac
Hi Zac! Thanks for the comment. I want to clarify. You wrote: "The key is in your denial that various objects are inherently objects of veneration, such as a national flag, a standard, or a signet ring." I made no such denial. Rather, I pointed out that this is using the word "veneration" in a different sense than Nicaea 2 uses it. Again, the primary issue here is simply that Nicaea 2's claims are simply false.
@@TruthUnites Thanks for the clarification, but my point is precisely that there is no such meaningful distinction to be made. The difference between my veneration of my national flag and my veneration of an image of the Mother of God is primarily one of degree, not of kind. Please correct me if I'm wrong, you have more familiarity with the text of the acts of the council than I do, but the bishops of Nicaea 2 do not conclude that in the time of the apostles there was widespread kissing of portrait panel icons. What has to be shown is that the practices that were done in the time of the apostles are in the same category of action as kissing of portrait panel icons/crossing oneself in front of icons/any other actions that we consider worthy actions of veneration of the holy images today. That is what would make veneration of images an apostolic practice. What's under dispute is the claim that veneration as defined by Nicaea 2 is a concept that includes the things Michael and Seraphim bring up. I say it is, you say it isn't.
Great job as always, Gavin!
My opinion on this issue is that religious art is not bad and should actually be encouraged. I’m so tired of seeing churches that are bare rooms with not effort out into them. However, I am also against giving images a type of honor they were never meant to be given, such as kissing and lighting candles too.
Can you please put together or do you have a document with all the church father quotes you’ve used in these two videos for easier reference?
I just reread the anathemas of the council for the first time in awhile. They don't say what Dr Ortlund seems to think that they say. They don't say that the form of veneration itself is Apostolic, nor do they mention kissing specifically, as far as I can see.
They do, however, say: "We keep unchanged all the traditions of the Church handed down to us, whether written to verbally. One of which is the making of holy images consistent with history of the Gospel, a tradition useful in many respects, especially in demonstrating that the Incarnation of the Word of God as real, not a phantasm, for these have mutual indications and mutual significations."
That claims that making icons is apostolic and a confession of the incarnation, not that the form of veneration itself is unchanged and universal.
It's not at all necessary to our Orthodox claim for icons to have been made and venerated everywhere in exactly the way we do now.
Eusebius testifies that images of Christ and the Apostles go back to the Apostolic period. They were used more in some places than in others. However, in denying their legitimacy, the iconoclasts clearly fell into christological heresies in defending their views.
Just like with the Creed, the word "theotokos," etc., after these things became controversies leading to christological error, the Church was completely within her rights to require specific terminology and praxis going forward in order to safeguard the Apostolic faith.
Justin Martyr didn't have to confess that Christ was homoousios with the Father in order to be Orthodox, having lived before Arianism. We do, because heresy led to terminological clarification.
Icons existed from the beginning, but their use didn't need to be the same everywhere before iconoclasm made an issue if it, and thus the incarnation. Now, their uniform use is prescribed, and doing so is perfectly apostolic in faith.
This is how the Church's immune system has always worked. When there's an infection, antibodies are left behind to prevent reinfection.
Thank you for putting this into words.
Thank you again!
The Church is like riding on a barque…our Lady Star of the Sea guide us in these stormy seas, may we all be one!
Very glad to see someone else say this. 🎉
It is necessary, though, that they were venerated (at all) in the early church for this to make sense. I think Ortlund's position would be that they weren't.
Could you please supply the Eusebius quote? Thanks.
Gavin, thanks for all you do. I was heavily in the process of joining the Orthodox Church (from a non-denomination church) and saw your first icon video and it made me tap the brakes. Thanks to you and Dr Jordan B. Cooper I am now attending a LCMS church.
Let me just add too that it is a cop out to say all Protestant churches have “gone woke” there is plenty of good left in the Protestant circles and very conservative branches. You can use that as an excuse to leave or try to be part of the solution.
Exact same path for me. Also considering LCMS after pausing Orthodox catechesis.
Pretty much my story note for note!
@@EricBryant it has been great. I believe you would probably really appreciate it.
@@Ozzy864_25 It is shocking how much of Catholicism has gone woke. There is even a bit of getting into Orthodoxy. They are the strongest link against woke, but it comes at a cost. I find prohibitive legalism in Orthodoxy. More than I see in almost any other branch. We're too worried about woke these days (and should be), but I've been under the yoke of legalism in my earlier days as a Christian, because I so wanted to please my Lord. It is a deep bondage, very hard to break free from and a hard task master.
Ortlund vs Hamilton debate! That would be awesome
Dr. Ortlund why is it that Session 7 from Price’s Acts of Nicaea 2 are not found in the papal encyclicals? Is it not considered by the RCC as infallible? If so, is it viable to continue to use it?
Ignatius speaks of the altar here: “Be careful, therefore, to take part only in the one eucharist; for there is only one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup to unite us with his blood, one altar and one bishop with the presbyters and deacons, who are his fellow servants. Then, whatever you do, you will do according to God.
Gavin claims to understand Christianity better than the Church Fathers.
@@fantasia55??? What are you two talking about? What does the Eucharist have to do with this?
@Jimmy-iy9pl The theme of Gavin's anti-Catholic videos is that the Church Fathers were actually Reformed Baptists.
@@fantasia55 Please stop making stuff up.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl Church Fathers were all Catholic priests, but Gavin wants you to think they actually agreed with his Reformed Baptist theology.
Can’t wait to watch the video when I get off of work! Your videos, especially the ones on icon veneration always reassures me with my anxiety for not venerating icons. I’m curious to know, what is your opinion on icons as religious art NOT as an object of veneration but just as a piece for appreciation and remembrance?
I know you aren’t asking me but I would ask you if you would have a Buddha statue for artistic purposes in your house?
Many spooky spiritual things happen around icons, I myself have experienced demonic stuff and heard a few testimonies about them. Including poltergeist type stuff, mental oppression and physical manifestation through the wood
@@ArcticBlits This sounds like some foolish charismatic nonsense, Buddha is from another religion that people worship not having any affiliation with Christianity, I have icons in my room and never have experienced any of the nonsense you just described.
