Is Icon Veneration a Big Deal? What Most People Miss

[@ScroopGroop]

The whole argument from the other side is “Why are you making such a big deal about something we’ve explicitly said?”

[@tategarrett3042]

"Stop protesting our condemnation of you!"

[@aaronbarkley539]

@@SalGargini Well then they are not part of the church pal.

[@redeemedzoomer6053]

just what the Left says

[@tategarrett3042]

@@SalGargini you're illustrating Gavin's point. The fact that the EO people you know are trying to rewrite either history or their own traditions to claim that this is not the historic belief of the EO church is inconsistent

[@bcarollo1]

Something the Holy Spirit has divinely revealed

[@aaronraju8254]

I think whether or not I’m damned to hell for not kissing a icon is worth making a big deal for.

[@foodforthought8308]

RC does not teach that at all.

[@thehitomiboy7379]

No one needs to kiss any icon.

[@pianoatthirty]

Worshiping the Lord with your heart while kissing an icon won't damn you to hell. Living a life filled with vices, sexual immorality and sinful behavior will. But hey it's easier to make a big deal about icons. All for those YT clicks and views baby!

[@infallibleinterpreter]

What are you even on about

[@daylightsober6138]

@@infallibleinterpreter: To those who apply to the sacred images the sayings in divine scripture against idols anathema! To those who do not kiss the holy and venerable images anathema! To those who call the sacred images idols anathema! To those who say that Christians had recourse to the images as gods anathema! To those who knowingly communicate with those who insult and dishonor the sacred images anathema! Richard Price, The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787) (Translated Texts for Historians, vol. 68; Liverpool University Press, 2020), 577.

[@TharMan9]

Gavin, unlike some of the other commenters I think it’s great that you keep coming back to this topic. It surely needs to be addressed, especially during this internet age.

[@danieladams6066]

Islam Agrees

[@philippbrogli779]

​@@danieladams6066 Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Just because an idiot also holds an opinion doesn't mean it is necessarily wrong.

[@harley6659]

“A pitbull” 😂😂😂

[@BernardinusDeMoor]

@@danieladams6066 Yes, if even Islam is better than you on this, this is quite the indictment.

[@sempelpang]

"Like a pit bull with a toddler, he just won't let it go..."

[@legodavid9260]

"Synods and councils I salute from a distance, for I know how troublesome they are. Never again will I sit in those gatherings of cranes and geese." - Gregory of Nazianzus, Letter 124 (381 AD)

[@RedRoosterRoman]

i wouldnt want to go to a council either. i still accept the dogmatic teachings of those cranes and geese as the Holy Ghost guides them

[@legodavid9260]

​@@RedRoosterRomanIf the conclusions those cranes and geese reached was completely contrary to what is explicitly taught in Scripture, there is no reason why you should accept them at all, let alone consider them "dogma".

[@legodavid9260]

​@@RedRoosterRomanIf the conclusions those cranes and geese reached was completely contrary to what is explicitly taught in Scripture, there is no reason why you should accept them at all, let alone consider them "dogma".

[@LaustibiChriste33]

I'm an Anglican Catholic who is discerning Orthodoxy. I affirm the doctrine of the 7 Councils including the distinctions and doctrines taught by St. John of Damascus and Nicea II. The issue are the anathemas for me. Making icon veneration an obligatory act in order to be saved is difficult to defend.

[@EricTheYounger]

But by what metric can you ascertain that the anathemas are invalid? Either the church has authority or it doesn’t, correct? And the overwhelming historical and biblical evidence points to the church having authority. If you don’t accept the anathemas, then at what point did the church lose authority, and how can someone standing apart from the church make that judgement?

[@aly8380]

That particular obligation is a product of its time in history. At that time, the iconoclasm controversy was violently tearing the church as well as the empire apart. Icon veneration became a shibboleth, meaning a type of litmus test on who is part of the church and who is subtly undermining the church from within. In every Church council throughout the centuries there are issues that are perennial in nature such as the definitive canon of scripture and those that are timebound. The one above is a time-bound aspect of that council. After all, nowadays, in the Roman Catholic church at least, no one is requiring icon or statue veneration. It is certainly permitted to venerate icons or figures but it won't even cross anyone's mind to require veneration. Most Catholics aren't even aware of those traumatic issues long ago. Each age has issues and raging controversies and the councils are often called precisely to address those issues/controversies of the day. Perhaps nowadays, synodality or LGBTQ+ issues occupy our consciousness. But in the future, these things might barely merit a footnote. We need not see certain parts of the councils as errors when in fact they are merely responses to the facts on the ground of their day.

[@foodforthought8308]

Would RC and EO have the authority to reinterpret the anathemas? I'm not aware of any RC in church history since that point excommunicated for refusing to venerate an incon

[@gardengirlmary]

​@EricTheYounger the church has authority, but Protestants believe the church or church leaders can fall into error. This is the difference between Protestantism and other traditions. We interpret Matthew 16 and 18 differently

[@noahjohnson2611]

If you reject icon veneration, you must wonder what's behind that concern. Do you believe that Christ took on flesh and made it holy? Do you believe that the saints are partakers of the divine nature? Do you believe that God works wonders through physical objects? Icon veneration follows naturally from the sum of Orthodox doctrine. I don't get why people are so offended by anathemas. The Bible is full of them. "Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him" (1 Jn 4:15) "Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you." (Jn 15:14) "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha." (1 Cor 16:12) "murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone" (Rev 21:8) Dr. Ortlund has a very narrow view of salvation. This view is not Biblical. While the Church and the Scriptures can say "Anathema" to all types of sinners, it also recognizes the sinfulness of its own members and cries out "Lord, Have Mercy!" By saying, there's no salvation outside the church, we recognize that Church is the Body of Christ (the only source of salvation) there is no salvation outside of Christ, these statements are equivalent. If people are saved outside of the visible unity of the Church, they are still saved through Christ and in His Church. But we, in the Church are not given any assurances for ourselves or others except that God is just and merciful. Dr. Ortlund accuses the Orthodox of being inconsistent. But he says icon veneration is wrong but somehow Orthodox Christians are still Christians? If he were consistent he would claim that Orthodox are not Christians. May the Lord bless your journey.

[@professedlife2501]

I’ve watched many of the videos on both sides of this discussion. This is the dividing line for me. I find myself frustrated with the EO response. The responses lack scholarship and are more rhetoric than substance. After attending an EO church for a year and a half, I decided to remain Lutheran based on Scripture, history, and a lack of scholarly response on important issues, including this one.

[@nurmister]

Hello Pastor Chris, I am currently contending between these two very choices. I see the issue of icons and perhaps more significantly the apparent flip-flopping on ecclesial exclusivity large markers of broader epistemological inconsistencies I now frequently find within Orthodoxy. If you have the time, could you please mention just the names of the other wedge issues you identified?

