Why Gavin Ortlund is Wrong About Icons: Iconodulism Before Nicea 

Is it possible to purchase a particular topic for a lower price?

This is NOT refuting Protestantism, it is propping up of Catholicism!!!

Agreed; and this basic distinction is a necessary one. Lest anyone cries about "splitting hairs."

It's true that the word 'veneration' can encompass 'many different practices,' but it depends on whom you're talking to. For us Catholics, it refers to a kind of worship that is not the same as the worship given to God alone, as you should know. For many Protestants, the 'decorative, commemorative, didactic, or aesthetic use of art or religious images' is indeed a concern. So, again, it depends on whom you're talking to. Yes, 'the anathemas of Nicaea II are bound up with a specific theology of veneration involving bowing and/or prostration, and "praying through" the image as a window to heaven.' However, properly venerating images does not involve considering them as 'windows to heaven' or direct means to reach divinity. I respectfully disagree with the claim that 'early documentary evidence for decorative or commemorative use of images does not necessarily support "veneration" in the sense understood at Nicaea.' Historian Felicity Harley-McGowan has argued: 'The relatively slow emergence of Christian iconography has traditionally been explained by the belief that the earliest Christians were (like their Jewish forebears) hostile towards the visual arts. Yet this widely held theory has been shown to be untenable, with careful demonstration that the supposed opposition of Christian theologians across the second and third centuries to images has been exaggerated by modern scholars. With no proof that iconography, apart from its idolatrous abuse, was vehemently rejected by the Church as a whole prior to the late second century.' (Felicity Harley-McGowan, The Constanza Carnelian and the Development of Crucifixion Iconography in Late Antiquity, in 'Gems of Heaven': Recent Research on Engraved Gemstones in Late Antiquity c. AD 200-600, ed. Chris Entwistle and Noël Adams, London: The British Museum Press, 2011) One could argue that, since the veneration of the Cross was a well-established and extensively documented practice in the history of the Church, it could be considered as a solid historical and theological foundation for the subsequent theology of Nicea II regarding the use of religious images. Additionally, it's worth considering that the early Christians did not publicly display their Christian symbols and practices because they were often subjected to ridicule and accusations of superstition by pagans and Jews. Tertullian warned that certain Christian activities could hinder the conversion of an unbelieving spouse or husband, stating that: "The more care you take to hide them, the more you will arouse suspicion and the more exposed you will be to the curiosity of pagans. Will you escape attention when you sign your bed, or your body [with the cross]; when you remove impurity, when you rise to pray even in the night? Won't it be thought that you are engaged in some magical work?" (Tertullian, Ad uxorem, 2.5).

@@JorgeRamirez Respectfully, one could also argue that historians should let those early Christians speak for themselves - the citations worked just fine 😉. I see Tertullian going through the trouble of mentioning a few practices. He didn't bother to mention icons. Was this practice "so secret", the paper couldn't bear its crushing weight? Why don't we respect the silence of the author enough? Or is that too much ti ask, when even their downright words against a certain practice are disregarded? Now this is a citation that didn't work as fine as the previous ones. Again, why don't we allow Tertullian speak for himself? Wasn't he an adult? I have a big problem with "let me read some intentions on behalf of the author where he is silent, bro." Have yet to see the vanilla Protestant doing that - save some raging Calvinists, bit those are in a league wherevonly Catholics can touch then. They tend to take emphasize the difference between what it is written and conjectures. This, too, is paet of the high views they have for the Scriptures. So are we to take some romanticised Catholic version when the Protestants operate with surgical precision on the available data and maintain a healthy skepticism where said data is missing?

@@szilardfineascovasa6144 You reply: Respectfully, one could also argue that historians should let those early Christians speak for themselves - the citations worked just fine 😉. Historians don’t only rely on written text, but other nuances like historical and cultural context should be taken into consideration. This helps with the interpretation of any given historical document. Therefore, it’s not entirely true that early Christian writings 'speak for themselves'." You argue: I see Tertullian going through the trouble of mentioning a few practices. He didn't bother to mention icons. Was this practice "so secret", the paper couldn't bear its crushing weight? It's true that Tertullian mentions some specific practices, but his omission of mentioning icons doesn't necessarily indicate that they didn't exist in his time. The selective writing of ancient authors often depended on their objectives and what they considered relevant in the context of their writings. The absence of icons in Tertullian's writings could be due to assorted reasons, such as a focus on other more prominent topics at that time or simply because they were not a central theme in his discussions. Regarding what you say about the sign of the cross that Tertullian advises not going so public about it, needs to be understood of the context of what I mentioned: to not arouse suspicion of “some magical work among pagans. But this practice is very well attested not only in Tertullian but other early Cristian writers. You argue: Why don't we respect the silence of the author enough? Or is that too much ti ask, when even their downright words against a certain practice are disregarded? Respecting the silence of ancient writers can have implications on both sides of the argument. If we were to reject the use of images in Christian worship because Tertullian does not mention or recommend it, then other practices lacking a historical basis in ancient writings and practiced today in Protestantism should also be subject to rejection or scrutiny. Second, silence of evidence in early writings is not silence in practice. Of course, this can also cut both ways, but there's more evidence in early writings that support catholic practices like the use of icons and religious images than many neo-protestant practices. Third, it is essential to approach early Christian writings with a complete historical context and understand that the opinions of an author like Tertullian in certain matter do not always represent the entirety of the beliefs and practices of a particular community. You argue: Now this is a citation that didn't work as fine as the previous ones. Again, why don't we allow Tertullian speak for himself? Wasn't he an adult? Indeed, Tertullian was an adult author with his own opinions and perspectives. However, in historical interpretation, it's common for scholars to consider not only the words of an individual author but also the broader context in which they wrote. Tertullian underwent a shift in his religious beliefs over his lifetime, moving from an orthodox position to a heterodox one. This further emphasizes the importance of considering both the content of his writings and the context in which they were produced. You reply: I have a big problem with "let me read some intentions on behalf of the author where he is silent, bro." Have yet to see the vanilla Protestant doing that - save some raging Calvinists, bit those are in a league wherevonly Catholics can touch then. They tend to take emphasize the difference between what it is written and conjectures. This, too, is paet of the high views they have for the Scriptures. I agree, it's not about trying to guess what a certain ancient author might have wanted to say or think. But it's also not about isolating or pigeonholing their opinions or perspectives without taking into account what they may have said or suggested in other writings. In my experience of engaging in dialogue with Protestants, I have encountered individuals at times who make conjectures or personal extrapolations about the intentions of biblical authors. You reply: So are we to take some romanticised Catholic version when the Protestants operate with surgical precision on the available data and maintain a healthy skepticism where said data is missing? (Respectfully) I don't think Protestants operate 'with surgical precision on the available data and maintain a healthy skepticism.'

@@JorgeRamirez The context you mention, and I wholeheartedly agree on, is still in...writing. We can't ask anyone from that time for extra information...boy how I'd like for us to be able to interview them 🙂. I think there's a fine line discerning about what "silence" may or may not speak on, and here we may fall in the danger of subjectivity. Hence why Sola Scriptura makes so much sense to me to a point - especially considering any supernatural revelation should fit with the revealed Scriptures. And here, again, sibjectivity comes: we can look at the same thing and disagree whether it "fits" or not in there. Not sure about the practices of Protestants you mention, either. I'm a Neoprotestant, have yet to see anything of that sort (in my version of Pentecostalism at least) and, in general, I can find a few points of contention with Protestant theology in general.

*Serro dies of cringe*

This is his cross to bear

Thanks Telosbound. You guys rock.

absolute nonsense

That still doesn't make the use of icons Apostolic.

@@shiningdiamond5046 It's not Apostolic. Icon veneration wasn't a part of the form of worship that the Apostles practiced. It was spoken out against by ALL the pre nicene fathers. But continue kissing and venerating your icons. Just know that it's not something that the TRUE CHURCH practiced.