Regardless on where one falls on the icon veneration issue, possessing icons in and of themselves is fine. To argue you can’t depict Christ in an imagine would typical lead to a Nestorian Christology, which is condemned universally in Christianity.
@@miguelv765 I’m not charismatic in any practicing sense, but when I first encountered EO I was considering it after going to three nights of Pascha at an Antiochian church with my then gf. Later that day after waking up. Going to bed at 7am lol. And all through that sleep I got physically ill and ended up having a 20 hour panic attack. It every time I tried to pray I had a voice telling me I was going to die and that I needed to be orthodox. Not in any particular order, just disrupting my prayers.
Anyways, the Holy Spirit led me to pray the names of God and focus solely on Him. As Christ is the only one who sets us free. And after 20 minutes of that with the Spirit bringing names to mind from scripture the voice left and I had peace.
Soon after that my ex texted me freaking out that her icon of Mary started weeping oil while she was out. Only after I had rejected the demon did it cry. That was no saint let me tell you.
Her family has a whole shrine to these things in their house and it’s no wonder they are a broken dysfunctional mess. So much evil energy in that house.
I do appreciate your spirit and courage. I know some of my Orthodox brothers are going to jump on this. God help us and forgive us. 🙏🏻
You may appreciate his spirit and courage… but he is wrong , and somebody should tell him.
@@hempenasphalt1587 I agree he is incorrect, I have made my case in other places on this video.
@@LadderOfDescent He is persisting in error, the very definition of heresy, I just hope he doesn't lead people astray.
Brilliant, as always! I've visited some of the most ancient churches in India that trace their origin to St. Thomas. They do not venerate images. The only image they keep in their homes and in their churches is a photograph of the current patriarch. Of course, the Thomas churches that were forced by the Portuguese to submit to Rome follow the practice of venerating images. So Gavin is right from the living evidence I've seen.
Really well done thanks Dr. Gavin! Very helpful as always.
Enjoyed this a lot. Even though I'm leaning towards the other end (due to the fact that virtually all churches that split prior to Nicaea 2 have and venerate icons in almost the same manner, and due to the West having a high amount of, frankly, gross religious art that involves nudity and strange non-biblical depictions of cherubim as a direct result of their lack of sacramental understanding of art), I still think this is a valid discussion and critique of the way EO Apologetics work.
I would love to see you and Sam Tideman sit down and have a chat as well. I'm curious how far the skepticism can go. Might be fun to have a chat with Paul Vanderklay as well.
Thanks! Just chatted with Paul a few weeks ago.
@@TruthUnites Oh wow, I must've missed it. I'll check it out! I will say as a Protestant I'm personally invested in these discussions. So I appreciate these videos a ton!
This is a great video, and definitely one of the things that kept me from going full Anglo-Catholic despite my own sympathies. I think you successfully refute the claim of Nicaea II of apostolicity, and *certainly* you refute the notion that anyone who doesn't venerate icons is damned.
What do you think about this construal as a kind of resuscitation of a due and good use of icons, as an attempt to affirm as much of the tradition of the church as is reasonable in light of the apostolic teaching. I tend to think we can rightly bow before icons *if* we do not see those icons as mediating the presence of that which they signify. The mediation of the presence of what's portrayed is exactly what idols do. Nevertheless, insofar as we can see the icons as catalysts which spring our imaginations into the company of heaven, we can find a good and right use for icons and a limited sort of veneration in that sense. Bowing, then, is an expression of participation in the heavenly worship. What do you think of this?
This sounds like it would be didactic no?
I don't think it is accurate to say that idols mediate presence. Idols were thought to *contain* the presence of whatever it was they represented, not simply mediate it.
Think of it this way, icons are arrows that point away from themselves to the heavenly reality beyond them. Idols are not arrows at all, but claim to be the reality itself, causing the gaze to remain fixed on the material image (idolatry).
The reason I can affirm the veneration of icons-though I will grant that in practice the way I do this is very different than Orthodoxy-is because I recognize the icons as distinct from idols in that they direct my gaze away from themselves toward Christ in whom the saints participate. In this sense, they are windows into heaven, with heaven being Christ himself.
Thoughts?
If one can take someone as staunchly aniconic as Clement and unconvincingly force an iconodule interpretation onto one very specific quote of his, I think it says a lot more about that person’s agenda and style of argumentation than it does about the subject matter at hand.
To echo Gavin, if these are the best arguments to be made, that itself is very telling.
I think them including that and some of their other more speculative evidence was a mistake, because it allows Dr Ortlund and others to grab into that and act like it was the best that can be offered in defense of icons. Really, however, Seraphim et al. included much better, stronger evidence that wasn't addressed in this
And hour and twenty minute long truth unites video! Time to go get the popcorn
As a Jew, I say that if Christians can get around the 2nd commandment (some count it as the 1st) and its prohibition of idols and images of the Divine, then I never want to hear them cite Scripture again as the "infallible source" of God's will.
2nd temple Judaism had icons and Jews continue to venerate all sorts of objects they find holy.
@@EricBryant The fixation on anathemas seems dishonest considering the historical context. Iconoclasts had been brutalizing Christians and destroying/defacing holy objects and places of worship leading up to this council. It reminds me of how some Muslims and ant-Christians complain about crusades as if there wasn't 700 years of Muslim aggression leading up to the crusades.
@@klemperal What "icons"? And what distinction are you making between 2nd Temple Judaism and 1st Temple Judaism (if any)? At any rate, we honor and express love for God's Torah and His commandments, but there's no sense whatsoever that these things are God or represent God. Gavin makes this distinction in the video and, of course, Judaism is stricter than Protestantism in that it doesn't allow for any statues, images, or depictions of the Divine.
@@EricBryant I was just expressing my amazement that some Christians can reinterpret the 2nd commandment to that degree. Even if they're not "SOLA Scriptura," you'd think Scripture would matter at least to the extent of not making idols. What's more "anathematized" in the Bible than that?
@@KingoftheJuice18 Dura-Europos synagogue, one of the oldest in the world, was covered in icons. I mention second temple Judaism not to differentiate it from first temple Judaism, but because it was the Judaism of Christ's time as apposed to the Judaism of today which is quite different. Still, to this current day, Jews venerate objects by kissing: the mezuzah, the fringes, and the Torah. Since you brought up that Judaism doesn't allow depictions of the divine, why did God instruct Moses to make images of cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant? Why did the Jews bow before it in prayer? I would argue that iconoclasm, in Judaism and Christianity, is the accretion.