[@FreshPelmeni]

Did you watch Michael Garten and Seraphim Hamilton's recent response to Dr Ortlund (within the last couple of months)? They disprove his rather strong claim quite decisively in scholarly fashion.

[@iddodomingo6118]

@@professedlife2501 could also come to Oriental Orthodoxy who doesn't hold to Nicaea 2 and keep an unbroken line of succession etc.

[@KarstenArmstrong]

@@FreshPelmeni What argument of theirs did you find particularly compelling? I’ll have to give it a watch again, but their evidence was very slim and their conclusions wildly speculative from the little evidence they presented in my view.

[@GabrielWithoutWings]

This is me as well. In addition to the historical claims, I find the modern EO system has few actually defined beliefs. I’ll most likely stick with the Book of Concord.

[@samgodzwa7927]

Nebuchadnezzar: Whoever doesn’t bow down to my statue will be subject to the fires of the furnace. Nicene II Bishops: Whoever doesn’t kiss these images will be subject to the fires of Hell.

[@kevinrhatigan5656]

You don't get to make up your own Christianity divorced from the historical church. If that was decided by an ecumenical council, accept it.

[@danieladams6066]

Joshua 7:6

[@amieroberg5252]

I hope you understand that doesn't make any sense... God said don't make graven images. He also said to make cherub and a tabernacle decorated with images of heavenly things and a snake on a pole... These things are different.

[@georgwagner937]

@@danieladams6066 after the LORD rebukes Joshua in Joshua 7, 10, is there any other record of Joshua tearing his clothes and falling facedown to the ground before the ark of the Lord???

[@samgodzwa7927]

@@amieroberg5252 I would encourage you to rewatch Gavin’s video. Protestants are not against religious art or images in general, just the veneration of them. The ark of the Covenant was described as a sort of throne for God’s presence to sit on. Other ancient near-eastern cultures had golden boxes similar to the Ark that they put their idols on top of. The Ark was not holy in and of itself, but because the presence of YHWH was literally sitting on it. The Ark itself was never supposed to be the subject of worship, and when the Israelites used it as such in 1 Samuel 4, they were defeated decisively by the Philistines. To summarize, the Ark wasn’t an object of veneration but a device used to honor God. It was more similar to the plate of bread and cup of wine used when taking communion/Eucrist than icons. The cherubs in the tabernacle certainly weren’t objects of veneration, considering the fact that they always refused worship and pointed to God in the scriptures.

[@Grantcfo]

If you want us to stop making a big deal out of it, remove the anathemas

[@amieroberg5252]

Only you can remove the anathema by repenting and joining yourself to The Church

[@SampleText-sb4kh]

🗣️🧱

we will never

[@shanezarcone5401]

Here’s what I don’t understand. You’re literally commenting something like this on a video which explicitly outlines how icon veneration is near indisputably not an early church practice, but in fact came about hundreds of years later. But yet you tell us that we are wrong for rejecting such a late development, meanwhile your supposedly infallible council declares an anathema upon those who say this practice does not trace back to the apostles. It’s just bluntly wrong. How do you totally ignore that and then tell us that we need to repent?

[@LadderOfDescent]

Why do we need to change to accommodate you? You just presume you are correct on this “issue”. Aren’t we supposed to accommodate ourselves to the Church?

[@DrakonPhD]

Between this and the "no salvation outside the church" videos, it seems like the EO church is full of people who gaslight and try to make their extreme and firm statements mushy and vague, and blame non-EO for making a big deal out of the straightforward and obvious meanings of their own words.

[@aaronarroyoofficial]

As much as I love Dr. Ortlund's work, I think he needs to bite the bullet and realize and admit that ecumenism just isn't possible with the EO.

[@ryanward72]

It's generally not EO's saying that this isn't a big issue. That line has come in the vast majority of cases from RC's. EO's celebrate Nicea II every year in the first Sunday of Lent. There's not a lot of ambiguity on this from EO's

[@joshuareeves5103]

@@aaronarroyoofficial That's not correct. Ecumenism is possible with any true Christianity. If we are followers of Christ there is a possibility of unity by his Spirit. Don't cheapen the power of God's Spirit.

[@aericabison23]

💯 I have noticed this too.

[@amieroberg5252]

@@aaronarroyoofficial correct, its actually a heresy. The Bible forbids changing the Faith to fit people’s emotions.

[@NewCreation503]

Coming from 35 years in the russian orthodox church, my family and I are now protestant, Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. The truth will set you free. Seek and it will be revealed

[@Tertiusterz]

I was baptized in the Russian orthodox church which is now in schism with the "Ecumenical Patriarch" of Istanbul, the former Constantinople. Honestly looking at church history brought me to the catholic faith, since the papacy clearly was instituted by Jesus Christ as both scripture and history so clearly demonstrate. One has to live in denial in order to be able not to recognize this fact. In fact, German bible scholars went so far as to claim that those passages in holy scripture which deal with St Peter's leading role in the church were forgeries. Anyway, while scripture and church history prove the Roman catholic church to be the authentic Christian church, the present apostasy also proves that the church is in eclipse and the current so called Roman pontiff is neither catholic nor a pope, the See of Peter is vacant.

[@NewCreation503]

@Tertiusterz the church are the people, the body of christ, not a building or organization. I study scripture and take it seriously, you are welcome to have your belief, and I'm not here to have a debate. There is only one mediator between man and God. Jesus also mentioned there is no one else greater born of man, other than John the Baptist. I will reject anything that directly goes against scripture. If there is no foundation to fall back on then it will all be a mess. I went back to scripture as the truth, not man or the world

[@cohortConnor]

Gavin I want you to know your hour long video on Icon veneration and how it's an accretion was very eye opening. It encouraged me to look further at the history. The violence surrounding this issue in the Byzantine world is unbelievable and quite frankly unchristian. Keep doing what you're doing! Keep defending ecumenical Christianity!

[@Tertiusterz]

"Ecumenical christianity" is merely a phantasy, while violence and exclusion are part of actual church history, i.e. of the actual historical church, whatever one consideres to be the true church, be it the (only truly universal) catholic church, the rather national eastern churches or the even less meaningful oriental churches (and the conflict between the "easterners" and "orientals" is very bloody btw). ) Is as it is.

[@georgecrosthwaite]

Apparently you're not aware of the violence within the protestant reformation

[@pitAlexx]

@@georgecrosthwaite Apparently you do not see what he is pointing to. He is pointing to the Byzantine Iconoclasm where the fight was between venerating the icons and not have icons at all. Now, what do they say? "history is written by the winners"? Incidentally, those who venerate icons came out as the victors.

