Why Gavin Ortlund is Wrong About Icons: Scriptural Foundations 

Refuting Protestantism from the Bible in 17 Hour Lecture Set: buy.stripe.com/dR62bz6Y467KdfGcMM Recordings sent by email. Topic list: 1: Why Answer Protestantism from the Bible? 2: The Arc of Biblical Theology: Creation, Covenant, Redemption, Glorification 3: How Does Christ Purchase Salvation? 4: Justification, Deification, and Imputation 5: Justification, Deification, and Imputation (2) 6: Liturgical Worship in Biblical Theology 7: What Happens in Baptism and the Eucharist? 8: Apostolic Succession, the Holy Priesthood, and the Visibility of the Church 9: The Communion of Saints: Veneration and Intercession 10: The Woman: The Virgin Mary in Scripture 11: Now Mine Eyes Have Seen: Iconography and Idolatry 12: The Biblical Doctrine of Tradition

To summarize Fr. SDY in the live broadcast of the new LoS episode where he connects iconoclasm with a fundamental denial of Christian ethics and a breakdown of the orthodox understanding of the Trinity, he said if you take iconoclasm all the way to its end or conclusion, you can't really support Christianity or call yourself a Christian. If the honor we give to the ones depicted in the icons does not pass to the prototype, then the good works we do in caring for the poor, loving our neighbor, etc. is not done unto Christ as He clearly states in Matthew. The implications for the final judgment are pretty bleak and hopeless for everyone if this is true. If the honor and worship we give to Christ does not pass to the Father, the Trinity isn’t what scripture tells it is then.

As a Catholic who has watched probably all the Catholic responses to Ortlund on this topic (Sonna, Albrecht, Horn/Akin, Catholic Brothers, etc.), I can affirm this video added value to the discussion! The emphasis on "since you saw no form" and tracing that theme through the Old and New Testaments was very interesting and persuasive. Went beyond the usual apologetics based on Jewish liturgical architecture and practice. Based on Ortlund's response below, it seems like you could have spent more time establishing why "making" and "venerating" necessarily form a single unit (how in context you can't really have the former without the latter) and establishing how the Temple itself was indeed viewed as an ICON of heaven or the heavenly Temple (Heb 9:24, Rev 11:19)

How I wish more Orthodox videos would have spanish subs, to show them to my protestant family. Great video, you blew my mind.

As I gradually came to accept the validity of icons when transitioning from Protestantism to Orthodoxy, I could sort of intuit the general point being made here, but I was not able to articulate it much better than "It's because of the incarnation. There was no image before, but now there is". I think this helped me to get a better grip on the specifics about the topic, and how the Bible itself also testifies of these things somewhat clearly. Thank you.

I appreciate how well-articulated you are while giving the reasons why you believe what you believe, Seraphim. May God provide for both you and Michael ♥️

Congrats on your imminent wedding, Seraphim.

An important point that should be underlined in the broader discussion is that veneration, of relics in particular, is a very old practice/inheritance. The eventual (yet early) appearance of images and the development of the visual/symbolic/liturgical language of icons is not something that should undermine the practice of veneration at all.

Michael Garten! Hi! What a pairing, two great minds discussing important matters. I hope this collaboration continues.

Well done! Love this!! Looking forward to the rest of these refutations! ☦️

Great content man, always reliable content and appreciate the work you do. It would be good to see you improve your setup though, like having your mic on a stand so you don't have to hold it, having a more level camera angle and such. Looking forward to all that's in the future. :)

Hello Seraphim. After listening to this presentation, I love the cross reference of scripture between the old and new covenant and I think the exegesis is masterfully done at times. However, I do see that the argument for the use of images now being acceptable due to the incarnation is interesting. When I read scripture, I see that Jesus says he is leaving and he will leave us the Holy Spirit and how he also says that we are to worship in spirit and in truth. As you were speaking, my mind also harkens back to John chapter 20 verse 29, Where Thomas puts his fingers in the wounds of the risen, Messiah, and Jesus says to him “Thomas, because you have seen me you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed“ Since the whole main point of the argument was about seeing and hearing, I think this is important to bring up. I appreciate the presentation, I am praying through these things that if icon Veneracion is an acceptable form of worship to God, that the Holy Spirit would work these things out in me. And I also do see that there are distinctions in uses of images. When Moses could not be found by the Israelite people, Aaron built the golden calf, and said that it was representative of the God that lead them out of Egypt. Whether they were worshiping the calf as God, or worshiping God through the calf, either way, God was not happy with this way of being worshiped. As I said, I am praying prudently about these things and researching, but I still have my convictions.