The problem is, if honor placed upon an image (an image of Christ for instance) is passed onto to the prototype, why are we just giving Christ honor and not worship? How exactly does veneration pass to the prototype as worship? Not to mention, saints and other church figures (Basil for instance) can be venerated in these traditions, so in that case the veneration is being passed to the prototype as honor but not worship, but in the instance of Christ it is? Seems very inconsistent and incoherent.
Worship in the Catholic context, is the offering up of Christ, body and blood to God the Father in the eucharistic. That is why all this talk of venerating icons just misses the point. There is no worship going on there. Worship of God is primarily done at mass. This is where we are united to the Holy Trinity, along with all the saints, living and dead and all the angels.
@@danielcarriere1958do you believe it’s an anathema to not kiss icons?
No. And neither does the Catholic Church. Those anathemas were targeted at 8th century iconoclasts. They are not applicable today. The positive doctrine is this. It is perfectly acceptable to kiss and icon if that floats your boat. You are not committing idolatry by doing so.
Long reply but here's your answer. God bless, man.
When it comes to worship of Christ:
We give honor to Christ in the same way we do the saints. If you're looking for the additional worship of the Scripture, thay does NOT go to the saints, that is located in the liturgical sacrifice. (No, we don't re-sacrifice Christ) If you ever attend an Orthodox or even Catholic service, our life of worship is centered around Christ's gift to us: His Body and Blood, which He Himself told us repeatedly in John 6:32-58 we could not have eternal life without. No saint, nor mary is included in this consecration. It's all Jesus, and He's on the altar. Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable, it's just Scripture! (1 Cor 11:26) We take Him into ourselves, and cast Him back out into the world each and every day through the newfound love and grace offered to us through Christ.
So yes, we are not making sacrificial offerings to anyone but God, and that is the stricter definition of the English word worship.
In regard to icons of saints:
Saints themselves only get veneration. Any looser definition of the English word "worship" would be called 'relative worship'. We recognize the good work and glory of God IN the lives of saints depicted in icons. It's God we're glorifying, He just so happened to show up in our lives THROUGH HIS CHRISTIAN MEN AND WOMEN. Do you not also live in this undeniable reality, where our brothers and sisters in Christ do good unto us, but undoubtedly also God must be doing good to you THROUGH them? So you understand any thanks you offer that person, or glory you give in that moment, ALL BELONGS TO GOD. Good! Because that's how we understand it, too.
The logic's pretty simple.
P1) All good things come from God
P2) The person depicted in the icon did verified good things.
C) God did good through that person, we will honor the person for their participation and glorify God in the Holy Spirit for these events.
Ergo, we worship Him in all His glory relative to the person and deeds represented in the icon. In this act, we recognize God's Glory and Providence throughout all of history.
The primary difference in our thinking is that we accept the possibility that God and Man can co-operate without it diminishing the fullness or sovereignty of God's will. It's not a zero sum game for us. God can do 100% of the work, and Man can participate in 1% of God's 100% Good Work, without taking away from that 100%.
I hope that helps you understand the difference in how we think. There is no double standard. If you want to know more about the definitions of prayer, worship, and more details of veneration practices and how they're not that stricter definition of "worship" you can check out Catholic Apologist Trent Horn's material on Intercession/his responses to Ortlund and I highly recommend checking out Seraphim Hamilton's content on the issue. (The guy in the thumbnail/video)
@@onepingonlyplease None of you are under anathema for not kissing icons, and none of you, including Dr. Ortlund, seem to understand the Apostolic/Historic interpretation of these events (hence him just quoting it and making his own conclusions)
If you ever choose to listen to our apologists, Catholic or Orthodox explain our actual beliefs, you'd know this.
The anathemas of Nicaea 2 (which come after 2 whole centuries of wanton destruction of property and an erasure of God's glorious works through Christians) were placed in effect to prevent anyone of secretly holding this wrong teaching as a private begrudgement, to act as if it's unclean, to persist in this wrong understanding of iconodulia.
That was applied to those people at that time. None of you are in the Chruch, so it is not even possible to apply it to you. Anathemas separate you from Church communion. We do not have any magic spell to separate you from God, and we never have, no matter how much exagerative poetic language Greeks use.
You are always welcome, if you realize your errors, to renounce those and become members of Christ's Church. But there is no ecclesial authority to exert over people that aren't in the communion to begin with.
Even though Baptists get a bad rap on their individualism, Gavin acted very educated and has impressed me both in morals, respect, and Honesty. Does that make him right? Not necessarily, but he has a good case against the iconodules.
Baptists get a bad rap because fideism has conquered most of our Church. That being said, there are still many great Baptist scholars and teachers who've trudged through all the anti-intellectual mud to get where they are. Besides Gavin, there's also William Lane Craig, Mike Winger, Leighton Flowers, D.A. Carson, and probably a few others.
Everything about him as a person is great, he is a stand up guy. But yeah his approach to history and theology is very Baptist. It’s tainted with this individualistic bent and I can’t see past that.
Thank you, TH-cam, for hiding my completely innocuous reply!
Everyone: dude what?
EOs: ...it's a mystery 💫
Just like Ortlund asserted over election and the will?
I’m leaving Protestantism for Orthodoxy over the very thing Luther said which is that all councils can err. I couldn’t reconcile this with the Holy Spirit guiding the church.
I just don’t see how Protestantism can help someone genuinely seeking Christ escape from a cycle of relativism if everything could be an error. It brings everything into question including the legitimacy of the Bible, trinity, and deity of Christ.
I know Dr. Ortlund is trying to be as faithful as he knows how because he views Tradition as dangerous but not following tradition is also dangerous. In short staying Protestant didn’t really help me ‘escape’ errors.
Ultimately when I discovered there was an apostolic church which never had a reformation and never had a pope I was convinced the Protestants should have just joined this church instead of trying to reinvent what they thought the early church was which was fraught with danger.
Does the Holy Spirit not guide each individual Christian? So does this mean that Christians cant err?