Religious imagery does not imply veneration. See Gavin's post above somewhere. I, too, had a children's Bible with drawings when I was a wee lad, as a Pentecostal 🙂.

this is my stream of thought too, building statues of people and making icons - placing them in places of honor for people to gaze upon is in and of itself an act of veneration which is pretty well accepted in toto, which is why the reformed baptists moved the goalposts. All nicea II does is a) standardize the method of veneration and b) mandate their veneration. I fail to see how this is any different than Chalcedon or Nicea I - all Ecumenical synods basically force people to choose whether they're going to be in the church or outside of it based on what was ruled in them.

Both you and @theMhouk2 are clearly trying your best to justify the pagan practice of icon veneration, so deeply established in the Catholic church, you already see it as essential for your believe system! Therefor defending it with really meaningless examples of art or other. No one, especially not Dr. Ortlund, is saying we do not sin sometimes, but that does not make a specific practice official doctrine and certainly does not justify it. Your argument is sanctimonious! You're not better than us kind of nonsens! Look, icon veneration is Biblically wrong! A sin! Refer to Ex 20:3&4!! And many other places in scripture! And no, looking at a representation, then having the original in mind with respect and honor, is not veneration or "bowing" to or worshiping it! However, bowing or kissing the representation is!!!! If I hang a cross in my house or use it as a sticker on my car's bumper, I'm not venerating the picture or cross at all, I'm using it as a symbol to indicate my believe system or religion. Again, bowing at it, worshipping it or kissing it is a different story all together!!

I think that you are blinding your mind and eyes when you say that there is very early evidence for veneration. Considering that Nicaea II anathematizes iconoclasts, I would expect really heavily evidence. Most early church fathers speak against images in venerative sense. And the only arguments for veneration are so weak, tangential, and you need to actually read so much into those texts to get icon veneration from them that not calling it mental gymnastics can be done only by significant act of endurance.

As I pointed out earlier, just because it is an old practice does not make it right.

because protestants don't know what idolatry actually is in the same way they don't know what worship actually is.

​@@NavelOrangeGazerwhat then, is actual worship?

​@@josephgarrett3075sacrifice

This is always my question. “Where’s the sacrifice?” I’ve never seen an orthodox priest offer the Eucharist to an icon.

​@@beaubranson2515 My wallet. Jk

Exactly. Veneration in and of itself is well attested to, especially of relics. I would also argue that, even the mere creation of an image depicting a person or object one respects and honors (Christ, the Saints, etc.) is inherently veneration. The act of veneration (kissing, bowing, prostration, etc.) is simply the physical manifestation of an inward disposition. E.g. if Gavin Orltund looked upon an image of Christ with fondness, respect, honor, love, etc. then he is venerating that image. He simply isn't expressing said veneration it in a physical way. If you love your wife but never kiss her, you still love her and feel love for her inwardly. But does it not make sense to express your love physically by kissing or hugging her? If someone like Ortlund would even hesitate for a fraction of a second before stepping on a Bible or an image of our Lord and Savior then he is venerating that object (and thus the prototype it represents).

@@CosmicMystery7 The important discovery you are making here is that idolatry is not new 🙂. Please tell, which of the historical figures that were against icon veneration make this distincion, by condoning the veneration of other artefacts and speaking against that of icons? How do these escape the criticism of veneration being directed towards "dead things"? You both are trying to make veneration into something as innocuous as venerating one's parents. And you both know that praying through something is not the same as venerating someone. The simple fact of drawing an image of Christ is veneration? So does that make any child that ever drew a flower an animist, and are we all "guilty" of venerating the creation then? Isn't it a little bit of an assumption pushed too far to define what an act of veneration is on behalf of others? With all due respect, I thought Calvinists were masters at twisting Scripture and arguments, but these later days I'm discovering an entirely different universe. 🙂

@@szilardfineascovasa6144 Wait-- why is it necessary to go to those against icon veneration for information about the distinction, as opposed to those who are for it and maintain that it isn't idolatry? Why do you even care about said figures? You don't accept the rest of their theologies, which comprise the bases from which they teach. You don't accept that they all held themselves subject to their clerical communities and the whole body that they were staunchly a part of (St. Epiphanius' iconoclastic attitudes were invariably mentioned as being in the context of an iconodulic Church). It's as if they only matter to you when they say something you, individually, agree with. Furthermore, you have this strange presumption that people are lying to you about their own beliefs to make themselves look good to you.

Just because it's old, doesn't make it right. When the practice can be traced from paganism to the accretion to Christianity, then there a is a theological problem. The problem is much more than veneration, which is a form of worship.

There is a difference between honor and veneration.

@@oldbenkenob1 It is understood where one _could_ make that distinction, but here is the dictionary definition of venerate: _"To regard with reverential respect; to honor with mingled respect and awe; to reverence; to revere."_ In any event, such a Protestant would understand that desecrating the image of Christ is directed towards Christ; conversely, honouring that image would also be directed towards Him.

@@Troy-Moses I may honor an image of our Lord or the saints by treating it with respect, but I do so without kneeling, bowing, or praying to it. My understanding of scripture and my conscience as a Christian tell me that doing such under the guise of "veneration" would constitute idolatry.

@@oldbenkenob1 I think his and Seraphim's point in the first video is that ultimately the axiom previously described (the honor given to the type passes to the proto-type) is shown in action there. And it wouldn't be strange to honor Christ by way of bowing when he isn't represented by any means, but then abstain from showing such submission when he is? If I am understanding correctly, the orthodox position here tries to demonstrate than iconoclasm misses the point by positing the issue on showing honor to images specifically, without grasping the principles of why that was present in the Old Testament in the first place. Just to throw in some personal thoughts: Bowing and kissing were common signs of honor, respect and submission between the living in the ancient world: Solomon bows before his mother, and if memory serves me right multiple instances of kisses as sign of love and familiarity are also present in the Bible. Not sure man, it just feels weird to draw the line betwen worship and honor on those grounds given how dependant they are from modern, western sensibilities. One can even make the case that, if that is true, multiple gesture of submission we do to our own countries (salute the flag, for example) can be understood as worship and therefore idolatry, giving that they seem to ocuppy a similar position bowing and kissing did in the ancient world. I am a lifelong protestant now leaning more and more in favor of eastern orthodoxy due theology and history, just to be clear.

@@oldbenkenob1 Furthermore, your hang-ups with bowing and kissing are largely cultural, as most ancient and and foreign cultures bow and kiss others out of respect ubiquitously. I bow to my Korean friends older parents out of respect all of the time. I kiss the hand of others out of respect in some countries I've been in. We have such an egalitarian cultural mileu that these things seem strange to us when they are not.

He's pretty active in the space, I'm sure he'll see this. He had some back and forth in comments on the first video.

The rest of the recording is going to be in part three.

@@Seraphim-Hamiltonit’s not even evident that this is part two of something… So this is your grand response to Gavin??? A 48 minute introduction to the arguments that will eventually be made and then a poorly edited cut?? Are you working for the prots?? What is this?

Good to see you, First Called. I think you’re probably right re some reformers. Would you be able to give more information?

“I’ll never bow my knee! I’ll never kiss the ring!”

The concealment was explicitly analogized with the sanctuary.

I’ll get into signets more in the deep dive. For now, I will note that 1. a signet’s value lay in an authority that inhered in the ring because of its connection to a family’s origin, status, and patronage (often divine or connected to a great ancestor). These weren’t just objects of utility, and their theft would be similar to stealing a crown (creating potential for theft of honor and status) 2. Pliny uses sacral language to describe a gesture of reverence to the signet.

I can't speak for Ortlund, but the consensus among protestants of such things that they seem to be occult. while there are many Protestants that have problems with the supernatural (claiming those things passed with the Apostles). There is no scripture that teaches that the supernatural passed with the Apostles, but there are real problems with Icons and statues exhibiting "miraculous" things.