Garten, you are the perfect person to interact with Ortlund. Two gentlemen who actually put humility above intellect. (Not saying Seraphim isn’t the same, but I know Garten much better). More of this please!

Best work on this topic I've heard. Thanks for doing this!

I love Seraphim but I think this was hard to follow. I understand the point being made primarily because I've already listened to Seraphim make these points before. I can't really send this to a protestant and not expect them to get kind of lost. God bless though, and thanks for the content.

Ortlund is really bent on leading people away from the truth of Christ's Church. His latest brief video "why you should be a Protestant" is sad. It's almost as if he hasn't really sat down and thought through these issues, despite having a PhD in theology. The most glaring head scratcher is the "Augustine believed in sola scriptura" video. I guess saintly intercession, relics, the bishopric, Real Presence in the Eucharist, apostolic succession, and numerous other things that St. Augustine believed are all biblical in that case, right?

Can we link Moses face being veiled to the Veronica cloth?

This gonna be fire

Seraphim is my favorite Orthodox youtuber. Great content, very charitable.

I’m Catholic and I have mad respect for my OrthoBros!

Will you tag Gavin so he can see this because he seems to do some reactions and interaction

where can one find the concept of the three heavens? is it in scripture or some churchfather? thanks

I always find it very interesting that the defense of practices like Icon veneration literally always consist of taking something that is unambiguous and very clear in its context, and then trying to force it to become ambiguous by pulling it out of its context and then developing it into something that it was never trying to say. Also claiming that because God revealed himself as Christ, is somehow justification for venerating an Icon of Mary or some other creature is just odd. So because God the creator now has an image, we should then also bow before images of creatures? The math just don’t math. Scripture is clear in what it says about images, the supposed evidence supporting the making of images always relies upon stretching things out and reading doctrine into them.

So did the other group left and created their own church after? Without images..

Hi, Thanks first and foremost for this great explenation but then I have a question: If God revealed himself in Christ and thus allowed us to depict him don't we try to depict him as realistic as possible? Because every other methode would't really reflect the recieved revelation and following your line of argument be idolatry? Any thoughts on this?

46:20 curious that when Christ and the disciples are picking grain in the field and the Pharisees accuse them of breaking the Sabbath Christ's comparision to David and his retinue doesn't go to David but rather to the Temple. One greater than the Temple is here Christ says.

Thank you for doing this!

Incredible video. Mind blowing.

Hello Seraphim. I like your presentation. How would this argument of not seeing God as a proabition to not make an image of God work with Abraham seeing the theophanie of the Trinity?

Thank you. if you are engaging you should maybe meet with Dr Ortlund to discuss? That would be really helpful. Would you consider it for the future? Congrats on your nuptials by the way

But I don't understand, then, the logic of why Cherubim could be depicted in the Old Testament if they weren't seen (except by a few prophets, I guess). I'm Orthodox, just trying to figure that bit out.

Thank you for doing this. Dr Papandrea and I actually did a video about this on my channel :)

Remember how the other ANE societies specifically show the perversion of idols in a religious sense - they considered each city-god an actual god, and the priests, citizens and visitors of the city would bathe them, feed them, and worship them as actual beings; having your city-god as an empty space inside of an Ark would be confusing to them (who would be fighting Israel's opponent's city-god literally up in the heavens when Israel is at war if they don't have a statue in there?). But Christ brings the ANE paradigm to Israel in a real way! He really IS God, and one that REALLY can eat, bathe and, as He will in His Second Coming, do battle by virtue of His Divine Light just as he did battle with death when He died and rose for us. Only now, when the ANE gods have all toppled, do we have the REAL and PERFECT Icon - Christ.

