The Case for Icon Veneration - An Almost Comprehensive Response to Gavin Ortlund 

He did not defend nor demonstrate anything! Not being mean but really look and understand what he says throughout the presentation ( very well done) However, he makes a claim that Icon Veneration is Apostolic from the Decree itself. Where did the Apostles teach this? He then moves into rebutting Gavin's examples; but when he summarizes them see 3,18 minutes roughly and see all the questions marks? at the very best all you can see is the majority of Early Church Fathers is I don't know. Therefore, if the appeal was to assert to the Early Fathers that failed badly, then he uses Augustine's claim that development doesn't require endorsements of a theology but boundaries of the development! No, this is bad theology! Why, because the truth does NOT come from man nor can man discern it unless prompted by God. See Peter when he says: No prophecy can be interpreting by man unless God is interpreting it! Then he goes to the OT but gets the sources wrong: Moses is not prophesying on the Monarchy - he is prophesying the Messiah see the 1 Joh 1:45 where they use the same verse to show that the man Jesus is of whom Moses was speaking about. Next he tries to parallel the Ark and the temple but this is also not correct! The LORD himself was present and made his glory and presence known in the Ark. The Ark is a copy of what is already in Heaven and the Ark was made by his command and not by mans. Saying: You must build the Ark using these specific specifications only. The middle was the mercy seat opposite sat two Cherubim. This has nothing to do with icon veneration. In summary what was shown is the conclusion that the Apostles taught this is false. They made the claim not I AND icon vernation is not found in the OT. They worshipped the LORD Most High. They still buried the prophets etc.

​@@danielhaas9469 Or u trying to say that its idolatry if u bow down to a man-made image then pray to God while doing so. Do u believe thats idolatry? Or kissing a man-made object is idolatry to?

@Only Love I would like to answer this in 2 parts: 1. I can't definitively say it is idolatry because I don't know the person's heart and mind. However, what we are told very clearly and plainly is that when we pray, we bring all the prayers and supplications to the Lord. It is also an optics issue. Paul rebuked a certain church when you had members speaking in tongues but without interpreters; you also had people prophesying without interpreters. To Paul, if somebody new enters in and sees this, what will he/she think? Paul then says they may leave because they have no idea what is happening and hearing clashing cymbals to them. As a result, if there are no interpreters, then that aspect should cease. What do you think somebody might say while observing somebody bowing down, kissing, lighting candles before a statue, or an image of a Saint? This is the concern then: they could think idolatry and walk out! They could ask questions about why you are doing this! art by themselves is just art. But the minute you force a conclusion that icons are necessary for you as what nicea 2 anathematizes you if you reject it brings me to point 2. 2. The overarching problem with his presentation is that he failed to show that Icon veneration was necessary in the OT; the NT, and the early patristic fathers. It fails all 3 conditions. St. Ignatious of Antioch was very clear about false teachers and how to refute them, which is scripture. Ireanous of Lyons was specifically against going outside of the written word. To him, the oral word was the exact same as the written word. Therefore, he taught just as Ignatious did to study scripture, and from it, you can extract doctrines from it. Like the Trinity, for example: the idea of the Trinity is found in the OT. Elohim says in Genesis 1, let US make man after our image and likeness. The Holy Spirit of the Lord is mention many times. The Father is also mentioned when he says: to which one of the angels did I ever say this day I have begotten you and this day you are my son and I your father? And the Son is mentioned when he says: you have taken no delight in sin offerings and of the shedding the blood of goats but a body you prepared for me. Here I am, oh God, to do your will. In the NT it gets flushed out fuller by the Appostles where it says: baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. And in the beginning the word was with God. The word was God and became man. There is one God the Father, 1 lord Jesus Christ, 1 Spirit etc. Then in the patristict Era the early church Fathers have a very clear understanding of 3 persons but did not say Trinity. See st Ignatious of Antioch letter to Smyrna and Ephesians. As I have demonstrated I can prove to the truthfulness to the Trinity in Scripture. OT, NT and in the patristic Era. It passes all three. Therefore, the conclusion is the claim that was made at Nicea 2 is false. It was not taught by the Appostles it was not taught to the successors and the claim is false.

@@danielhaas9469 my friend with all due respect you have no idea what you're talkin about honestly not trying to offend you. Bc all you're saying is you could find the trinity in the "Bible alone" using "sola scriptura". Well that's great u can, but there's 1000s of others who would disagree with us, bc they read the same Bible & they don't see the trinity. so idk why you're trying to make that an analogy. Bc if the Trinity was easy to read in the Bible alone every single person who reads the Bible will automatically come up with the Trinity. we both know otherwise, bc there wouldn't be unitarians, oneness, & modalists out there in the world if that was the case. So with you not admitting that it's idolatry r not that's called "the law of contradiction" my friend, it's either idolatry or it's not idolatry, It can't be both and. Bc all you're trying to say is u don't know what's in their hearts, well thats arbitrary bc we're never going to know what's in men's hearts here period. So therefore there's no gray area, it's either idolatry or it's not. Just like the Eucharist, Catholics believe it's the true presence of Jesus, Protestants don't believe in the true presence. so it's either or, that Jesus is not or it is his true presence, it Can't be both and. Bc we can't have our cake & eat it too. So that's the law of contradiction, which is a fallacy my friend.... So whats its gonna be? Is it idolatry to bow down to a man-made image while praying to God? And BTW your getting confused with the definition of prayer, but that's a diff subject let's stick to one subject at a time okay.