@@user-hw5pd1mv9b Just like what the Jews believed about Jesus when He was performing miracles

If you are aware of the history of Ecumenical Councils, you would know that they were always summoned in response to a certain heresies that attacked the Church. Councils were writing down doctrines under attack not as something newly invented at that point in time but factual faith that existed earlier, that was until then, never written down. Similarly, Iconoclasm that attacked icons in 8th century forced Church to define doctrines in relation to the icons and their veneration. Use and veneration were not invented at that point in time, similarly as with the previous councils and other doctrines. Iconoclasm was originally instigated by the advent of Islam where icons are not permitted. Originality and antiquity of their use can also be seen through the fact that all those, now separate churches, who have roots in ancient Church, namely: EOC, RCC and OO, have and use icons in a same manner even though they fell off of the ancient Church way before 8th century.

If they're idols, *_they shouldn't be anywhere in or near a church._* Worshipping in the midst of idols is madness, regardless of whether they're kissed or bowed down to. Less than it being a stumbling block to Protestants, those Protestants opposed to Orthodox icon veneration think that the Orthodox are explaining icon theology in bad faith, as if they're trying to cynically win them over for winning's sake by concealing the "reality" that they're actually idolaters. They don't pay attention to the structure of the Liturgy. They don't accept the idea of the Eucharist as a sacrifice to God, and that we consider _that_ "worship" exclusive to God on the grounds that He is God. They don't acknowledge that we emphatically confess the one God in the Creed we regularly recite. They don't pay attention to the recitation of the canons of the Seventh Ecumenical Council done on the first Sunday of Lent. They mishandle all that information so they can insist that we're idolaters, or "something close to it" (as if that qualification is substantive). The lot of them think we're lying to them, and that we're aggressively lying to ourselves. They do that with the intercession of the saints as well, calling the Orthodox (and the Catholics) idolaters and necromancers for asking those of the Church Triumphant to pray for and with us. It's not _just_ icons that they do this with. They even do it with the episcopal polity, and that was expressly written down for Timothy. Would you yourself condescend to someone who already doesn't think well of you? How much should be dropped-- even those things that were never challenged until Luther, like the aforementioned doctrine of the intercession of the saints-- for those that don't even want to be (visibly) aligned with the Orthodox Church? Do they themselves do that with their own doctrines that they're convinced of?

Thank you, I should issue some errata for this presentation, there are a handful of minor errors like that which don’t affect its substance.

Thank you, glad it was helpful to you

Hello @elasticgiraffe re: necessity of veneration, I think like you've said so much depends on what's meant by veneration. Would any hypothetical Israelites who didn't walk around the city of Jericho with the ark be failing to venerate an image? I would regard placing an image at the center of a procession as a form of veneration (just think of when someone does this with an idol--Christians automatically regard this as honoring the idol) Would hypothetical Israelites who didn't look at the bronze serpent be failing to venerate an image? Focusing on an image with an attitude of faith and hope, in order to receive healing from God, definitely seems like a form of veneration. Would Moses have been failing to follow God if he had not made the bronze serpent and lifted it high up (exalted it, actually - ala exaltation of the cross)? If what I'm saying is correct, it does seem like sometimes God requires people to show honor to various images. It's not because of what the image is in and of itself (in terms of composition and parts) but because God chooses to manifest His presence and power in the world through the shaping of those materials into a form fit for Him to work through. Is that helpful?

Catholics agree with our Orthodox brethren in many, many ways ❤️ Pray for genuine unity 🙏

The person who made the linked video agrees with Michael on the interpretation of the citation of St. Ignatius at hand (that St. Ignatius poses the Cross as a kind of banner-- he himself interprets it as likening the Cross to a "Christian flag")-- but he doesn't recognize that he's agreeing with Michael on that front (or that his own translation lends itself better to Michael's argument than the one Michael himself used). He doesn't acknowledge that Michael defines "raising up" (exaltation) as a form of veneration earlier in the video. He doesn't address that Michael understands images of the Cross to be icons. Related, and critically, he doesn't address Michael's paraphrases of St. Ignatius talking about various actions and attitudes directed towards "the Cross" (cf. 28:20-28:42), that don't make sense if "the Cross" is _only_ an alias for Christ, His Passion and His Resurrection-- rather than a _symbolic pointer towards it_ with material substance of its own (in the same way we use icons as means to point our attention to that which they represent). He doesn't address Michael's contention that St. Ignatius' theology of the Cross involves viewing the physical Cross as distinct from-- though inextricably intertwined with-- Christ's Passion and Resurrection. I find that he's looking for-- from someone that purports ante-Nicene origin for iconodulia-- a demonstration that Byzantine iconography and their standards existed at least almost verbatim in that time period. Michael actual argument re: St. Ignatius is that he (St. Ignatius) utilizes the concept of the Cross _(which necessarily invokes the image of a Cross in one's mind)_ to pass veneration to Christ Himself-- thus him speaking about "being loyal" to the Cross, or "sacrificing" himself to it, or "making himself offscouring" for its sake.

Sorry, it does not. Mere existence of religious imagery does not imply veneration. It's a simple concept that can't be glossed over leisurely.

The rest of the video series covers this. @@szilardfineascovasa6144

​@@szilardfineascovasa6144 "Bro, just because an image of Jesus existed, doesn't mean anyone respected or honored it at all." Doesn't it get tiresome? The iconoclastic rejection of the veneration of images pretty much concludes in that those images should be destroyed because they promote idolatry. I don't think you can have it both ways.

@@nicodemuseam Why do you freely mix and match words? "Respect" is one thing, "veneration" is another. But yes - I'd rather have all icons destoryed, than see, functionally, idolatry, all around me. In a country that boasts "2000 years of Christianity".

@@szilardfineascovasa6144 Respect/honor basically entail the same thing in our common vernacular. If something is respected, it is honorable. Let's close the noose on your worldview, shall we? You have admitted your iconoclasm. Given the prescription that "honor passes to the prototype" is Biblical: And the King will answer and say to them, "Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.' - Matthew 25:40 Therefore, you reject the fundamental understanding of what it is to be made in the image of God and what is entailed in loving our fellow men as images of God. The honor we give to man is relative to God, for all glory and honor belongs to Him. We glory in the Saints of God, because they are the workmanship of God shewing forth His Glory, unto the ages of ages. The honor we give to the Holy Icons, we are giving not to paint and wood, but the works of the Lord depicted therein. It's all bound together. If you are comfortable with destroying the image of Jesus, you are not one with us. If you are not one with us, you are not part of the Church of God; You can hardly be called a Christian. You have bound yourself to the God-hating iconoclasts, the children of satan, but it is in no wise too late for repentance.

I have to disagree with you here. We certainly should care if it's an accretion. The notion of apostolic tradition is rendered nonsensical if something which the apostles did not historically practice and would have condemned can be considered apostolic because one finds a philosophical argument persuasive. In the end, it's my conviction that all sound philosophical arguments will lead towards the same conclusion that all historical arguments will, but II Nicea relied very heavily on historical arguments.