Big if true. (It’s true)

Come on people, get in here!

Great video! One question that needs to be posed to Protestants and all those who hold iconoclastic tendencies is does the New Testament abolish the economy of sacred images that the Church inherits from the Synagogue and Temple? If so, an account as to why the Early Church had iconography and worshipped liturgically needs to be given. Secondly, the Early Fathers venerated the relics of the Saints. The principle of venerating the relics of the Saints is the same for the veneration of icons. Lastly, the Reformation's doctrine of the invisible church is really nothing more than the application of iconoclasm to Ecclesiology. It is a total relegation of both Christology and Ecclesiology to the realm of invisible platonic forms that only exist as figments of Protestantism's iconoclastic imagination.

☦️♥️ Dear Brother Seraphim, I apologize for being off topic, but I need your attention, I have also already addressed Brother Jay Deyer, as I understand, at the moment our highly respected and valuable apologist Sam Chamoun is in a state of choice between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic , please talk to him about this and help him make the right choice, I ask you for the sake of the Lord☦️♥️

Thank you, gentlemen.

Great videos

amazing stuff...

Looking forward to this takedown

I wish Seraphim would write Bible commentaries

Ortland's failure to mention Dura Europos was a glaring omission on his part.

So if it's only because they had not seen God in physical form, why is the second commandment repeated in 1 John 5:21? Jesus had already revealed himself.

Okay, I finished watching this. Lots of interesting biblical reflections here. I agree with the majority of what is presented here, but don't see why it would constitute showing "Why Gavin Ortlund is Wrong About Icons," as the title suggests. I also wouldn't agree that there is no distinction between making and venerating icons. In the Old Testament, the people of God made iconography in the temple but didn't bow down before and pray through it as a window to heaven. Nonetheless, thanks for engaging my work.

Brother, you sayed that representation of images was forbiden becouse God has not revield Himself. But Moses has wrote how God apear to Abraham as three man. What than Israelites has not represent God how He apeared to Abraham?

Why Gavin doesn't understand Orthodoxy... Because he's Reformed 😁

When are we gonna get a formal debate on this subject

If the opponent denies that a visible representation of God is viable in any way, then the Incarnation cannot be God! By the way, I don't think it's necessarily **wrong** to Tu Quoque with the Biblical Canon not appearing in the earliest Fathers bit, so long as one points out how iconography/relics can be identified or necessitated some other way during Persecution. Knowledge of the Protestant Canon is a bit more difficult to nail down during that era than icons are.

Thank you for your exemplary work

It is claimed that the prohibition against images springs from the fact that the people had not seen God and therefore had no paradigm from which to copy His image, but that we know have seen Jesus (God the Son) and therefore we have such a paradigm. The argument breaks down in Numbers 12:8. Moses saw the form of God and, by the logic presented, he should have been permitted to make an image of God which then could be shown _and copied for all to see._ The fact that Moses was still under the commandment forbidding the making of such an image demonstrates the fallacy of the argument that we have seen God and thus may copy His image. In addition, many believe that Abraham saw God (pre-incarnate Jesus, appearing as one of the three "angels" prior to the destruction of Sodom) and that Jacob saw & wrestled with God; even so, God later said what He said in the "2nd Word." Furthermore, no one during the Apostolic Age created an accurate image of Jesus, so our alleged "copies" of God's image are _faulty,_ and thus _they are just as forbidden as if we created a golden calf _*_or a wafer of bread_*_ and pronounced, 'This is our God!"_

Where’s the next part?

Questions Is this a salvation issue? Is this a primary, secondary or tertiary issue?

So, because the incarnated Son is an icon of the Father, we have an overturning of the religious part of the commandment against Idols; the Commandment doesn't vanish, as we can still sin by them (by e.g. iconoclasm's denial of the intimacy of His two natures or even by over-relying on icons and relics!) but, like the Sabbath going to Sunday, the Commandment transforms and transfigures because of the reality of the Incarnation bringing God personally near to us.