[@IonniasDeVito]

@@pitAlexx So the Hebrews re writ history when they put together the OT. By destroying the other nations, according to your standard of judgement. Also, the iconoclasts definitely used violence and politics to support their views. So what you're saying is if they had won through these means, than everything would be good and Christian today. The reformers definitely persecuted violently the anabaptists (ironically, how many baptists are participating in this discussion?) and others who disagreed with their views. The point is invalid.

[@qazyman]

Quite frankly you're right! I think it says a lot about grace.

[@julesgomes2922]

Thanks again, Dr Ortlund, for taking the trouble to revisit this topic. Even though you've covered this material in previous videos, it is so good to have it reinforced again. Huge appreciation for your ministry! ❤❤❤

[@raphaelfeneje486]

Anathematizing Christians for a practice that's not known to the early church and majority of the church fathers were opposed to the practice is terrible. That's idolatry! God bless you immensely, Gavin ❤️✝️🙏

[@gabrielgabriel5177]

So are you anathemizing those who do venerate icons?

[@amieroberg5252]

@@gabrielgabriel5177yes, the hypocrisy in these arguments is quite interesting!

[@phantompenguintgl1652]

​​​​​@@gabrielgabriel5177we are not, though it is a huge error we do not curse them, but we do protest against this practice and recognize it as a dangerous innovation of the Church and not a true apostolic nor patristic teaching, and will try to save as many as we can from being deceived by this error. Please, watch the video and look to see whether he is coming from a place of cursing and anathematizing, or genuine concern about this new practice which even the fathers seem contrary to being enforced by anathema on Christians

[@pianoatthirty]

@@phantompenguintgl1652 You 'protest' because instead of being concerned about your own salvation - the empty Protestant "Jesus did everything so I can do nothing" - you have to spend your life judging others and their traditions. Learn to mind your own business. If your Protestant salvation is so secure, what do you care what others are doing and saying?

[@gabrielgabriel5177]

@@phantompenguintgl1652 brother, pelase take a look to all apostolic churches. All orientals (copts, eritrean, ethiopian, syrian, armenian, malankarian) eastern orthodox, all catholics (roman, maronites, copts etc etc) do venerate amd honour saints. Its not any new practise. Its was the practise of the church before any division.

[@midnighthymn]

Nice to see Protestants showing out in the comments

[@ogloc6308]

frfr

[@joshuakearns1847]

Any Catholics or Orthodox who communicate with Protestants, presumably including these KZbin comments are also anesthetized according to Nicea 2.

[@KoffiKup-u1t]

Excellent! I now understand statements I've heard from Orthodox friends and relatives regarding veneration of icons.

[@euanthompson]

Asking protestants why we are making such a big deal of icon veneration feels like it should be responded to by just pointing at Proverbs 26:18/19. Like a maniac firing flaming arrows of death is a man who deceives his neighbour and says he is only joking. It is gaslighting to the max as well. "You're not a real Christian because you don't kiss a statue. Why are you making such a big deal out of there being a statue."

[@issaavedra]

But why? You want to enter the EO or RC Church a this is a stumbling stone? For both you are already outside the Church, I don't get why the anathemas are a pressing issue for protestants.

[@SeanusAurelius]

@@issaavedra 1) How circular is that? 2) If you're going with us being outside the church, then we have no salvation anyway, which is an even bigger point of dispute. 3) Both the anathemas and "no salvation outside the EO/RC Church" is in blatant contradiction to the scriptures, which say that all who have believed in Christ are in the body of Christ, and the body is his Church.

[@issaavedra]

​@@SeanusAurelius First, you assume that you know what it means to "believe in Christ". JWs and Muslims "believe in Christ", does believing in Christ require a correct Christology? Can you believe in Christ and reject His divinity? His saints? His Mother? His Body and Blood in the Chalice? The EO/RC Church assumes that the Body of Christ can't be divided, especially when an issue is translated into a war between the laity. How can you be in communion with people who reject an integral aspect of the Liturgy, for example? So the Church trace a clear line, either you accept the position of the Church or you are out. You may disagree with iconodulia, but how is this procedure in opposition to the Gospel? I might be wrong in my Orthodox faith (I hope God correct me if this is the case), but I can't conceive a Christianity that doesn't protect the unity of mind within the Church.

[@unamusedmule]

​@@issaavedraScripture tells us what it means to believe in Christ. We also have the correct image of Christ in scripture, so we don't believe in a different Jesus like JWs and Muslims. How are people outside of the Apostate churches (EO/RC) not saved?

[@issaavedra]

​@@unamusedmule I respect protestants who consider the EO/RC to be "apostate churches". We can have debates and discussions about our theology, and I think our "salvation status" is God's business. What I don't understand or respect is the whining about the exclusivist ecclesiology in favor of fake ecumenism. We don't have the same dogmas, we don't worship in the same way, we don't Commune with each other. So why should the condemnation of beliefs that might fracture the Church be something to be constantly highlighted as a problem? Do you understand what I mean? In this context, I'm not defending icons or the historicity of our arguments.

[@ArchangelIcon]

There's nothing in the video that hasn't been covered numerous times in previous videos of Dr Ortlund, which have been covered by Orthodox apologists, such as Seraphim Hamilton. kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZoGXo3-hYquffs0 I'm just reasured that the historic context of icons and the anathemas appear to be the only thing to be an important issue the Doctor has with Orthodoxy. It's the only real Orthodox issue that he uses in every arguement he has with Orthodox apologists. After all the legalism argued and discussed, I'd suggest attending an Orthodox Liturgy, meeting the people, or maybe visiting an Orthodox monastery - That is where you find enormous reverence for Christ and see the fruits of the Holy Spirit amongst many (not all, of course) humble people of God. People should go and see, and then make a judgment. It isn't via video screens and theological analysis that the Holy Spirit is found. May Dr Ortlund be blessed for his kindly spirit and faith.

[@matthiashellwig2536]

Protestants taking Nicea II more seriously and honestly than the Eastern or Roman. ✔

[@axderka]

Common Protestant W

[@bobbobberson5627]

@@matthiashellwig2536 ? Do Protestants have a Sunday where they all read the anathemas out loud?

[@SeanusAurelius]

@@bobbobberson5627 No, nor do we read lists of all the silly things the Mormons teach as mandatory either. That's not to say EO's or RC's are like Mormons, but your anathemas are just as wrong.

[@tategarrett3042]

Thank you for continuing to stand on the the truth of the gospel and to protest the Ecclesialist traditions' condemnation and anathematization of all those who do not bow before, and kiss, icons. This is an issue worth emphasizing because these other traditions have made it a salvation issue.