Sorry,@@philoalethia I'll try and get to this today or tomorrow

@@philoalethia 1. The claim “there’s no evidence of honorific practices towards images in the pre-Nicene era” Is different from “there’s no evidence of bowing towards or kissing images in the pre-Nicene era” Ortlund’s original claims in the videos were slightly ambiguous on what he regarded as veneration (not a fault with him-it’s just something that would naturally need to get cleared up over time as the issue gets discussed more). Sometimes he said “cultic use of images”, and I’m fairly sure (though I’d have to look for the specific wording) that Ortlund takes actions such as lighting candles in front of an image or placing a crown on it as veneration. This came out in his video reply to Craig Truglia, since Ortlund acknowledged that the Acts of John describes image veneration (but it doesn’t describe bowing or kissing). Of course Ortlund noted that the Acts of John is a Gnostic text, and said it isn't a good source for that reason (I agree with Ortlund, but I'll have something unique to say on that in the next video) I think there’s a dilemma here: either Ortlund is using the same definition of venerate as II Nicea, or he’s using a different definition. If he’s using the same definition, then it encompasses many forms of veneration (such as adornment and exaltation) and I’ve shown that several of these are present in the pre-Nicene era (mission accomplished). If he’s using a different definition, then it’s hard to see how his claim “there’s no image veneration pre-Nicea” would be part of a successful internal critique (it would be like if someone really liked mustaches and defined image veneration as painting a mustache on a portrait and then said "there's no evidence of veneration of images pre-Nicea--we would all say, "so what?") If he wanted to change the challenge to “where is bowing to and kissing images in the pre-Nicene era?” that’s different. It would be good to acknowledge what has been established, in that case (ceremonially directing honor through images to prototypes *is* there pre-325) and re-frame the challenge as being about bowing and kissing specifically. 2. Re: St. Ignatius, I’m not saying that modern people will naturally see that what’s being described is the image of the cross being placed high up and treated as a point of attention to honor it. But it does seem most plausible to me that this is what he means when we understand what a standard is and the words St. Ignatius uses. The Greek used to describe the cross’s lifting is the same as that used for Simon of Cyrene lifting the cross (that’s physical, visible) and is spoken of as “for all ages”-permanently visible. Calling something a standard (even if this is symbolic language) precisely means “that thing is a visible, exalted, honored object.” Symbolic doesn’t mean there’s not a physical thing being described, just that the meaning of the physical aspect is embedded into the language about it. Insisting that something is being injected back into the passage does not deal with the actual arguments being made about how to interpret this. 3. You say “Further, I don't think that Ortlund (or Christ) objects to acts of veneration that are, effectively, veneration of Christ and his salvific work.” But again, that’s not the question. The thing I’m focused on is rebutting the claim that there was no veneration of images in the pre-Nicene era. This is what the evidence I’ve presented supports, which is why I think a defender of Ortlund would have more success acknowledging that there was some image veneration, but continuing to argue that bowing and kissing is absent (or problematic for some other reason). 4. Regarding the question of whether God ever makes it necessary to venerate any images: Would any hypothetical Israelites who didn't walk around the city of Jericho with the ark be failing to venerate an image? I would regard placing an image at the center of a procession as a form of veneration (just think of when someone does this with an idol--Christians automatically regard this as honoring the idol) Would hypothetical Israelites who didn't look at the bronze serpent be failing to venerate an image? Focusing on an image with an attitude of faith and hope, in order to receive healing from God, definitely seems like a form of veneration. Would Moses have been failing to follow God if he had not made the bronze serpent and lifted it high up (exalted it, actually - ala exaltation of the cross)? If what I'm saying is correct, it does seem like sometimes God requires people to show honor to various images. It's not because of what the image is in and of itself (in terms of composition and parts) but because God chooses to manifest His presence and power in the world through the shaping of those materials into a form fit for Him to work through. If so, this definitely casts II Nicea in a different light.

@@MichaelGarten If one reads the full quote from Ignatius, it is easy to see that the cross was not the standard which has been raised, rather it is Jesus himself through the resurrection which was the standard which was raised. “Of this we are fruit by His divinely-blessed passion, that He might set up a standard for all ages, through His resurrection, to all His holy and faithful [followers], whether among Jews or Gentiles, in the one body of His Church.” He set up a standard “through His resurrection.” No cross (or cross veneration) is in view here. Also, if one reads the entirety of the letter to the Smyrnaeans then it is clear to see that the entire point of the opening sections (Chapters 1-7) is that Christ came in the flesh, was crucified in the flesh, and was raised in the flesh. He was combating proto-Docetism of some sort it would seem. Regardless, to read in this passage the veneration of icons is truly eisegetic. Regarding signet rings, the rings were used to seal documents. Prevention of theft and thus forgery was the reason they were guarded and only taken out at certain times, not because they were holy or venerated. Later in the passage you quoted by Pliny it clearly states that theft is the reason for keeping them hidden. “And so far from its being enough to keep the very keys sealed, often the signet ring is taken from the owner's finger while he is overpowered with sleep, or actually lying on his death bed.” Regarding Tertullian, having the good shepherd painted on a cup does not mean that they were venerating the cup. I have a painting that I made with this same scene from when I was in middle school. I don’t venerate it even though I was proud of the artwork I did at the time. He’s just using the painting to get his readers/listeners to think about the story of the lost sheep and what is the true meaning of the sheep. Again, the only way veneration is seen in this passage is to read it into it. Even if one were to accept that walking with the ark was a form of veneration (Which why would it be? Were they venerating it the entire 40 years that they wandered in the wilderness as well?), in your example with the procession of the ark at Jericho there were an entire company of people who did not walk around venerating the ark - the women and children of the Israelites. Only the men of war and the priests with the trumpets marched around Jericho. So all the women and children failed to give veneration then? Why did God not strike them down with the people of Jericho? Maybe it’s because they were just being obedient to what God had instructed them to do, as militarily silly as it seemed at the time. Again there is no veneration in view here. Regarding the bronze serpent, you weaken your argument even further. If simply looking on an object is veneration, then all of creation is venerated at all times as God gave us eyes to see the world He created. This reduces veneration to something which is meaningless. What Israel eventually did with the serpent is also the type of accretion which Dr Ortlund is arguing is in view with icon veneration as currently practiced. They were used for one thing in the early church, and then misused in later times. The case seems clear to me. Grace and peace to you.