@@theosophicalwanderings7696 honestly you’re right. For example in the second council of nicea the whole church accepted the teaching of iconadulia and rejected the iconoclast teaching of the council of Hieria. So yes the whole church was guided by the Holy Spirit. For why Protestants rejected it later I believe it has a lot to do with a misunderstanding of what the church is in my opinion.
@@steadydividends571 The whole church cannot have accepted the teaching, or there would have been no uproar and division in the first place.
Certainly, the Holy Spirit guides all of us, and especially those of us called to positions of leadership. But we aren't perfect. We can refuse that guidance, individually and in aggregate. The model of Old Testament Judah really seems appropriate. We have a kingdom (Judah/Christianity) comprised of citizens (OT Jews/Christians) led by individuals (Officers and Kings/Bishops and Archbishops/Popes). Most of the time, that old kingdom of Judah (and Israel before it) was stuck in a cycle of first error and accretion, then repentance, with the latter growing less and less frequent. Official teaching even had pagan sacrifices made in the temple, IIRC. I have yet to see anything that convinces me the second kingdom (Christianity) is wholesale protected against the same mistakes as the former (Judah). We have some definite advantages this side of Pentecost, but even in Revelation, the churches were already dealing with accretions - the Nicolatians and Jezebels referred to in the letters to the seven churches. If these early converts who were privileged to know and see the Apostles and even early miracles and theophanies could go that wrong, I believe we certainly can if we are not vigilant in faith.
If you find a home in Orthodoxy, then God bless your time there. I hope you will not condemn those of us who remain Protestant.
Hey! We Orthodox had a bunch of Popes! 😊
St. Leo The Great pray for us
@@steadydividends571errr... the council of Hieria (before) and Frankfurt (after) totally concluded otherwise. Together more bishops than were present at Nicaea II. Not the "whole" church for sure.
Hey Gavin, the "Striving Side by Side" discord link is dead, could an updated link be put up for people to join?
This video you commented on is the first part in a series of videos. Do you plan to make more commentaries on the other videos?
Interestingly, reading through Fr Richard Price, whom Dr Ortlund relies on extensively as an authority, he has something interesting to say about the "Letter to Constantia" which is cited at 26:50. Price accepts the authenticity of the letter, although he acknowledges that some argue against it because, as Price says, "In his Ecclesiastical Histories, Eusebius is happy to mention images of Christ and the apostles."
Price's answer, however, is that Eusebius happily mentions early images of Christ and the Apostles merely as past history, referring to an earlier period in the Church when people hadn't yet learned not to imitate pagan practices, but that Eusebius believes those things should no longer be done. Note: that's not him quoting Eusebius, but rather giving his opinion of why Eusebius would be pro-image in his Ecclesiastical Histories but anti-icon in the Letter to Constantia.
But if that is true, if Price is right, that's very important. Dr. Ortlund used Eusebius as a witness that there were no images of Christ, that such a thing was unheard of and, as Dr. Ortlund says, he would know, as the greatest Church historian of his day. But Price says that Eusebius was not making a historical argument, that he positively acknowledged early icons, but rather he was making a theological argument that it shouldn't happen. I myself think there's a good likelihood that the "Letter to Constantia" is not an authentic work of Eusebius, but even if it is, even if Price's expert opinion is the correct one, this **does not** support a "scholarly consensus" that aniconism was universal in the first few centuries (indeed, such an opinion is not in keeping with abundant historical evidence). Rather, it shows a scholarly arguing that Eusebius's supposed aniconism would be a historical innovation, not a continuing of an apostolic practice.
This is a very powerful and clear argument. Thank you Gavin!
Excellent video and most persuasive. I only wish commenters here, especially those who wish to rebutt, would stick to the topic and state why they disagree..
Are you not seeing all the comments where we're doing exactly that?
I was raised in Protestant churches, namely a Southern Baptist school (strong reformed theology influence in my particular school) and Assemblies of God on Sunday. I have not been a member of a Church in some years, and am currently looking to join a Church as I recognize now that I'm about to have a son how important it is to have a community around which will reinforce what you teach your children.
I have long been dissatisfied with the churches I was raised in for a perceived lack of theological rigor (generally, some churches I've visited were better than others) so I was investigating whether Orthodoxy would provide the structure I was looking for. I find a lot of the Orthodox theology interesting, and I appreciate their different perspective on many things, but I cannot bring myself to accept iconography. To me, icon veneration seems to contradict scripture, but even if we accept that it does not, the view that it is a requirement as a member of the Church seems similar to the practices of the Pharisees which Jesus criticized (elevating religious traditions and man-made rules to the same level or even greater than God's commandments). That's not to say that I believe all of the Orthodox practices are man-made traditions. On the contrary, I believe many Orthodox traditions align more fully with Scripture than the western counterpart. I wish wholeheartedly that I was not so convicted on this matter that I could commune with the Orthodox, but I cannot lie to myself or to the Church.
@iiscd5970, hello friend.😊 I just read your comment on Gavin’s video on icons. I am a Catholic (new) and I wonder if it would help you if you decided on the Eucharist. I believe that the Orthodox and Latin Catholics have the True Body and Blood
@iiscd5970, I wonder if you put your focus on the Eucharist and if you pray, study and if you decided whether the Eucharist is True, then the understanding to the Icon issue would be revealed to you. Does that make sense? I mean if the Eucharist is true that is the MOST important thing and if Jesus has entrusted either of these two groups with apostolic succession … you can trust the rest of it bc the Bible says the Holy Spirit will guide the Church into ALL truth!😀❤️🙏🏻 blessings to you on your journey!❤🙏🏻
Hello! I can try to offer my perspective after spending a few years in Orthdoxy.
The problem with not participating in the full liturgical life of the Church is that you are
1) Treating other family members of the Church as if they aren't welcome, or that God's work through them was somehow false, that God isn't working through people each and every day.
And 2) in abstaining, you are implying there is something inherently wrong with that behavior others recognize as Orthodox spiritual life. This *was* the immediate context of those anathemas (which don't apply to anybody today sitting outside of communion). Imagine for 200 years, that people had been ripping a Bible or communion out of your hands and burning it all, that it had been going on for 10+ generations. The requirement is to forever decree the validity of the practice, and for you and me to have full participation in the life of the Church.