[@BerserkerSloth]

Mandatory icon veneration is one of the primary reasons I could never become EO or RC. The arguments they give in defense of it (“don’t you kiss a picture of your wife & it’s the not the wood, stone, paint, etc… that we worship but the one it represents” (assuming in that case it’s a image of Jesus.) are the exact same arguments given by Hindus & Buddhists.

[@ghostapostle7225]

We do not worship images. You won't become EO or RC because you aren't even honest about our position of it.

[@foodforthought8308]

I think there's a major difference.

[@BerserkerSloth]

@@ghostapostle7225 do you believe that Hindus &/or Buddhists commit idolatry?

[@EricTheYounger]

Maybe those are illustrations to explain icons, but those aren’t arguments. The church doesn’t have to give arguments to justify its tradition, the church is imbued with the authority the Holy Spirit gave it on Pentecost. Rejecting tradition on one’s own understanding is arrogance personified.

[@andyjones1982]

@@ghostapostle7225 you need to read what he wrote much more carefully. He is acknowledging that you claim not to worship the images, but only what the image represents. He is pointing out that a Hindu would say exactly the same thing about their practices.

[@stevereason6931]

Thank you Gavin for reviewing Nicaea II as I have personally never read/studied it. I knew from the Council of Trent I was anathematized, but did not know I was anathematized by Nicaea II. What I find most interesting that affirms Nicaea II is flat out wrong is that the Holy Spirit has come into and filled the lives of millions of Protestants, I for one, over the past 500 years, who through the power of the Holy Spirit, praise God, feed the poor, take care of widows/orphans, pray for one another and love our brothers and sisters in Christ, spread the Gospel, take the Lord's Supper, baptize, etc. and yet we Protestants don't bow and kiss icons. Having been filled with the Holy Spirit tells me we Protestants have not been anathematized by Christ our Savior. Glory be to Jesus. I would also want to point out that Mary, the Blessed Mother of our Lord Jesus, as quoted in Luke 1:50 states "And his mercy is for those who fear him from generation to generation." Amen!!

[@Millyroseg]

Thank you Gavin for your videos - Protestant here and I always come to your videos for an understanding on things I am unsure of

[@justinhilton]

Keep it up, Dr. Ortlund. This is THE issue that finally convinced me to abandon the idea of ever, ever swimming the Tiber or the Bosphorus.

[@Golfinthefamily]

it's such a strong argument, for real.

[@icxcnika7722]

It's actually a very weak argument.

[@Golfinthefamily]

@@icxcnika7722 what is the argument you think he is making?

[@Golfinthefamily]

Keep your foot on the gas pedal Gavin... this is your niche. This is your wheelhouse. So helpful!

[@OMNIBUBB]

Gavin, it would be really super awesome if you would consider doing a video talking through which of the ecumenical councils are acceptable or problematic and in what ways, from a classical Protestant perspective.

[@BernardinusDeMoor]

Seconded. What things in them are sound, which things are more dubious. And no one talks about the Vigilius stuff, or, if we're going to go that far, the conciliarist councils in the late middle ages.

[@klemperal]

Pope Gavin, yay!

[@twentyfourthrones]

Another excellent video Dr. Ortlund! These kinds of videos on such inportant subjects are far more helpful than you even realize. Praise be to God!

[@michelferreira333]

Making icon veneration an obligatory thing in order to be saved is a taint against the Gospel.

[@bobbobberson5627]

@@michelferreira333 why

[@kazager11]

being anathema is like finding out you're non-elect.

[@haydentrent101]

Yep I can’t wait until I die to find out if God loved me or not

[@graysonguinn1943]

@@haydentrent101no no that’s a straw man, he loves everybody. He just didn’t love you enough to apply the limited atonement to you

[@haydentrent101]

@ dangit

[@foodforthought8308]

No the Church doesn't claim that power to damn

[@kazager11]

@@foodforthought8308 God does it for them.

[@JimHenderson-gd3rj]

This is hugely helpful. Many of my former students (I taught theology and historical theology for more than 30 years) are searching for something authentic, which means "antique" or "vintage" for many. These students have turned to the Roman, Anglican, and Eastern churches, so I catch a lot of questions. This is a lucid and persuasive discourse that I can have them watch. Thanks.

[@benjaminwatt2436]

My question to my Catholic brothers would be at what point is Icon veneration taken too far? I have see people, kiss, pray, buy candles, give money and bow before various saints and images. it is deeply concerning to protestants like myself and it seems clearly problematic

[@thatchermilton4143]

Offering a sacrifice is the drawing line. In the same councils wording, worship designates a type of adoration which is for the divine nature alone.

[@toddvoss52]

@@benjaminwatt2436 will try to show the full excerpt from Augustine’s Reply to Faustus that I mentioned . Not sure it will show up. It is from Book 20, paragraph 21 It is true that Christians pay religious honor to the memory of the martyrs, both to excite us to imitate them and to obtain a share in their merits, and the assistance of their prayers. But we build altars not to any martyr, but to the God of martyrs, although it is to the memory of the martyrs. No one officiating at the altar in the saints' burying-place ever says, We bring an offering to you, O Peter! Or O Paul! Or O Cyprian! The offering is made to God, who gave the crown of martyrdom, while it is in memory of those thus crowned. The emotion is increased by the associations of the place, and love is excited both towards those who are our examples, and towards Him by whose help we may follow such examples. We regard the martyrs with the same affectionate intimacy that we feel towards holy men of God in this life, when we know that their hearts are prepared to endure the same suffering for the truth of the gospel. There is more devotion in our feeling towards the martyrs, because we know that their conflict is over; and we can speak with greater confidence in praise of those already victors in heaven, than of those still combating here. What is properly divine worship, which the Greeks call latria, and for which there is no word in Latin, both in doctrine and in practice, we give only to God. To this worship belongs the offering of sacrifices; as we see in the word idolatry, which means the giving of this worship to idols. Accordingly we never offer, or require any one to offer, sacrifice to a martyr, or to a holy soul, or to any angel. Any one falling into this error is instructed by doctrine, either in the way of correction or of caution.

[@SalGargini]

@@benjaminwatt2436 give money? Nah

[@SuperSaiyanKrillin]

Even as a Catholic I can acknowledge that Jimmy Akin is frustrating when he tries to say "It's a tertiary doctrine at best!"

[@pete3397]

As a Lutheran, I'll agree. The RCC has altered its doctrine and practice since the Reformation, and not just during the Counter-Reformation, to actually incorporate many elements of the Lutheran/Protestant critiques. Yet, while the RCC has come into agreement in many respects with Lutheran/Protestant positions, Rome has not removed the anathemas that they put into place in the wake of the Reformation a la Trent. So, Akin et al can say, "Rome no longer teaches such things," while Trent Horne et al can also say, "These anathemas still stand and are legit" which makes it really hard to actually have an honest argument with RCC apologetes because they can appeal to both the Akin and the Horne positions and will do so depending on whether or not it is of argumentative value at the time against whatever Lutheran/Protestant position they want to attack.