No acknowledgement of Suan Sonna's work/videos? No reference to them?

A Tour de Force

The problem with saying, "Now, we've seen seen His form, therefore the 2nd commandment is reversed" is that we are creating a prescription from a logical possibility, which is obviously problematic.

Thesis is false: God did reveal his form in the old covenant, Moses saw the form of the Lord and the second commanded stood

I heard your case out. Unfortunately it was not very compelling as there were several plot holes, ad hoc arguments, and clear non sequitirs. First, there were a lot of interesting theological points about symbolism and such. (The tabernacle and such being a reflection of the pattern Moses saw of Heavenly court.) I don't disagree with these. The problem is that you will say a lot of solid things then make a jump to Orthdoox belief that is not justified. The first problem is that you misunderstood Romans 1 and idolatry. Idolatry is not about making the image according to our imagination or about making an image according to our imagination (so it is about us). This misses many of the points in Romans 1 and also the attacks made on idolatry in the OT and elsewhere (isaiah and 1 Corinthians). If a demon appeared as an angel of light and demanded worship (or the beast in Revelation) and people made an image of it for worship, that is idolatry. Your philosophical digging into the self-centeredness and error of idolatry does not address this obvious case. This is deeply connected to how you entirely glossed over the part about making images of things in heaven, under the earth, etc. in Exodus. This is not just a prohibition against making images of God, but also his angels and also the gods of the nations (which are at times referred to as demons). These were prominent examples that often came up alongside making images of God. This would be a prohibition against makig an image of one's dead ancestor (or of a prophet like Moses) in order to try to communicate with them. Communicating with the dead is also specifically prohibited elsewhere. My point is that you are trying to reduce the command to a hull which you can then say is no longer in place. Your main logic for this is based on saying "for you saw no form." But since Christ is the image of God (hence a form), the command no longer applies. This is flawed. For instance, just because one reason is given, it does not mean it is the only reason. For instance, it says that we celebrate the sabbath because God rested on the 6th day but also for some other reason at another place. You can't just dismiss a command so easily. More needs to be shown. I could say more about the image of God (which are people, of which Christ is the only perfect image), but I think that a plot hole in our argument is concerning what to make the icon to look like. It is exactly done the way you said that inages were prohibited in the OT: out of people's imaginations. I don't believe we have any extant images of Christ (except maybe shroud of turin which I am not convinced is of Christ) so images are done based on our imagination, based on how people around us look. One of the earliest images of Jesus in the catacombs looks like a Roman with short hair, deeply unlike the images in Orthodoxy. Besides this, all the discussion of Jesus as the image of God in John (which was seen by Moses, some of the elders of Israel, by Abraham, etc. and so by your reasoning they could have made an inage because they saw him contrary to the 2nd commandment), it is a non sequitir / plot hole to say that Jesus is the image of God that we have all seen (even those in Corinth so the universal Church) but somehow we need pictures of Jesus to make his incarnation seen. You unintentionally made an argument against the use of images based on a protestant understanding. I guess you might argue that those in Corinth only sae Christ through the icons that Paul brought. This however undercuts your argument about the non-uniqueness of the apostles' seeing Christ as argued by protestants. About veneration, you hardly justified this. Your argument about the beginning and ending of Ephesians is not valid. It is not a consequence of what you are saying (so it is a non sequitir). Respecting our parents and enjoying our inheritance and also respecting our Father snd receiving an eternal inheritance are interesting analogies worth studying. What this has to do with venerating God through our parents is not something that comes from the text based on your argument. If there isn't another reason yo see this, then you are just reading in what you view the way veneration works then using this eisegesis as evidence that this reasoning is in Scripture. This is flawed reasoning. About common sense veneration, this is a bait and switch. If you say even protestants venerate images by not desecrating them then ok. But that only gives you veneration that one gets by being respectful of an image. It does not give you the idea that you express prayer or worship to or through the image.

Icons are just like the Papacy Nicea 2 used multiple forgeries to prove their point, and we just need 1 example to refute since it claims that the Apostles venerated Icons.

Remember that it's sinful to use unflattering photos meant to mock people. God bless.