These icons we give the ancient kiss of peace David gave Jonathan in the fields is our sign of fraternity. It shows the world that we showed up at church today to celebrate Christ's salvific work for us WITH heaven and all the angels and saints!
What a wonderful thing! I feel terrible that my family has been deprived of such a thing for so long. God bless the Providence that led me through that door to the Church.
If you wish for more theological rigor, well, you can find that in many places. I'd commend to you more historical forms of protestantism (like more conservative denominations within Presbyterianism, or Lutheranism; I would also say Anglicanism, but that varies a lot more), as my sense is that they're more likely to have people in general learn a little more deeply. But really, there's so much theological writing out there, you can go deep in many traditions. I go to a Presbyterian church myself.
I see another response from a Catholic talking about the Lord's Supper, and I would emphasize that in Roman Catholicism the icon issue would still apply (not the only problem, but the problem you mentioned here), that I don't think the Eucharist is transubstantiated, and even if you at some point become convicted of a more real-presence-y view, Lutherans hold to that without having to do things contrary to scripture like icon veneration.
Basing your Church on the Bible is not how Jesus started His Church. The Bible is not a Koran. The Bible was compiled by the Church as a premier set of documents within its Tradition (that which is handed down). Keep in mind, it's not about the Church aligning with Scripture, so much as is it True-or not?
Being an iconoclast is an Islamic position. Even Jewish synagogues once had iconography. Even the Ark of the Covenant had statues of Cherubim and the curtain images of it. The issue is that thr word translated as "graven-image" (in Hebrew and Greek) specifically refers to pagan idols and not all images. Otherwise almost any picture of anything would be a form of idolatry. As an ex-Protestant I get the hang-up, but have Faith. There were icons in the catacombs and early Christians had relics.
I have been listening to Michael Heiser recently, and the way he describes idol worship is almost, if not actually, identical to icon veneration.
I struggle to see how it can be anything other than the same thing. I really do.
That is absolutely ridiculous
@@OrthodoxJoker why?
Worshipping a false god in practice is carried out in the same way oftentimes as worshipping the true God?
YA DONT SAY
Heiser never saw what he talked about. Go to an Orthodox church and then go to a Hindu temple. Then you'll know the difference between icon veneration and idolatry.
@@jamesbradwell8556 Heiser says no church gets it right just be in a church where the gospel isn't muddied. He saw himself more as a biblical scholar than a church historian. While he's very well versed in it that is not his approach I remember one time he borrowed the concept of Theosis to clarify sanctification when talking about it. I think alot of Orthodox folks like his divine council approach too. So this would be a conclusion someone came to seperate from what he had to say on the matter.
I like the new setup, especially the Chemnitz volumes in the background.
Oriental orthodoxy largely developed independently after chalceldon due to the Monophysite accusations against them and the disputes; political, theological, and even civil between them and the chalceldonians. The Coptic Church held to theology of the first 3 councils, and our theology didn’t flourish in particular depth, compared to Byzantium, due to the persecution and invasion of the arabs in the early 7th century, well before nicea 2, yet our iconography is extremely embedded in our tradition as an integral part of Church life, albeit without the same delineations of specific rites and practices approaching veneration as in Eastern Orthodoxy. Additionally, the Armenian apostolic, Jacobite syriac orthodox, Ethiopian, Eritrean, who were also largely separated from the theological debates of Christendom, still have prominent iconography in their churches… attacking nicae 2’s principles is specific to the theology of Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism, but doesn’t hold against oriental orthodoxy and iconography use in our Churches, thus these arguments don’t hold weight, nor do we have anathemas or enforcements against those who don’t venerate
Interesting!
In that case, the theological arguments against icon veneration are still in effect here. I appreciate that your church doesn't condemn me to hell for not worshipping images, but your church is still engaged in mass idolatry.
Thank you for sharing.
What does icon veneration look like in Oriental Orthodoxy (as you've experienced it). Do you kiss, bow to, incense, etc., images?
@@Jimmy-iy9plTheological arguments against will be defeated shortly, but this fact alone already puts doubt as to the historical argument the Protestant of this video emphasis. Nicea 2 happened in 8th century, yet Oriental Orthodox split was 5th century, many centuries before. The fact that Oriental developed their own iconography (separated by time, region and clergy) shows the practice or acceptance was perhaps not as new as the Protestant suggests
Glory be to God. Gavin Ortlund, in my opinion, is the best apologist against the false arguments and attacks from Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.
Serious and dedicated research went into this video, in fact into all the videos. I do have an honest question, though. The Church of the East and the Oriental Orthodox both left the Ancient Church centuries before the iconoclastic conflict. Do either of these traditions have churches in which icons are truly venerated? Are there any writings from these churches that might also shed some light as to when this practice developed? Again, these people left before the 7th Council. Certainly someone here is knowledgeable about these churches.
Certainly, the Coptic, Syriac, and Ethiopian traditions possess a rich iconographic heritage that evolved independently of Byzantine and Roman influences. This aspect appears to be a blind spot in Gavin's analysis. Furthermore, these ancient churches assert their apostolicity, claiming an equal stake and right as Rome and Constantinople. Interestingly, if Gavin's argument holds true, it only applies primarily to the Eastern Church and overlooks the churches of the Orient that experienced schism in the mid-5th century. This implies that the concept of icon veneration within the "Great Church" (encompassing Rome, Constantinople, and the Churches of the Orient) must have been deeply ingrained as a spiritual devotion and ethos throughout the entire church. This reality poses a significant challenge to Gavin's overall premise.
Not too hard of Google search will lead to Coptic sites that show you that the Coptic Orthodox not only incorporate icons into their liturgy but do so by bowing, kissing, and burning incense ./candles. Wouldn't be surprised to find the same in Ethiopia and Armenians. Not so sure about the Ancient Church of the East (so called "Nestorians")
@@icxcnika7722 I felt the same. Although icon veneration in the "other" traditions does NOT prove apostolic sanction, it WOULD show that the practice was widespread before AD 451. I am trying to remain unbiased, and the issue should be examined from all possible angles. In the interest of transparency, I HAVE found the Orthodox arguments often presented to be weak, and am surprised that none that I heard mentioned the other parts of the ancient church. Of course, none have also brought up exactly how much a Christian is bound to the strict letter of the Law of Moses. That is another issue.