[@greensporevalleyy]

Just finished your book last night, the part on icon veneration was very insightful and assuring! God bless you and your family!

[@andyjones1982]

Fortunately, "An undeserved curse does not come to rest."

[@ThisGuy1098]

Great video, as always. It always confuses me how many are originalists when it comes to interpreting certain texts such as parts of the Bible or the Constitution but become textualists when it comes to Church councils.

[@harrisongranger348]

I don’t know why “no salvation outside the church” is such a surprising issue. If the church is Christs body, and you are separated from his body…. and if salvation is being joined to him in his glory… then…

[@MapleBoarder78]

The notion of there being no salvation outside the church isn’t generally contested among EO, RC, or Protestants. It’s what the definition of “the church” is. When the EOC or RCC have historically made remarks eluding to “no salvation outside the church” the implication was their specific institution WAS the church. Hence, anyone who didn’t exclusively submit to their specific institution (EO or RC) was considered anathema (cut off from Christ, no salvation). The RCC has since softened on this subject, the EO has not in an official capacity.

[@sissyrayself7508]

The Catholic Church is not Christ' s body.. Then Followers of Christ Himself are His Body.. And They also are His temple.

[@brandonridley5101]

Absolutely love this video. Getting into the history, development (acretions!), and severity of these doctrines is super interesting and really helps focus on what the core differences are between wings of Christianity. Keep 'em coming!

[@fr.johnwhiteford6194]

When you say that no one with any academic credentials believes Icons were venerated prior to the 6th century, you make a demonstrably untrue assertion. I would recommend you acquaint yourself with Fr. Steven Bigham. "He completed his doctorate in the field of Christian art at the University of Montreal in 1989. He has published several studies on the art of the icon. He is a lecturer at the Faculty of Theology, Ethics and Philosophy at the University of Sherbrooke, in Orthodox theology." There is also a whole world of scholarship in languages other than English. Also, if you are going to take academic "consensus" as proof, you would have to dismiss the believe that St. Peter wrote either or his epistles, or that St. Paul wrote the Pastoral epistles, or that the Book of Daniel was written prior to the Maccabean period, but I suspect you don't. Furthermore, western academia has long been inclined toward skepticism. I would recommend you read "The Death of Scripture and the Rise of Biblical Studies" (Oxford Studies in Historical Theology) by Dr. Michael C. Legaspi.

[@icxcnika7722]

It is unfortunate that he declines to engage in a meaningful discussion with your insightful commentary, Father. It appears that Gavin is determined to perpetuate his distortions and misrepresentations of church history in order to support his argument. By doing so, he avoids engaging with credible sources and perpetuates an echo chamber of like-minded individuals.

[@ElvisI97]

Gavin has consistently addressed these arguments. Perhaps you have not been paying close enough attention to notice, or this might simply be a matter of bad faith. Gavin does not accept the consensus of scholars blindly; instead, he evaluates it based on the strengths of their arguments while also considering their biases, which includes perspectives from a Roman Catholic priest. For example, the dating of the Book of Daniel is influenced by a bias against the possibility of true prophecy. The prevailing consensus is less convincing because it rests on the false premise that prophecy cannot occur. This situation is not comparable to the consensus against icon veneration. If you believe there is a methodological flaw in the consensus, present your argument on that basis. You cannot dismiss a consensus simply because there are methodological flaws in a completely unrelated topic.

[@fr.johnwhiteford6194]

@@ElvisI97 You don't think that Western Academia, which has had a Protestant domination to it since the modern University was founded in Germany, might have a bias against the veneration of Icons? You can't appeal to scholarly consensus to settle icon veneration, and dismiss it when it comes to Daniel, the Epistles of Peter, or the Pastoral Epistles.

[@LeviathaninWaves]

I think I understand something now, Jesus is the image of the invisible God. The living icon of or window to God.

[@aidanhansemann1212]

Yeah, you're exactly right. That word image is eikōn aka icon.

[@andyjones1982]

The one icon that it is definitely ok to worship.

[@easytiger35]

exactly. orthodox put a LOT of things in place of Christ, which is completely anti-Christian. They put dead humans, Mary, icons, rituals all in place of Christ. Christ is the mediator, not orthodox priests.

[@aidanhansemann1212]

@andyjones1982 Yeah, I agree, God is to be worshipped. However, EO make a distinction between worship and veneration. BTW I'm a protestant just trying to grow in understanding.

[@jameschebahtah]

@@easytiger35 when I kiss my mother on the cheek, am I worshipping her? When I salute my company commander, am I worshipping him? Is you having your hand over your heart at a baseball game during the national anthem worshipping the American Flag? Paying due respect is not idolatry

[@toughbiblepassages9082]

Gavin, as a Protestant I agree with you that it is out of line to anathematize for these things BUT you might be wrong at time stamp 22:20-22:50 because the Bible itself teaches prayer of God’s people being directed towards the Temple in Jerusalem ”And hearken thou to the supplication of thy servant and of thy people Israel, when they pray toward this place; yea, hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place; and when thou hearest, forgive.“ ‭‭1 Kings‬ ‭8‬:‭30‬ ‭RSV‬‬ ”But I through the abundance of thy steadfast love will enter thy house, I will worship toward thy holy temple in the fear of thee.“ ‭‭Psalms‬ ‭5‬:‭7‬ ‭RSV‬‬ this is also why Daniel purposely faced the Temple in Jerusalem when he knelt to pray in Daniel 6. The Temple is not the exact same thing as an icon, but both are physical objects and may be seen as forms of art. I think the RC/EO church has gotten carried away with the kissing and damning, but these verses do seem to be a generic cushion for the act of sacred reverence towards physical representations of God’s presence amongst His people. You have been VERY thorough on the historical side of this debate, but I think it might be interesting if you delve into the biblical aspect of the debate as well. Thanks for your work

[@toughbiblepassages9082]

if you happen see this comment, please consider checking out my slavery playlist series on slave passages of the Bible (or the warfare playlist series) I defend each verse as good and just and that it is practiced even today just under different terminology. It’s a different perspective but one that does not view God as ceding perfect holy ground in accommodation.

[@toughbiblepassages9082]

like my comment to get Gavin to see this plz, I think it’s relevant

[@andyjones1982]

After the separation of Judah and Israel (I think), Israel was condemned for setting up an alternate altar. It was a matter of staying true to what was originally commanded. My response is that God was considered to be specially present in the Holy of Holies, at the Mercy Seat on top of the Ark. I find it telling that although there are two sculptures of angels, the point of focus is on the space between them.

[@KnightFel]

All those prayers are praying to God Himself.