​@@jdoe97 Thank you for the interaction, Below I’ve attempted to summarize your objections (hopefully I’m getting them accurate, but please let me know if there’s something I omitted or skewed). I focused only on the pre-Nicene evidence, but will try and reply about the Biblical material in a later comment. I’m cross-posting this on my Substack for people to reference too. Objection 1: The standard St. Ignatius is talking about is Christ, not the cross, since Christ’s resurrection is in view: Response: The phrase “Of this fruit we are, by His divinely blessed passion” has as the antecedent of “this” his cross, which is in view throughout the entire section of the letter, including immediately before: “and was truly, under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, nailed for us in His flesh.” He is obviously talking about the cross right before, and he says we are the fruit of it “by His divinely blessed passion.” The reference to the cross as tree of life is also present elsewhere in the Saint, who says that any people who are planted by God the Father will "appear as branches of the cross, and their fruit would be incorruptible" (Letter to the Trallians, XI). We see a similar teaching in the Epistle of Barnabas about the tree of the cross during (arguably) the same time period. The fact that the cross is in view is further confirmed by the fact that the exact Greek wording used to describe the lifting up of the standard is the same as in Matthew 27:32: “And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to bear his cross.” (ἠγγάρευσαν ἵνα ἄρῃ τὸν σταυρὸν). To trace why the resurrection is in view at the same time, please see my response to objection 2. Objection 2: St. Ignatius’ goal in the letter is not to express veneration of the cross, but combat an early form of Docetism (the heresy which denies Jesus is human, and instead regards Him as appearing to be human). Response: It is precisely as part of his combatting of proto-Docetism that St. Ignatius ends up claiming that the cross is a standard. The resurrection of the Incarnate Son of God reverses the meaning of the cross. Christ’s resurrection turns the cross-the supreme instrument of degradation and death, a sign and weapon against human glory and life-into something "lifted up", heaven-directed, a trophy and symbol of victory that spreads life and honor eternally. Saint Ignatius' teaching about the cross as standard is an extension of His teaching that the Son of God becomes flesh to share His glory/honor with creation. Objection 3: It is eisegesis (reading something into the text from your own ideas which isn’t there in the original) to read this as a reference to veneration of icons Do you think lifting up, gathering around, and focusing on a flag is a way of honoring it? Do you acknowledge that the Romans did this (and far more than modern people) with a battle sýssimon (σύσσημον)? The claim isn't that St. Ignatius is talking about a portrait icon, but that he's talking about the cross of Christ and by extension the images of it Christians would make and possess. We know that visual representations of the cross were present in Christianity during this time period, and several 2nd and early 3rd century authors echo what Saint Ignatius says about the cross as a standard. Further, many early Christian authors accuse Romans of inadvertently reverencing the cross because their battle standards share its form. This interpretation of Saint Ignatius as talking about the cross as an exalted object of reverence (and by extension, images of it that Christians make) therefore, is the opposite of eisegesis-it is a highly-contextualized reading based on cultural backgrounds and widespread sub-Apostolic testimony. Objection 4: Signet rings were valuable because they were used to seal documents-not because they were considered holy objects. Pliny the elder talks about hiding signets so that they won’t get stolen: “And so far from its being enough to keep the very keys sealed, often the signet ring is taken from the owner's finger while he is overpowered with sleep, or actually lying on his death bed.” Response: Of course Pliny wants the ring hidden to avoid theft as in a sense a practical measure. But what makes a signet valuable enough that someone would want to steal it? The motive would not just be financial and gain-related; when we account for the hierarchical and embodied perspective of older cultures, it is easy to see how this theft would instead be primarily related to status and honor. For ancient people, honor and status came from your connection to gods or great ancestors (who came from the gods). This is why gods and ancestors were typical signet images, because the signet was connected to sacred sources of honor. And it explains and illuminates why Pliny would speak of bringing the ring forth as from a sanctuary as opposed to merely a hiding place. Also, by way of analogy, there was concern in the Roman world that idols could be stolen or defaced, but that doesn't mean it wasn't an act of honoring the idol to place it veiled in the middle of a sanctuary. Preventing people from having access to something can therefore be grounded in the fact that it is set-apart, sacred, like an image of a god or an ancestor. Thus, concealing something to prevent theft doesn’t mean you aren’t concealing something sacred. The having of a signet-image confers honor upon the wearer, which is why Joseph is venerated and bowed to (Genesis 41:38-44) immediately after Pharaoh appoints him to bear the royal signet-image. This response of the people is connected to the signet-image's intrinsically honorable quality in the ancient understanding. This explains why the Roman emperor also had a specially-appointed signet bearer who would transport the image, as well as the practice of kissing the golden imperial ring. Because gold was considered to be more honorable (honor-able, as in evocative of honor), the power to grant someone the right to wear a gold ring was typically reserved for the emperor. Saint Methodius of Olympus in the third Century confirms this common understanding about the use of gold for crafting images: "the images of our kings here, even though they be not formed of the more precious materials - gold or silver - are honoured by all. For men do not, while they treat with respect those of the far more precious material, slight those of a less valuable, but honour every image in the world" (2nd Discourse on the Resurrection) But Clement says that Christ can grant the right to wear "a finger-ring of gold." The signet image would therefore be either composed of or housed in the material most evocative of honor and various gestures of respect. To deny that signet-images were treated by Christians in an honoring way is to misunderstand the kind of object in question. Objection 5: anyone can make an image of the Good Shepherd, but that doesn’t mean he or she will venerate it. Tertullian’s comments about the Good Shepherd image on the cup are about their educational value, not image veneration. Response: The argument from Tertullian isn't that the image of the Good Shepherd taken in isolation means image veneration. It's the fact that it is being used on a cultic cup which (by means of that painting) has been set apart for worship of the divine Being (Christ in this case) who is imaged on it. This is a common ancient near-eastern practice, as I briefly laid out in the video in relation to the Lycurgus cup and symposium cups (though many other examples could be brought forward). In its ancient context, the acknowledgement given to the cup's image directs worship to the divine being who is portrayed. This is why Tertullian is basically saying to his opponents (who are not rigorists about post-baptismal sin like he is) "if you use the Shepherd of Hermas as your source of doctrine, we might as well say you have the Shepherd of Hermas and not the Good Shepherd depicted on your cups." The one whose image is acknowleded is the one who is worshipped; that divine being is the patron or guardian of the mystery-banquet, the one into whom the worshipper is mystically initiated by the ritual (hence the language of initiation, patronage, imbibing).

@@MichaelGarten Thanks for the time you put into your response. I still have the same objection regarding Ignatius' letter to Smyrna as I did before. One must read into the text that the standard which is raised is the cross. It is not explicitly stated nor implied in the text. The word cross only appears in the Greek once in the entire letter, at the beginning, in reference to the readers’ faith being immovable (as if nailed to the cross). However, the words flesh or body occur 10 times in the letter with additional references to things Jesus did in the flesh. Reading the text there are 60 words in the Greek between the words τω σταυρω (to the cross) and αφ’ ου καρπου (from/of this fruit/harvest). Between those two phrases there is the definition of what the readers’ unmovable faith entails: a synopsis of the life of Jesus with the focus that he came in the flesh - the seed of David in the flesh, truly born of a virgin, baptized by John, crucified by Pilate and Herod in the flesh. The life and death of Jesus (specifically in the flesh) is the antecedent for “of this,” not the cross mentioned passingly in a simile 60 words previously. Further, if Ignatius indeed was combating Docetism as it seems, then it would make no sense for the standard which is raised up to be the cross. It would not refute them as they agreed that Christ went to the cross in appearance but not in the flesh. Again, the key in the entire first half of the letter is Christ in the flesh. He set up the standard “through his resurrection.” What was raised up at the resurrection? Jesus in the flesh. The cross wasn’t raised up at the resurrection. If you don’t agree with me, just read what Ignatius wrote in explanation two sentences later. “And He suffered truly” -- again referencing his passion -- “even as also He truly raised up Himself” -- again explaining what was raised up. His resurrected body is the standard which was raised for all ages, not the cross. I will try to address your other responses as I have time. Grace and peace to you.

@violoncello4439 I think other presentations on this subject have largely succeeded in putting forward plausible alternative interpretations of the pre-Nicene authors that Ortlund and others use to support the claim that the early Church rejected images. There's more that can be said about it, and we'll get around to it (including responding to the quotes you referenced). In the meantime, I do recommend Suan Sonna's treatment of these quotes, William Albrect's, and Trent Horn's (they all contributed good points in undercutting an aniconist reading of the pre-Nicene authors, though they didn't put forward much by way of rebutting aniconism and providing positive evidence). However, claiming that my quotes only show that images were used for religious education flies in the face of the various ceremonial and ritual actions described in the quotes--directed through images to a prototype. These actions include exaltation and gathering around an image (St. Ignatius), the implied ceremonial concealment and handling of an image (Clement), adornment (Origen), acknowledment as a means to directing worship towards the painted Patron (Tertullian), and other honorific actions (St. Methodius). In light of these descriptions in the same authors about image veneration practices, and in light of the fact that these authors would have paganism in view primarily, doesn't it make sense to read the quotes you listed as rejections of idolatry--as opposed to image veneration of non-idolatrous images? (this is even before we look at each quote on a case-by-case basis)

@@MichaelGarten Well, the reason I watched this video is because I thought Horn and others failed to undercut the iconoclast reading. Horn even admitted that Tertullian was an iconoclast, along with endorsing Newman's development of doctrine! I assumed that the Eastern Orthodox would approach the evidence differently. As for 'the implied ceremonial concealment and handling of an image (Clement), adornment (Origen), acknowledgment as a means to directing worship towards the painted Patron (Tertullian)'. Those practices are consistent with Protestantism, except for what you attribute to Tertullian. 'Worship' is never mentioned by you or Tertullian in that whole segment of the video, so I don't know why you are inserting that now. Tertullian only ever speaks of patronage and initiation, or a relationship of instruction/education between 'The Shepherd of Hermas' and its followers, and not once does he mention religious worship through 'holy images'. The standard here is the doctrine in Nicaea 2's anathemas, as in Ortlund's video. If you think these Fathers were Eastern Orthodox, then you must show that they approved of the _worship_ of Christ through icons, or that they considered some art to be holy and worthy of religious veneration. All we have seen so far with respect to the notion of 'holy images' and paying homage to them, is firm iconoclastic rejection on the part of the Fathers, as presented by Ortlund.