The Eastern Churches were still in the same cultural context as the Orthodox Church, and did not evolve comepletly separately like you claim. Egypt was Roman until the 7th century, and Armenia had constant Roman influence. It simply developed from the same culture/very similar that developed icon veneration in the Western and EO church.
@@DrakonPhD Rome simply defended the iconodules as orthodox. There was no culture of bowing and kissing icons in Rome at that time or earlier .
Hi Gavin, loved the video as usual. a topic i would really appreciate you one day making a video on would be contemporary christian worship music and the historical case for or against it
As an Orthodox Christian and staunch iconophile in the most traditional way, I must say that the St Ignatius passage has nothing to do with icons or veneration. The St Dionysius passage (which I affirm as authentically his), has nothing to do with icons. It's embarrassing seeing my side grasp at straws.
And brother what I can say is thats still okay, the issue most Protestants and post Reformation brethren take are the anethemas. Just as your church and the miaphytes are slowly coming to a consenses of fellowship, we are asking for the same treatment
Yet your church damns us to hell. What does the Bible say about condemning or judging? Have you found anything damnable with Christians like Gavin and myself? Be careful who you associate with.
What standard will God judge you when you're willing to practice in a church that stands by this? Hope reasonable, spirit filled brethren like you can have some day lift this atrocity! God bless and go in peace.
@@ottovonapps My dude, I'm complimenting Gavin's video.
@@TheForbiddenLean I get that, but your church you freely choose to go to has condemned me to hell. See, I can accept you as my brother in Christ Jesus, but you can't because your church has condemned me. So, tell me how I should I feel and respond?
I did see that unfortunate comment on that Orthodox podcast calling you a wolf in sheep's clothing. I think some people must feel threatened by your well-reasoned and researched arguments.
They are always shuffling Gavin destroys their arguments every time
@@uniqueart004 Yes
I wonder how good this argument will work on us oriental Orthodox Christians since we don't hold to nicaea 2. We have been separated from the eastern and catholic churches since the 6th century yet we still hold to Icon veneration just like them. If Icon veneration was a late 6th century and 7th century accretion then why do we hold to it when we were separated from the majority of Christendom since the 6th century. Not only us the assyrian church of the east also holds to it and they seperated from the rest of Christendom even before us.
The assyrians are more conflicted about it and they don't have images except the Cross in their church. There was mutual influence and interaction between the Melkite/Chalcedonians and Orientals so it could've developed as a valid practice through these interactions. What would disprove Ortlund's point here would be Oriental Orthodox or Assyrian saints(there are many) pre-Nicaea II approving of Icon/Image veneration.
You holding to the same practice is not in and of itself proof that it was part of Christian tradition is I believe what Dr. Ortlund stated to another commenter. I am paraphrasing.
@@xrt1241 The Church of the East used to have icons though, but stopped using them due to pressure by Muslims. There's an article called "Icons in the Church of the East" by Rev. Tower Andrious where he cites examples of the CoE having icons in the past, such as a ruined church in Persian where they found the beheaded statue of Christ or a Saint in a church. Even the website of the "Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East" admits that it had icons in the past but they fell out of disuse.
@@dman7668 No, but it contradicts the specific claim that the practice starting in the 6th-7th century.
@alpinefool8814 At the very least there is more evidence for this practice that has come under criticism then for example, Sola Scriptura. I think it's interesting to take issue with icons and not that idea as an accretion since we don't really see any examples of the Church operating under that Sola scripture premise until the reformation. At least nothing that appears concrete to show that this was a mainstream idea among Christians.
To keep it short, that was airtight and awesome. Thank you!
It's only airtight for us. Orthodox are far too attached to it and will do no matter what. They come from the one perfect church, w/ all perfect doctrine and Never make mistakes. You can't convince them otherwise, not when their church is perfect in all ways. Catholics are not as super glued to icon veneration, and may accept a bit of it. As one of Gavin's sources is Catholic and admits the early church did not practice it. I don't know what kind of cognitive dissonance thing they need to do to justify that one of their infallible councils obviously made some mistakes in its decrees, but they'll find something. These churches are perfect in tall their teaching. No mistakes, magesteriums, papal decrees are infallible, the teaching infallible. No room for error, no room for correction.
When Dr Ortlund starts carrying on about anathemas around 8 minutes I just shake my head and roll my eyes.
Every Baptist I knew growing up said I wasn’t saved bc I was baptized when I was a baby and I didn’t believe I needed to be re-baptized when I was older after I made a decision and asked Jesus to come into my life.
As if Baptists don’t arbitrarily tell people they’re cut off from Christ and not saved.
Ortlund is not making a positive case for Baptist theology or Baptist churches here, but simply negating the Orthodox claim. The Orthodox claim of anathema for such trivial matters is similar to what these Baptists church also say and he disagrees with both for the same reason: his view of catholicity
@@xrt1241 when you take this video in totality with his other videos, you realize that his term “Protestant Consensus” as being the correct beliefs and set of positions one should hold is his shorthand for Baptist theology. So, he himself holds to the theology as a Baptist that is really ecumenical and holds Protestantism together.
He ignores the fact that even within the so called “Protestant Consensus” that all the various factions think the other Protestants are cut off from Christ and not saved. Another example would be that the Lutheran confessions say that anyone who denies the necessity of baptism for infants for salvation is: anathema. So a confessional Lutheran should not be out there cheerleading Ortlund when according to their theology he is going to hell for persistence in teaching false doctrine.
He thinks that the fact that Orthodox have anathemas against those who don’t venerate icons is such a huge deal, but he down plays all the various ways Protestants condemn each other to hell all the time for their disagreements to create this fictional Protestant consensus one should belong to bc the Protestant side is allegedly so nice and inclusive and doesn’t go around saying folks are cut off from Christ over doctrinal differences.
I actually think you making a fair criticism.😮
Today my Catholic friends say I am going to hell because of Council of Trent anathemas
@@Mklg7012 Gavin has never said, neither taught that the Protestant Consensus is "Baptist Theology". That is flat out wrong.