[@toughbiblepassages9082]

⁠@@andyjones1982 @KnightFel yes I agree, I’m a protestant too! but that is NOT what Gavin said at the time stamp I posted. Furthermore saying God is “specially present” isn’t an argument against modern protestant practices of worshipping similarly, because God is also specially present in the Lord’s Supper, plus I’m not a fan of Christians who brush off what happened in the OT as if it has no application to today (not sure if that was what you were getting at or not) Obviously, Daniel and the rest of the prophets were praying to the real true God, but being that they did it through means of a kneeling reverence towards their physical place of worship makes it so that Gavin cannot monolithically say that “any” kind of “bowing” down to a physical object is unpracticed and condemned by the people of God. That’s just too strong of language to be biblically accurate. And besides, Catholics would also say that they are not praying to the actual icon but rather to the saint represented by the icon, which carries all kinds of problems because it is a sin to pray to saints, but praying to saints is not what Gavin is criticizing right now in this video, rather he is criticizing the mechanism of prayer being utilized, namely bowing before physical objects, which is what I am specifically addressing.

[@LemonLimeJuiceBarrell]

I wish that a Catholic apologist like Trent Horn or Jimmy Akin would treat this issue fairly and objectively. I have yet to see a Catholic response to this topic that is not vague or dodgy. It’s always these long and complicated explanations instead of just answering a very simple question: Is icon veneration an accretion, yes or no? And if no, PROVE IT. If you can’t prove it then just take that L with humility. At least then you would be intellectually honest.

[@MaxMan592]

A Roman Catholic's opinion doesn't matter because their theology lives or dies around the Papacy. They can justify anything by citing doctrinal development. It's actually only the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, or Assyrian Church of the East perspectives that should interest you viz., iconography.

[@tategarrett3042]

The points you make here are solid and really ought to be taken to heart by anyone who would continue to condemn you, and Protestantism in general, for pushing back against icon veneration. We are not the ones making this a big deal, nor are we insisting on an uncharitable view of what the council of Nicea 2 said. Those who act like we're artificially inflating the importance of this, or misrepresenting the historic RC or EO view on this are not honestly interacting with the historic data.

[@zemotheon12987]

Hi Gavin, I've commented on several of your Eastern Orthodox-specific videos, so I'll add a couple thoughts here as well. First, I am sorry for all the people not legitimizing your frustration over anathemas. Anathemas are very strong, and I think you are right to take them seriously. We intend them as an invitation to repentance and humility, as St. Paul did. That being said, we Orthodox are a bit more comfortable with believing two seemingly contradictory things (We actually have saints who were outside the Orthodox Church, but are still saints). Regarding icons specifically, in the Orthodox Church, incense is offered to Christ only, not to the images. Every priest, bishop, or layman who burns incense says the following prayer before they cense anything: "We offer to you, Christ our God, this incense as an offering of sweet, spirtual fragrence. Receive it, we pray, upon thy heavenly altar, and send down upon us in return the grace of thine All-Holy Spirit." And candles are meant as a prayer intention more than an offering to that icon. We also have a feast where all the candles get blessed. I certainly think the way Nicaea II has been received has to say something about what it means on a given issue. Also, regarding bowing/prostrating and kissing icons, I really think the issue with that is a cultural difference. In our 21st century American context, we don't really understand showing someone respect in that way. Bowing and kissing were standard practices for greeting someone in the ancient world, especially monarchs. I'll grant you that that will look weird to people in our context, but it's not that different from bowing before a king or queen. That's kinda what we're going for: that and saying hello. Finally, I must take issue with the fact that you say you understand that we draw a distinction between veneration and worship, however, at the end of the day, you are still saying that we are worshiping the icons, or the saints depicted on them, and that is simply not the case. We are not offering sacrifices to them (or to anyone other than the Holy Trinity), nor do we consider them gods. Icons actually keep us from creating idols of God or the saints in our minds. St. Gregory Palamas makes this argument. Finally, an apology on behalf of all the Orthodox online for our unchristlike behavior. Please forgive us, we are sinners continually in need of God's grace, and many of us are new to Orthodoxy and are trying to figure all this out. God bless you, Gavin!

[@WeakestAvenger]

Thank you for this comment. I think there are some helpful things here. Since the bowing and kissing is a cultural issue, and people in America today may have a hard time bowing to and kissing icons without connecting that to worship, is there space in Orthodoxy to adjust those practice, i.e., replacing them with a cultural equivalent? Or is it a matter of redeeming those practices and having one's understanding of them aligned with that of the more ancient Church?

[@zemotheon12987]

@WeakestAvenger That's an outstanding question. I think having a uniquely American way of venerating icons would absolutely be in the spirit of Nicaea II, but I'm not a bishop. That being said, I also think there is something to be learned from bowing and kissing. It's a way of learning humility, a humility that doesn't always come easily to us Americans. Personally, I've found it to be a really meaningful practice.

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

The problem with your attempt to differentiate bowing down before images and worshiping them is that both are outlawed in the Second Commandment: _You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments._ (Exodus 20:4-6) Moreover, the Hebrew verb שָׁחָה (shachah), translated 'worship' literally means to bow down or prostrate oneself, as does the corresponding Greek verb is προσκυνέω (proskuneó).

[@jameschebahtah]

@@WeakestAvenger there is no cultural American equivalent because America broadly speaking does not have an understanding of it. The closest you could get is rendering a hand salute or hand over the heart , as that’s what is expected of the veneration due to the American Flag.

[@zemotheon12987]

@Berean_with_a_BTh Proskuneo means "bow down", however the word "latreuo" is "bow down in worship". The Hebrew word likely denotes worship. Otherwise, how do we make sense of Joshua bowing down before the ark of the covenant?

[@masontabor751]

Excellent video, Gavin. Thanks for serving the Kingdom of God through your channel! Your videos are great and a personal blessing to me.

[@sierragrey7910]

You have not made too big a deal concerning icon veneration. Scripture is clear.

[@cassidyanderson3722]

Are people who venerate icons committing idolatry? And, if the answer is yes, then why do the anathemas even matter?

[@sissyrayself7508]

Yes they are idols.

[@cassidyanderson3722]

@ Then why is anyone concerned at all that idolators anathematize them?

[@luisr5577]

When Catholics and Eastern Orthodox say this isn’t a big deal, I just have to point out that, according to that council (which amusingly includes Jesus' supposed letters to King Abgar), *I’m expected to kiss the image or face anathema.*

[@issaavedra]

For Catholics and specially for EO IS a big deal. As a EO convert, the theology of the icon was the main reason for my conversion.