@@MichaelGarten Thanks for your argument and reply to me though! I honestly do think the EO approach is much better than the RC on this issue.

@@violoncello4439 sorry for the wait. I appreciate that you're willing to go back-and-forth. re: the other videos, I don't think they rebutted the claim that icon veneration is pre-Nicene, but they did in many ways succeed in undercutting the aniconist reading. To rebut it, they would have to provide evidence that the claim "the early Church lacked image veneration practices" was false. To undercut it, they would just have to show the evidence for it is bad (or just not very strong). My goal is to rebut the claim (and I think when all the evidence is laid out it will be quite strongly rebutted). The goal in my two parts of this presentation isn't to show that Protestantism is false, or that these Fathers were Orthodox (although I think looking into them would yield that conclusion). It's to show that there are ceremonial or ritual practices directed through images to the prototype. So even if some of these practices are consistent with some forms of Protestantism, that's okay. But it does mean that there was image veneration in the pre-Nicene Church and that Dr. Ortlund's claim was incorrect (and can't serve as grounds for a critique of Orthodoxy). The Tertullian comments are in the context of the Eucharist, so worship is in view; the initiation in question is cultic--it's not just teaching ideas, but also includes ritual initiation into the mystical worship of God. His concern is that these particular Christians are failing to acknowledge the image of Christ the Good Shepherd on the Eucharistic chalice. This failure (in Tertullian's view) is making it so that they are honoring the Shepherd of Hermas (book? character in the book?) instead--treating it/him as the patron. So worship is in view, and when done properly, the acknowlegement (honor) given to the painting (image) passes to the Patron (prototype)--namely Christ. It would be interesting to see your engagement with the wording (outside of the Tertullian quote) that I've adduced to show evidence of ceremonial/cultic treatment of images to direct honor to their prototypes. Asserting that these writers did not approve or practice image veneration ("all we have seen...") flies in the face of the arguments I made.

@@MichaelGarten No problem for the wait. At the beginning of Ortlund's video, he says 'an ecumenical council anathematises what is actually the universal and resounding view of the Early Church'. I take this to be the central claim, rather than 'the early Church lacked image veneration practices', which is true or false as a consequence of the view of the Early Church on images. Of course your argument isn't irrelevant, it just misses the point of the debate in my opinion, which is that Nicaea 2 anathematises the views of Clement, Tertullian etc.. And so a church which adheres to Nicaea 2 cannot claim to be a continuation of the Early Church. 'The Tertullian comments are in the context of the Eucharist, so worship is in view;' This presupposes the EO view of the Eucharist; why should I believe that worship is involved? Chapter 9 of the Didache ascribes thanksgiving and prayer to the sacrament (as in the Greek meaning of 'eucharistia'). 'This failure (in Tertullian's view) is making it so that they are honoring the Shepherd of Hermas (book? character in the book?) instead--treating it/him as the patron. So worship is in view,' The first sentence you can read entirely within my interpretation (patronage/initiation), but then you say 'So worship is in view,' I do not see how that follows. I consider Clement and Tertullian to be most relevant here since we all agree that they are authoritative, but Ortlund argued that they were iconoclastic, but he didn't mention Ignatius or Methodius, so I can give an interpretation of your quote from Clement. You said 'The holy handling (honor) given to the signet (image) passes to the aspect of Christ' which I assume you derive from the quote 'and if there be one fishing [on the signet ring], he will remember the apostle,' Neither here nor anywhere else in the quote can I see honour 'passing' through the signet to the Christ. I can grant for the sake of argument that the ring was inherently venerated by concealment and memorialisation. Even so, why believe this honour passes to Christ, and not that the practice promotes piety in the minds of individuals? Clement simply says that the image will cause the wearer to remember the apostle. And of course, there's nothing there about the signet ring being holy, or _worship_ passing through it.

Lol

I don't think they are arguing that "syssemon" means icon per se. They are arguing that it means "standard" which is a physical banner that signifies something (and they are therefore arguing that there was a physical representation of the cross). Likewise, in Mark 14:44, there is a physical banner signifying which man is the one who is Jesus (signified by Judas' kissing of Judas). You trying to misconstrue this as them saying that "syssemon" always implies an icon is either ignorance or dishonesty on your part.

@@alpinefool8814 the problem is that it has nothing to do with icons and to say otherwise is fallacious

The problem is that you didn't understand their point even when I clarified it to you and instead tried to strawman it as them saying that "syssemon" was synonymous with "icon." Which wasn't their argument. And it's a "little sad" that you felt the need to perseverate in your misunderstanding of it. @@adenjones1802

The word for standard can mean other public signs like a signal (kiss in Judas case). Context determines whether it’s a public gesture or a public banner. In St Ignatius the context is the victory of a king and the sign in question is spoken of as being elevated. Banner therefore is the most reasonable interpretation, especially given how widely known battle standards were in the Roman world. Please see my more recent deep dive video on this channel on St Ignatius for further argument about this point.

​@@johnnybeeham8017Not sure what you're getting at. The point isn't to prove it's true, but that there's a tradition that exists.

@@johnnybeeham8017 Not what I said. Gavin's whole deal is to prove there's no continuity, not that it's not true. Our only job is to prove it has historical precedent. You're just showing your ignorance. If Seraphim was going to argue the incoherence of protestantism he'd have made a 17 hr lecture series. Oh wait.

Ok so early church father after early church father condems icon veneration and you say that they simply got stuff wrong. But one single father supports idol worship (it even talks about gravings of gold and silver so the rubbish idol/icon distinction does not work here) and you say this is the continuation of the church Jesus founded. Being against idolatry is not Gnosticism you pagan.

I have to disagree here. As a young-earth creationist who holds a number of radical positions relative to the consensus in the academy, we should not so quickly dismiss the labors of modern academics, through whom we have access to the breadth of patristic literature that we do. I don't think such dismissal is really warranted from the tradition, either. The writings of St. Basil and St. Maximus (not to mention modern saintly theologians such as Staniloae) do not respond to scholarly criticism of the orthodox teaching with fideist appeals to tradition, but with robust counterarguments. For one who is not convinced of the authority of Orthodox tradition, it does no good to simply appeal to that authority.

What exactly is your point? The Church has always condemned idolatry.

Papyrus is far from the only thing you can paint on, and icons are normally painted on wood. We have art on the walls and ceilings of the catacombs and other churches (such as the Dura-Europos one), dating back to the third century or earlier.

@@seg162 When you say churches, I assume you are referring to church buildings correct? The church building program did not begin until AD326, under Constantine. Before this, they met at homes, caves, tents and tunnels.

@@soteriology400 And those were churches.

@@seg162 That is not how it was used in the first century however.

@@soteriology400 That's absolutely how the term was used in the first century. In fact, it was used more broadly than that. The Apostles repeatedly write about "the church in [insert town/city here]".

The Orthodox Church holds that St. Dionysius corpus was written by him.

@@NavelOrangeGazer That's not what the other churches say though, which is why I wrote it that way.

In the Bible it is explained as to why 2nd commandment was issued. I would recommend to you to examine that prior to misusing it for what it was not originally intended.