The Lutheran Confessions do not anathemize any Reformed, neither do any Reformed Confessions anathemize Lutherans. Show me any historic Protestant denomination that say there are no Christians outside of them. It was a universal Protestant teaching that the Church was not just one institution but spread out over the world under various Confessions that preach the Word and administer Sacraments. This is the same reason they do not say that Roman Catholics are not Christians. Yes the Lutheran Confessions condemn other denoms as teaching errors, but does not teach that there are no Christians in other denominations who disagree with them unlike the Eastern Orthodox where a trivial matter like Images leads to them anathemizing everyone else.
Thank you Galvin, great summary.
Well done Gavin
Yes. Confirming and re assuring you that it is okay to be a protestant is Gavins job.
@@dman7668 Yeah! He's concerned about the truth. That's what matters. He's more loyal to the truth than his position. That's why they can't refute his position
I think Dr. Ortlund is a well intentioned man with a Christian heart who is sincerely interested in Christ and so I want to respond in that spirit.
That having been said, I think in his eagerness to state his case, he unfortunately overstates it dramatically in ways that are inherently self contradictory. As someone else already pointed out, he cites early authors who seem to say that Christians do not have images like Pagans do. Dr. Ortlund finds it curious that they wouldn't say, "Well, we do, but we use them differently..." Then, however, he concedes that there are numerous early examples of Christians having images, but argues that they weren't using them in a Nicea II sort of way. Both things can't be true. You can't argue that images did not exist at all (which is what's implied by saying that if the images existed at all, they would have acknowledged that but explained they used them differently) and admit there are numerous examples of them existing. Clearly, either those authors are wrong, ignorant, or their words are being misinterpreted.
Likewise, he uses the supposed letter of Eusebius to Constantia as strong evidence against icon veneration in the early Church, pointing out that he's the first Church historian, that he could hardly be ignorant, etc. And yet, Eusebius mentions several Christian images as having existed for a long time, praises Constantine for erecting a Cross crushing a serpent on his palace, for erecting images of the Good Shepherd (ie Christ), of Daniel, and so forth. Nowhere does he seem to express disapproval. Those passages are all from his works that everyone accepts. Unsurprisingly, the genuineness of the Letter to Constantia (which first appears over four centuries after Eusebius) is questioned. Some accept it as genuine while many others reject it. Even if Dr. Ortlund accepts it, it seems like a slight of hand not to even mention its questionable status and ignore the other things Eusebius says about images.
I understand and respect Dr. Ortlund's passion for his Protestant beliefs and its good having him around as someone to dialogue with and we can all be improved by good, honest, meaty discussion. I think, however, that this video clearly overstates things and leaves out important information and nuance in an attempt to push his understanding as an unchallengeable scholarly consensus which is not the case.
Thank you for the response. On your first point, I think most of the statements in question are in reference to cultic use of images, not things like engravings on furniture or other more modest uses of art. So I don't think there is any contradiction in most of these statements. People can debate precisely what they mean, but the one thing that is certain they do not mean is Nicaea 2 type veneration was happening. Differing species of aniconism are not an argument for iconodulia.
On your second point, I addressed the legitimacy of letter to Constantia in my initial video briefly; here I was just summarizing some of the data. When you say "many others" reject it, which scholars do you have in mind that you think make good arguments? Price accepts it, and Stephen Gero's older article is quite decisive in its favor, in my opinion. Eusebius' position can again be seen as consistent in that his other statements are not referencing any sort of cultic use of images, which is the concern in his letter to Constantia. Thanks for the respectful comment.
I was also confused by this apparent contradiction in Dr.Ortlund's argument: how could the early Church have thought that it was "improper that such things ever be exhibited to others," while simultaneously producing religious imagery?
Something I thought was lacking in this video was thorough explanations of the contexts surrounding the Patristic quotes referenced. I think it is incredibly important to understand what these Fathers were responding to...was it Nicea II-type icon veneration, I have yet to be convinced of this. If the Church Fathers were writing to pagans, they were probably speaking against those practices, and thus, their relevancy to this discussion comes in question. What do you think?
@@TruthUnites @TruthUnites Thank you for your response! I truly appreciate good conversation like this and have always found you to approach these things as a Christian. So thank you.
On the first point, I don't think that really answers the objection. You say "I think most of the statements in question are in reference to cultic use of images, not things like engravings on furniture or other more modest uses of art" - but that doesn't fit with what the quotes seem to say or how you interpret them.
They seem to deny the existence of Christian images completely and you take that approach when you say that if they even had images, but used them in a different way, they wouldn't have spoken so categorically against them but would have explained the distinction in how they were used. You do not, as I relisten to it, appear to me to claim that these early Christian writers approved of images within the four uses you outline, but rather that they rejected all images outright, like the quote from the Letter to Constantia makes clear.
And yet, there are numerous early examples of approved images, from the catacombs on (and also of mocking responses from outsiders, like the Alexamenos graffito). The making and using of images even if only for didactic purposes, for decoration, etc. is not a "species of aniconism." Aniconism is "opposition to the use of icons or visual images to depict living creatures or religious figures." It's on the pro-icon spectrum, even if it falls short of Nicea II. To state unequivocally, as you do in this video, that every single piece of evidence from the early Church is against icons is going far beyond the evidence. True aniconism would be like those radical Reformers (or Byzantine iconoclasts) who actively sought out and destroyed images, believing their existence, regardless of use, to be biblically forbidden.
In terms of Nicea II, I'd be interested in exploring that further, but just quickly - I understand why you see it the way you do, but I think there's another way of understanding what the council is saying. I don't believe it's saying (and I could reread it to be sure) that the specific *form* of veneration, which is obviously a rigorous form of veneration, has always been the case since the Apostles. Rather, I think it's saying that the making and honoring of images in general is Apostolic and since the Church had just gone through such a troubled time defending them, going forward, this specific form is now a test of Orthodoxy.
That's similar to, for example, theological terms that accurately reflect the Apostolic faith, but are much stronger and starker than earlier terminology, because conflict required greater clarity. "Homoousios" was controversial for being a new term and it expressed the relation between the Father and the Son far more clearly and unambiguously than was the case before. The word "homoousios" isn't Apostolic. And yet, it's still an accurate expression of the Apostolic faith and, after the dust settled from Nicea, no longer optional. Likewise for other christological controversies - terminology got clarified, it was incorporated into the Liturgy and hymnology of the Church, and was no longer optional.