[@luisr5577]

@@issaavedra 🤣None of the Apostles supported icon veneration, and all Fathers who addressed it rejected the practice. Nicaea II lacked legates from Jerusalem and Alexandria, so it’s not truly an ecumenical council. Plus, the council used fabricated letters from Jesus to Abgar as evidence... and this is your reason for conversion? LOL

[@issaavedra]

@@luisr5577 Yes, it is. When I understood that Christianity looks at reality through iconographic lenses, the whole thing clicked for me. I believe that the rejection of icons lead to the rejection of the Theotokos, the rejection of Saints and ultimately a completely misunderstanding of the Incarnation.

[@joshuareeves5103]

@@luisr5577 I agree with your points but mocking does no benefit to anyone.

[@luisr5577]

​@@issaavedra Did you read my response? You're the one rejecting the Apostles and the Fathers, following fake letters from Jesus in a non-ecumenical council. Your claims are NOTHING again historical facts.

[@fr.johnwhiteford6194]

That Anathemas or calls for deposition in canons of the Church do not apply to individuals until a council specifically imposes them is seen by the fact that St. Cyril of Alexandria (well prior the 7th Ecumenical Council) issued anathemas condemning the teachings of Nestorius, but until the 3rd Ecumenical Council actually imposed an anathema on Nestorius, they treated him as the "Most Devote Bishop Nestorius." You can also see this in the commentary of St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain (in the best know compilation of the Church canons, The Rudder): "We must know that the penalties provided by the Canons, such as deposition, excommunication, and anathematization, are imposed in the third person according, to grammatical usage, there being no imperative available. In such cases in order to express a command, the second person would be necessary. I am going to explain the matter better. The Canons command the council of living bishops to depose the priests, or to excommunicate them, or to anathematize laymen who violate the canons. Yet, if the council does not actually effect the deposition of the priests, or the excommunication, or the anathematization of laymen, these priests and laymen, are neither actually deposed, nor excommunicated, nor anathematized. They are liable to stand trial, however, judicially, here as touching deposition, excommunication, or anathematization, but there as touching divine vengeance. Just as when a king commands his slave to whip another who did something that offended him, if the slave in question fail to execute the king’s command, he will nevertheless be liable to trial for the whipping. So those silly men make a great mistake who say that at the present time all those in holy orders who have been ordained contrary to canons are actually deposed from office. It is an inquisitional tongue that foolishly twaddles thus without understanding that the command of canons, without the practical activity of the second person, or, more plainly speaking, of the council, remains unexecuted, since it does not act of itself and by itself immediately and before judgment. The Apostles themselves explain themselves in their c. XLVI unmistakably, since they do not say that any bishop or presbyter who accepts a baptism performed by heretics is already and at once actually in the state of having been deposed, but that they command that he be deposed, or, at any rate, that he stand trial, and, if it be proved that he did so, then “we command that he be stripped of holy orders by your decision,” they say" (D. Cummings, trans., The Rudder of the Orthodox Catholic Church: The Compilation of the Holy Canons, Saints Nicodemus and Agapius (West Brookfield, MA: The Orthodox Christian Educational Society, 1983), p. 5f).

[@bobbobberson5627]

Thank you Father

[@lazaruscomeforth7646]

@@fr.johnwhiteford6194 this is wildly false. The Council says WHOEVER.

[@fr.johnwhiteford6194]

@lazaruscomeforth7646 did you read the comment you are responding to?

[@lazaruscomeforth7646]

@@fr.johnwhiteford6194 you are gaslighting. Essentially your argument is that people can reject icons as EO and as long as a council doesn't anathematize them then it's OK. That is a disgrace to EO Canon Law tradition. You may as well put a halo around David Bentley Hart's picture, the arch universalist.

[@fr.johnwhiteford6194]

@@lazaruscomeforth7646 I am saying that people outside of the Church, who know nothing about Orthodoxy, are not the focus of the anathema, nor was it ever imposed on them, nor would any bishop ever impose it on them. These are just facts. Obviously, you can't be Orthodox and reject icons.

[@Phill0old]

The EO & Catholic response "words don't mean what words mean man".

[@klemperal]

Meanwhile, the 1023rd denomination of protestantism argues that it is their specific dogmas which is plainly biblical...

[@cherub1010]

@@klemperal Self refuting argument. The schisms of RC , EO & Ori orthos argue that their specific dogmas are plainly biblical going back to the apostles.

[@klemperal]

@@cherub1010 My point was to take the log out of your eye--not that there wasn't confusion among "plain words."

[@Phill0old]

@@klemperal Yeah no argument at all. Thanks. Zzzzzzzz

[@issaavedra]

That is not the argument. The argument is: you are not inside the Church, why do you care about anathemas that were trying to maintain unity of mind IN the Church.

[@WeAreTheLucid]

Acknowledging that there is a distinction between icon and idol, it’s hard to read of Paul and Demetrius the silversmith and ask why Paul didn’t simply suggest that Demetrius also make silver Christian statues. The craftsmen felt threatened, but looking at the Apostolic churches today, they should not have been. There are towns and cities that are “uniquely” associated with miracles and saints that sell large quantities of icons and statues of said miracles and saints. Given the lack of a description of Mary and the myriad of depictions of her, realistically, Demetrius just had to change the label on the statue depicting a pretty woman from Artemis to Mary.

[@paveli1181]

I think that's a valid point. But there is a nuance. This is a reason why eastern icons are simple in nature. They are not meant to be works of art that a craftsman can show their skill on. They are utilitarian in nature. But like with anything there are exesses.

[@renrichardson6517]

Amen. If Michelangelo hadn't named his statue "David", everyone would have thought it was Hermes or Apollo. Hard to understand why the EO or RC believe that what they name an image fundamentally changes the nature of what it is.

[@Tertiusterz]

​@@renrichardson6517 Same could be said about the earliest depictions of Christ, even in the catacombs. That's not an argument.

[@renrichardson6517]

@Tertiusterz That is *precisely* the argument. If some pagans had painted a portrait of one of their gods in an ancient sanctuary, and some centuries later Christians etched "Christos" beneath it, many EO today would claim this showed early Christian icon veneration. Does the intent of the artist determine whether it is an icon or an idol? Or is it the intent of the beholder?

[@paveli1181]

@@renrichardson6517 Pagans are and were deceived into worshiping demons. Therefore, changing a label on a painting is a sign of triumph of Christ. "What was meant for evil, God has used for good". So, the issue is not the object, but what is spiritually behind it. What is spiritually behind it is relative. (see 1 Cor, 10:21) For its creator and beholder can be same or different things. Those don't have to coincide. Our minds activate real participation with spiritual world. Anything that is happening there is part of the spiritual world, and as far as God is concerned, is real. So ideas, thoughts, concepts, memories that an image invokes and we consent to is an act of participation and a spiritual communion. Things you watch on your phone is an act of spiritual participation. There is also group dynamic, when more people together come in unity, there is another level of spiritual experience. What spirit is it? That is another question. We can't apply our understanding of nature unto the spiritual world, so have to rely on revelation. Aristotelian method does not work there.