Idolatry involves actually propping up the object of veneration (or worship) as a god. We don't worship wood and paint. We worship God. We sacrifice to God. We profess the glorification, worship, and honor of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We don't worship the saints. The reason why we venerate certain departed saints, and consider it more proper to ask them to pray for us than for us to pray for them, is fundamentally because we view them as having lived exemplary _Christian_ lives. To claim, then, that we worship the saints as though they were gods is as absurd as claiming that we worship wood and paint. The Israelites venerated their kings in various fashions without it being considered worship as if unto God. Abraham bowed to the three angels he received (cf. Genesis 18:2). While some were chastised by the angels they bowed down to, others (cf. Daniel 8:17) were not-- so one can presume that those chastised were chastised for mistaking the angel as God Himself. Not even us modern people are so detached from the principle of venerable objects-- we have flags that we treat as worthy of honor, not honoring through it some fabric but _the country_ it represents. We very much recognize that if someone desecrates a flag, it's meant as an insult not to the flag itself, but to the country it represents. We conversely understand that those who raise them high and take care of them do so in reverence of the country for which the flags stands. I've also seen some of the recent prooftexting of the Church Fathers regarding icons. They've generally fallen into at least one of three categories: 1) they're taken out of context and don't rightly refer to the orthodox practice of icon/relic veneration, 2) they come from people who are so strict on the topic that they don't like any kind of art (which contradicts any position on this topic), or 3) they indirectly express that their view is the minority one in the Church they continue to serve.

@@seg162 No, you don't worship saints, but your pray to them, with the excuse that you are "praying through them." Jesus gave us a model prayer, and it is never directed to anyone but God Himself. Veneration is a type of worship, no matter what efforts you make to deflect from they fact. Honor and veneration are two different things.

@@user-hw5pd1mv9b We don't say that we "pray through saints". We ask saints to pray for and with us. Jesus indeed gives us a model prayer, but He does so in the context of telling us what our priorities should be _in contrast to the pagans._ It's very obvious that while the Lord's prayer is proper in its own right, but the greater purpose of it is to establish what our priorities should be when we seek God. "Venerate" is not different than "honor". In English, they're synonyms (Oxford). I've already given you multiple un-condemned examples of veneration of other people in the Old Testament.

@@seg162 The fact remains, prayer is directed to God alone. To "ask" the saints to intercede is a form of necromancy. It matters little how on may wish to evade that. The model prayer is constructed as it is for a purpose. Showing how prayer is done, contra the pagans, is only one part of its purpose. Paul told us that only Christ mediates between God and man. He is the intercessor, and no one else. Context determines the final meaning of the word as used. The manner in which Mary, and others are venerated is a form of worship. The manner in which Mary is treated by the RCC, she is a demi-god, and can not do the things that are attributed to her without being divine or semi-divine.

@@user-hw5pd1mv9b In a communion where there is no altar-based offering-- which is what the Orthodox consider the core of worship-- it may be sensible to think that prayer is the highest form of worship. What is less understandable is the idea that Christ's mediation between God and man (on account of Him uniting with Himself our humanity with His divinity, abolishing the wall of enmity we built against Him) is synonymous with the intercession that we all do for each other. To ask for the intercession of saints does not rely on evil, but on calling on people sanctified by God-- the assertion that it does rely on evil is even less understandable.

How is it sparse. They literally show like ten pieces of evidence. They defined veneration and proved it was pre 325.

@@bradspitt3896 Ya, I hear ya man. I guess it just felt like they were stretching their examples. Like even after they explained at length about how their passages were about iconography, the fact that they have to go to such pain to convince folks that those passages are even talking about iconography in the first place was disappointing. Here's what I'm saying, maybe this will be a good clarification. I think these guys did a really good job with what they had to work with based on the literature. I was just hoping there would be a greater and more decisive body of literature to draw on. The fact that the RECORDS are so sparse and seem so unspecific is unfortunate. A few examples they chose to share about seemed like they -might- be related to iconography, and it just felt like they were really stretching their case to show that and then building a lot of their argumentation on implication. Which is always a dangerous game because you can suggest very strongly that an explicit statement somehow contains your implicit point, and it can come across very convincingly. The fallacies are often hard to see through that haze. I don't think that's what they're doing but it does make me feel uneasy. All that said, I'm totally open to being completely wrong about that. I'm not an iconoclast by any means. I'm an inquirer looking seriously at Orthodoxy, Gavin's OG video was a big stumbling block in that journey. So I'm totally rootin' for these guys I hope they're right and I hope their case is strong. Maybe you can help me understand how strong their case really was, 'cause I'm not quite seeing it.

@@davidbolt9566 That's because protestants don't grasp the essence-energy distinction. To us, the whole world is an icon. So because icons didn't have the same form as they do today, they have to go to other examples of material objects (via type/prototype) are venerated. It's not their fault that they have to go to such trouble.

@@bradspitt3896 sure, sure. So I'm deeply familiar with Gregory Palamas' essence energies distinction and how it pertains to icons and I think it's a brilliant way of talking about icons philosophically. But how does that connect to the historical question of icon veneration within the early church? Or does it, sorry I might be confusing your point there.

@@davidbolt9566 Because they don't grasp how EVERYTHING is an icon, they hyper focus on venerating images, like an icon of a Saint. So Seraphim is going into history to show how they venerated other things like a cross or a ring or whatever. I don't get how you think this is going to "great lengths" for something. It's not even an hours long video.

1) They're not idols. 2) Objects and images worthy of veneration were not foreign to the Jews, not least of all because the concept of _people_ worthy of veneration was also not foreign to them. Even in American culture, the flag is venerated as a symbol of the country (think of flag rules, or the Pledge of Allegiance), and whatever honor or dishonor done to it is understood to be reflected _on the country for which it stands._ 3) The Church existed and functioned at least 18 years before the first document of the New Testament was produced, and the letters (that, along with the gospels, were preserved as the New Testament) were often occasioned. 4) People weren't banned from owning Bibles, if only in the East. The printing press hadn't been invented for 1500 years, so it was _extremely difficult and expensive_ to produce a Bible-- let alone purchase one. 5) It wasn't disallowed to translate the Bible, for the most part. There already existed translations of the Scriptures in Greek by the time of Christ. They were translated into Syriac. St. Jerome, famously, translated the Hebrew Bible into Latin. The Ethiopians translated theirs in Ge'ez, and the Copts in their own language. The alleged issue the RCC, at least, had with translation efforts outside of its boundaries, was that the translations would be skewed as to challenge Catholic doctrine (cf. the Tyndale Bible). Even now, various translations of the Bible have been criticized for having skewed translations or interpolations (think of the NIV, or The Message, or especially the New World Translation). 6) If your claim is that people were prevented from reading the Scriptures in order to prevent people from noting doctrines that contradicted them, you may as well fear that the Scriptures were selected and/or edited in order to reflect the doctrines of the Church that first used them. 7) We're not Catholics.

@seg162 No, you worship graven images. Meaning you worship idols. The letters which are scripture the divinely inspired word of God. The old Testament was canonized by the Jew people. The New Testament was canonized by the early church of scripture known to be written by the original deciples and apostles.