@Only Love it seems you have chopped up what I said... I said that all 3 sources agreed OT, NT, and the early Father's. Ireanous of Lyon very clearly taught that scripture is not unambiguous, but all can read it and understand it who is of God. But u stable men have tried to insert falsehoods. Like deny Christs humanity! Are you telling me that you yourself can't discern the deity of Christ by studying God's word? Is God's word that far away less a few people who can? We have elders in the church who at one time were instructed by the Appostles, but what they taught them was to be held up just as Paul tells Timonthy study and keep the scriptures that you were taught from your youth as there will come false teachers. Some of which already infiltrated the very same rank as Paul...judiazers for example. What I am saying is the claim that Nicea 2 told us that Icon veneration came by the Apostoles. This is false by the very definition of the word. No OT citation was given, no NT citation was given and no early church Father had a clue about the practice. The ones that did speak up, spoke up against it. That is very plain just in studying it. Bowing and kneeling before rulers and false gods had become commonplace by the time God gave the Law to Moses. God wanted to set some new boundaries about the worship owed to Him. The second commandment says, “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything. . . . You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God” (Exodus 20:4-5). God reserves any form of worship for Himself, and bowing down before someone or something else as a form of worship is forbidden. In Revelation 19:10, John falls at the feet of the angel who was explaining a vision to him, but the angel immediately corrects him: “Don’t do that! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers and sisters who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God!” Notice, in God's command, you shall not bow down OR worship them. This is where I could say definitively now unlike begore that bowing down before man, images, and statues is idolatry that is not directed before the LORD. Therefore, I still maintain that the Appostles did not teach nor instruct anybody to venerate icons. For we seek the Lord with all our heart for in him he is our refuge, our salvation and our life. Give thanks to only him and no other.

The video just came out…its 4 hours long

@@d.rey5743I gave the lecture on another channel a few days ago. This is my upload of that lecture.

@@intellectualcatholicism Oh I mustve missed that lol my bad

It’s not a fight. We are all trying to learn the truth. I appreciate both Gavin and Suan. They make good points and I am learning from both of them.

I grew up in a nominal Catholic family who would not normally go to mass, not even Easter nor Christmas. With that said, this is how I understood the distinction. Do you believe that (blank) is God? If so, that would be idolatry. Do Japanese bow to each other as a sign of worship or as a sign of respect? Does a man get on one knee to propose, or to worship the woman and offer her a ring? One can treat people, spouses, celebrities, hobbies, sports etc. as if they were God. If I kiss my mother in the cheek it is to show affection, if I kiss an image of Mary it is to show veneration. Growing up hispanic, we always had posadas, and re-enacted St. Joseph and Mary seeking a place at an inn for the birth of Jesus. Then we would commemorate his birth by doing a small skit in which two children (a boy and a girl) would rock a baby Jesus doll and sing a lullaby that translates to, “You came to the world only for my love, I see that your eyes are closing but you can see all of my faults.” Now, if anyone believes that the doll is really God, then it is idolatry. I’ll give you a different example. If your mother had passed away, and you kept an old photograph of her, you would cherish it and never want to bend or damage it. It doesn’t mean that you believe that the photograph is literally your mother and that destroying it would mean killing your mother. You believe that we worship images because we kiss and kneel down. You do neither of those things, so do you not worship God? What does worship mean to you? Growing up, we occasionally visited Protestant churches and I thought that worshiping was singing and raising your hands while the band played music on stage. Is that how the early church worshipped? No, worship was liturgical.

03:45:33

@@intellectualcatholicism Again, the claim that was made at Nicaea was Icon veneration is Apostolic is false by your very own research. The fact that you showed Gavins assement of those who seemed to not appeal to Icon veneration at best is I don't know. Then, to assert the claim is still Apostolic is problematic To say that Moses prophecied Isarael to have a King thisThis is incorrect again: Moses is telling Israelities one of the coming Messiah: See the verse used in John 1:45. Also, God was offended and took the request of Israel wanting a King as a personal rejection: See 1 Samuel But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to govern us.” And Samuel prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord said to Samuel, “Hearken to the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them. 8 According to all the deeds which they have done to me,[a] from the day I brought them up out of Egypt even to this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are also doing to you. Chronicles 29:20 is not allowing for Worship or veneration of any kind to David. It is being used as a reverence aspect similiar to how Daniel spoke to Nebacanezur.

@@intellectualcatholicism Also, the Ark and the Serpent were made for very special purposes: As you pointed out the Ark was made at the command of God and by very specifications and design? Why? This Ark which is a copy of what is already in Heaven was meant to show the power and glory of the LORD and his covenant with his people. The Serpent was made so that those who walked in the desert who looked upon it at the command of God would not get biten and die due to their sins. Jesus parellels himself with the Serpernt in John when he says: Just as the Serpent was lifted up so to you must lift up the Son of Man. This is in reference to a gaze upon the Son. Those who gaze upon the Son hold fast to what Christ did for us. Those who gaze upon the Son of Man shall never die and be with him in Heaven.

I.V. is not necessary for salvation. If it was, the Lord or His Apostles would have commanded it from the beginning. Iconoclasm would be listed as a disqualifying sin of the flesh among those listed in Gal. 5 or 1 Cor. 6. Conciliar anathemas wouldn't be needed. But the fact that it takes a council to curse I.V. rejecters is a case of (pardon the updating of "protest") "The Council doth protest too much, methinks."

@@danielhaas9469 I do hold that the apostles venerated images and defend that position. You seem to be confused about what I'm arguing. Even the slide at the 03:45:33 mark literally concerns how the apostles venerated images.