Icons were less clear before Nicea II. However, in attacking them, the iconoclasts fell into different christological heresies that needed to be addressed and so the form of veneration was clarified and strengthened in a way that was an accurate expression of the Apostolic faith, just like the term "homoousios."
@@TruthUnitesStephen gero was rebutted by later textual scholars and in his own work in the same paper says its still a debated issue. Even gero didn't think his case was solid enough but so far scholarship is undecided
@@shiningdiamond5046 Interesting. I'd love to read more about that. Do you have a reference? Thank you.
Hello Gavin. I've seen Christ in a dream while being a non-believer back in November 2017. He forever changed my life. Long story-short, before having this dream I was struck for around 3 months with his presence and incredible amount of peace and self-control. There were no thoughts of violence, no anger, no need to prove a point around an argument, just pure love, compassion and overwhelming understanding about everyone around me to the point of tears. His presence is so real. Wanted to share this because I think it is essential to understand the very essence of the topic of which I'm about to present. To be honest there are thousands of non-believers that had an encounter with Christ throughout dreams/visions where their lives were transformed and all of them speak about his presence of love and peace.
I've watched your first video regarding this topic since I was drawn into Eastern Orthodoxy because of their claims of being the actual original church. Due to this I've studied the history of the church, ecumenical councils and so on in order to have an idea and be able to discern properly, since still I do not attend any church, but instead I am self-taught and proceed with a lot of caution beforehand.
Personally venerating an Icon aside of Jesus just feels wrong, there's something very odd and I've seen it happens to a lot of people. Whenever I worship Jesus I always try to remember his face and recreate this encounter. Whenever I see a picture of Jesus (TV, streets, etc) it always brings me joy and deep love towards him. However, I cannot grasp why should I do the same to another figure that is not Jesus himself. For me the rest are simply humans, that lived their lives for Christ obviously, they were martyrs, "saints" and so on. But in the end aren't these just "titles" created by men? I wouldn't want to be considered a saint, but rather meet with Jesus and be in eternity with him. This whole idea of "being recognized" "being honored" by men seems to point to Pride rather than something else born of the Holy Spirit. Just like if it was a silly bait elaborated by Satan.
I believe the critical point here is that we should try to discern this: Constantine's true intentions and Christianity being the official religion.
According to history, prior to the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312 AD, Constantine had a vision in which he saw a symbol in the sky which, in some accounts, was the Cross (in others, the “chrismon,” a monogram representing Christ) with the Latin words “In hoc signo vinces” (“By this sign you shall conquer”). He subsequently adopted this symbol as an emblem on his soldiers’ shields, and after his victory, he interpreted this as a sign that God had supported him in his struggle.
The fact that God could have influenced an emperor to win a violent battle seems to fly in the face of the essence of Christ's message. Jesus preached non-violence, love for enemies, and forgiveness. Examples of this include:
- The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), where Jesus calls not to resist evil with violence, but to turn the other cheek.
- Also In Gethsemane, when Peter cut off the ear of one of the men who was arresting Jesus, Jesus rebuked him and healed the man, saying, “He who kills with the sword dies by the sword” (Matthew 26:52).
In light of this context, the idea that God would be encouraging a war seems contradictory to the message that Jesus left for his followers. Rather than encouraging violence, early Christianity was distinguished by its peaceful resistance, even in the midst of persecution.
Constantine was a Roman emperor who, while leaning towards Christianity at this point, had been raised in a pagan context, where war and conquest were seen as evidence of divine approval. In Roman culture, seeing signs in the sky and acting on those visions was not unusual, as Romans were known to interpret omens, stars and signs as messages from the "gods" to guide their actions, especially on the battlefield.
The "blending" of this heavenly vision with military victory is a very pagan combination. In fact, it can be argued that Constantine fused Christian ideas with his pagan mindset, adopting a cross (or a Christian symbol) as a victory amulet in war. Rather than fully embracing the Gospel message of non-violence and spiritual redemption, it seems that Constantine used Christian symbols within a political and military framework, something more in keeping with the mindset of an emperor who had to maintain and expand his power.
It is entirely logical to question whether this event could have been an influence from Lucifer himself. From a biblical perspective, Lucifer often appears as a deceiver, someone who can mix truth with lies to lead people astray from the true path. The Apostle Paul warns in 2 Corinthians 11:14 that “Satan masquerades as an angel of light,” meaning that seemingly “good signs” may be motivated by dark purposes.
In the case of Constantine, you could argue that although he used Christian symbols, he did so to gain earthly power, something that could be interpreted as a spiritual trap. Indeed, the idea of using the cross of Christ as a symbol of military victory does not seem to align with Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, which was a display of humility and not violent power. From this perspective, you could suspect that this view was a trap that led Christianity to become integrated with imperial power, something that Jesus himself might have rejected in the first place.
If the central message of Christianity is love, peace and forgiveness, and if Jesus himself rejected the use of violence to expand his kingdom (remember that at his trial before Pilate, he said that his kingdom “is not of this world” - John 18:36), then doesn't it seems inconsistent for God to support a military battle under the symbol of the cross.
If this vision really came from God, why would it not lead Constantine toward an approach more in keeping with the pacifist principles of the Gospel? Instead, it led him to a bloody victory that consolidated his political power.
The fact that Constantine used military force to consolidate his empire under the influence of this vision suggests that he may have "misinterpreted" the sign or that this sign did not come from GOD at all, but from a dark source that intended to use Christianity for other purposes.
The fusion of the cross with the sword in the time of Constantine seems more like a distortion of the Christian message rather than an authentic continuation of Jesus’ teachings. This "heavenly" vision could have been interpreted through Constantine’s pagan lens, and the result was a Christianization of power rather than a sanctification of faith. So, yes, there are strong reasons to consider that this event could have had a dark influence, at least in part, as Lucifer could have tried to corrupt the purity of the church by using earthly power as a temptation.
Well done presentation. I love my Orthodox and Roman brothers and sisters. We all can at least take comfort in the reality behind our symbols not the symbols themselves, namely the reality of Jesus Christ healing the world and us. Our symbols will be gone one day but the reality they point to is eternal. This is where we can unify.