@seg162 also it's not a just a claim the catholic church forbid people from reading the bible, transcribing the bible, or translating the bible it is part of your ecumenical counsels. COUNCIL OF TOULOUSE - 1229 A.D. Canon 14. Forbids the laity to have in their possession any copy of the books of the Old and New Test. except the Psalter and such portions of them as: are contained in the Breviary: or the Hours of the Blessed Virgin; most strictly forbids these works in the vulgar tongue. The Council of Tarragona of 1234, in its second canon, "No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned lest, be he a cleric or a layman, he be suspected until he is cleared of all suspicion."(Source: D. Lortsch, Historie de la Bible en France (1910) p.14.) "It is dangerous, as St. Jerome declares, to translate the text of Holy Scriptures out of one idiom into another, since it is not easy in translations to preserve exactly the same meaning in all things. We therefore command and ordain that henceforth no one translate the text of Holy Scripture into English or any other language as a book, booklet, or tract, of this kind lately made in the time of the said John Wyclif or since, or that hereafter may be made, either in part or wholly, either publicly or privately, under pain of excommunication, until such translation shall have been approved and allowed by the Provincial Council. He who shall act otherwise let him be punished as an abettor of heresy and error."(Source: The Western Watchman "The Word of God", The English Bible Before the Reformation, page 7.) At the ecumenical Council of Constance, in 1415, Wycliffe was posthumously condemned by Arundel, the archbishop of Canterbury, as "that pestilent wretch of damnable heresy who invented a new translation of the scriptures in his mother tongue." By the decree of the Council, more that 40 years after his death, Wycliffe's bones were exhumed and publicly burned and the ashes were thrown into the Swift river. William Tyndale William Tyndale completed a translation of the New Testament from the Greek in 1525, which the church authorities in England tried their best to confiscate and burn. After issuing a revised edition in 1535, he was arrested, spent over a year in jail, and was then strangled and burned at the stake near Brussels in October 6th, 1536. It is estimated today that some 90 percent of the New Testament in the 1611 King James Bible is the work of Tyndale. Tyndale was unable to complete his translation of the Old Testament before his death

@@777Thebear 1) We don't worship "graven images" (Hebrew _pesel,_ Greek _eidolon),_ which are fundamentally different than "icons" or "images" (Hebrew _tselem,_ Greek _eikon)._ We know this distinction matters, and that God does not forbid the creation of images in and of themselves, because elsewhere, God commands the Israelites to create depictions of creatures such as cherubim on the sides of the Ark as well the curtains of the Tabernacle. The Second Commandment, on the other hand, forbids _even the creation_ of "graven images". 2) We don't sacrifice to icons, sacrifice being at the core of worship of a god-- in the eyes of not only the ANE and Greco-Roman pagans, but the Hebrews onwards. We don't believe that those depicted actually inhabit the icons, as the ANE pagans believed their gods to inhabit their statues. Unlike the gods of both the ANE and Greco-Roman pagans, the people and angels depicted in the icons _do_ exist, and are necessarily merely creatures-- departed humans, as well as angels (rather than demons or demonic delusions). We certainly don't worship wood and paint, either. The people or angels who are depicted in the icons are only honored _because of their lives of fealty to God and the works He did in their lives,_ so it makes no sense to claim that we worship those who are depicted as though they were any kind of divinity. The icons are all-but-inseparable from the remembrance of the lives led by those depicted. 3) The Jewish canon of scripture wasn't concretely established until well after the destruction of the Second Temple; furthermore, the use of the Greek Old Testament, which was often larger than the current Jewish canon, was generally popular among Jews in the first century until Judaism and Christianity distinguished themselves from each other. As for the Church, there wasn't any singular canon list between different jurisdictions-- so we see several discussions about it from bishops and councils between the 4th-7th centuries, and we see the book of Revelation being uniformly accepted so late that it isn't in any Eastern Christian lectionary. Regardless, you're deferring to an authority (in your case, the Pharisees/rabbinic Jews) to tell you what documents constitute Scripture, and you're trusting a Church you impugn to not have tampered with said Scriptures (and also, to have canonized the right manuscripts). 4) We aren't Catholic. The Council of Toulouse isn't an ecumenical council for the Orthodox. Furthermore, the Council of Toulouse wasn't an ecumenical council _within the Roman Catholic Church._ Also consider how you had to find a local council nearly a millennium away from Pentecost and nearly two centuries away from the East-West schism to make your case. 5) Address my examples of vernacular translations of the Scriptures being produced. Old English translations had already existed, and so did vernacular translations for at least most languages whose people had been in contact with Christianity. 6) Tyndale wasn't tried, convicted, and executed for his translation of Scripture, but for advancing a theology in opposition to that of the RCC while also accordingly producing and distributing a translation of Scripture not authorized by the RCC (and it _was_ skewed towards his own beliefs). Without addressing the harshness of executing him _or_ his particular beliefs, the New World Translation by itself is proof positive that the translation of Scripture is not immune to corruptive bias.

@@seg162nice

You want me, a Bible reading, true Apostolic following Christian (Sola scriptura) to even consider the Catholic or Orthodox cults? Wwhhaaaatt!!! NEVER!!!! EVER!!!!

@@pauldbeer I would disagree with such affirmation. First, Sola Scriptura is logically impossible for several reasons. Second, neither Catholicism nor Orthodoxy are "cults," but rather open religions to everyone with hundreds of millions of followers.

Ohh please! Sola scriptura is NOT impossible! How did you come up with that? You suggesting the Bible is not there for us followers to be lead by it?! Ever seen this in the Bible: 2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. Some people should read the Scripture more and maybe will learn from it! Cult: a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object. Pope means anything to you???@@quickrat3348

RC left the True Church in 1054AD in favor of heretical innovations.

@@czuw2967 No. The true Church is the one in communion with the Chair of Peter. And there is no reason to call the filioque clause a heretical innovation.

Because venerating a flag isn’t religious in nature. Not all veneration is bad, just specific types of religious veneration.

@@Alexandros74738 that separation doesn't really exist. If you idolize something which isn't religious in nature, or not in a religious manner, that's STILL idolatry. What you do physically, affects the spiritual, what you do spiritually, affects the physical. There's not really a separation between the two, they're just two different aspects of reality.

@@matheusmotta1750 Idols are inherently religious, you can’t idolizing a flag unless you start ascribing it a divine or religious nature. Veneration doesn’t equal idolatry, and not all veneration is bad as I said.

@@Alexandros74738 idols can be any thing in your life, your work, money, your wife, sex, power.

@@Alexandros74738 It doesn't make a difference whether the veneration is religious in nature-- it's the same exact principle, and indicates that veneration isn't intrinsically idol worship because the recipient isn't understood as a god. You're venerating a country through venerating its flag-- conversely, you mean to disparage a country by deliberately desecrating its flag.

If you are married and wear a wedding ring, you're practicing a pegan tradition.

So what! Are you being childish or just stupid? Not all pagan traditions are religious or related to religion! What exactly is your point?? That partaking in some pagan historical practices automatically makes me none Christian or not religious?? Really! Being foolish aren't we! Can you show me where in the Bible is it written that having a ring on my finger to indicate that I'm married, or just as an ornament, is against God's will? Your way of arguing for Catholicism is not promoting your cause at all! Look, I've been very polite with these arguments up to now. Doing my best not to offend, but it is time I just come out and say what I really think, but I'll keep my cool and just hope more and more Catholics start reading the Bible for themselves and stop eating the crap the pope, and priests feed them for sweet cake! The Catholic official dogma are so Satanic it makes me sick!!! The only reason one can still take the time to argue some points with them, is because most of the Catholics are Catholic only in name. Most modern Catholics do not even Know what their church officially practice and believe, or push as their dogma! Many Catholics I know, grew up in this church movement and are only there because they were brought up that way. Once one start to show them the many non-Biblical nonsense in the church, most start to realise the error of their ways and move away from all the churches traditions! Maybe you'll start to read the Bible and actually practice what it says, not what the church tells you to believe and do!!!! The pope is not God neither a representative of God! Just leaf it at that....

We are not in business of converting you. Icons are placed there by the Holy Spirit to stumble infidels and wall off the Church from unbelievers.

All Mankind is an Icon of the Father and the Son, "Let us make man in Our Image".

@@acekoala457 yes a flesh and blood image, not a icon or statue

@@frederickanderson1860 Genesis 1:26 (LXX) uses the term "eikon" where English speakers would read "image", and it's from that word "eikon" that we derive the English "icon".

@@seg162 yes but the word was made flesh and tabernacled amongst us. Man is flesh and blood, not a icon or painting or statue.

@@frederickanderson1860 I just told you that the term "icon" is used in Genesis 1:26, so it's baffling that you then say that man isn't an icon. Man being flesh and blood doesn't preclude man being an icon of God, either.