[@jmferris542]

Thanks for making the fallibility of Nicaea II explicitly clear. It is very helpful to have all these facts pulled together and it assures Protestants that we have chosen the path of greater faithfulness and light.

[@protestanttoorthodox3625]

@OrthodoxChristianTheology is slated to have a documentary feature on holy icons to drop on his channel any day now… I believe it’s going to completely change this conversation.

[@IonniasDeVito]

👆

[@creepingsancy]

He is so almost there. So love that he keeps on making videos on this subject

[@stephenbailey9969]

A picture is just a picture. Even the tabernacle in the desert had pictures on the curtains and images on the ark of the covenant. It's all in the way a person regards those depictions that matters.

[@iddodomingo6118]

Genuinely Nicaea 2 is one of the reasons i ,when leaving protestantism, became Oriental Orthodox. Praise God

[@HearGodsWord]

You trusted in a fallible council

[@fr.johnwhiteford6194]

That the veneration of icons is not idolatry is shown by several things: 1). If Christians thought they were icons, they could not make or have them, per the 2nd commandment -- so there is no way to argue, you can make and have them, but not venerate them, and in fact the Iconoclasts did not make that argument, 2) Idolatry was never merely the veneration of idols, it always involved sacrificial worship of idols. 3). Bowing to people or to holy things is not inherently sinful, because we find both of these in the Scriptures -- in fact we have commands to bow to the Ark of the Covenant, which had two images on the top of it. 4. To this day Jews regularly kiss holy things, such as Scripture, prayer books, phylacteries, mezuzahs, etc. It is no great stretch to conclude that Christians kiss holy things because they inherited the practice from the Jewish Apostles.

[@dandeliontea7]

The Jewish Apostles didn't anathematise people for not doing those things though. Their theology of the image of God is also markedly different from the arguments presented by St John of Damascus. Also, the priests weren't kissing or bowing before the cherubim in the Tabernacle.

[@sciencescholar3440]

😂 Idolatry wasn't merely veneration of idols but included sacrifices 😂 Hello, world has evolved and changed..... don't say this to any modern pagan...like a Hindu. 🤦

[@IonniasDeVito]

@@dandeliontea7 Peace to you friend. Fr. John just mentioned that the priest and people did bow down before the Cherubim and the Ark of the Covenant, which they adorned. They couldn't yet kiss the Ark of the Covenant (or the Cherubim that adorned it) because the people of the OT were not purified enough yet by faith in Christ. Touching the Ark or anything in the Holy of Holies directly, resulted in immediate death. 2 Samuel 6:6-7 Remember Uzzah. Because of Christ's birth, death and resurrection sinful man can now enter into the Holy of Holies and live. Man has touched God (i.e. Jesus Christ, in the flesh) and lived.

[@fr.johnwhiteford6194]

@@sciencescholar3440 Hindus offer food offerings to idols, and some still offer animal sacrifices. Even in the OT their were food offerings too. Orthodox Christians still have food offerings --- the Eucharist, but this is offered only to God. Protestants have no concept of actual worship, which is why they get so easily confused on these issues.

[@fr.johnwhiteford6194]

@@dandeliontea7 The Psalms command that the people, which would have included the priests bow to the Ark which had those Cherubim on them, and there actually was no direction in the temple that one could have bowed without bowing in the direction of an image of a cherubim, because they were on the walls, the curtains, the doors, and they were even on things like censers. And you have no way of knowing what they kissed or didn't kiss, because the issue is not mentioned in Scripture, but the fact that Jews and Christians both kiss holy things, it had to have been a thing during the time of Christ and the Apostles. And the anathemas against iconoclasts came after they tortured and killed thousands of people for refusing to destroy icons.

[@5BBassist4Christ]

I intentionally do very little study of icon veneration, because if I did I would be enraged. How can the Church spend 1300 years condemning people for not doing what God explicitly told them not to do? For 2000 years Jews and later Christians boldly protested against graven images and bowing to them, then the Church anathematizes those who refuse and say they are the ones who are of the same faith as the apostles? Catholics like Cameron will make fun of Mohammad for blundering history when it says Jesus was not crucified, but what about when the Catholic Church blundered history in saying the Apostles venerated and bowed to icons? Does not Mohammad's mistake disprove Islam? "If this text truly came from the omniscient Creator, there would be no room for any such errors." -Cameron's latest video criticizing Islam for blundering on Jesus and Mary being divine.

[@jenwray3682]

I don't understand how more people aren't enraged at ALL of the RC accretions that are obviously found nowhere in Scripture and often, like icon veneration, contrary to Scripture. They can only result in idolatry (and are completely absurd, requiring mental gymnastics and the suspension of disbelief beyond anything I'm capable of).

[@5BBassist4Christ]

@@jenwray3682 There is a genuine sense where I consider why they're considered better than Progressive Christians. Just like Progressives use the most obscure interpretations to justify things like homosexuality, Catholics also use obscure interpretations to conclude their beliefs. How easily we get caught up in letting our beliefs interpret scripture that we miss that scripture is supposed to challenge our beliefs!

[@PhrenicosmicOntogeny]

"Not a big deal" must go both ways. Something like this can only be "not a big deal" if it is truly fine for you to do it or not to do it as you please.

[@graysonguinn1943]

Actually doing it or not is not obligatory for an RC, it’s accepting that it’s ok for other people to do it if they wish. There’s plenty of practicing Catholics who have never interacted with icons

[@reaganlecroy7773]

@@graysonguinn1943 Is Nicaea II infallible or not? If its infallible, you must bow and kiss icons otherwise you are anathema. Nicaea II says if you do not hold this view you are anathema.

[@szilardfineascovasa6144]

Aaaand...this is why both sides are wrong on these particular stances. 🙂

[@KnightFel]

@@graysonguinn1943so Nicea II isn’t infallible and binding?

[@turkeybobjr]

​@@graysonguinn1943 Your opinion on the topic and the RCC's dogmatic position in Nicea II are two very different things, my guy.

[@nsd37]

ThanksGavin. Great video. This is deeper than that. Is about an old religion from times long forgotten who want to make slaves out of humanity, cause "they" think we do not have the light to understand the truth. But we know there is only one Truth, our Magnificent Lord, God and Saviour, Jesus Christ who gave His life for all the world, so the ones who believe will one day with Him ruling forever and ever. God bless and stay strong!

[@adam7402]

It's looking like KZbin is suppressing religious videos I had the dig to find this one and others.

[@ClauGutierrezY]

To those who want to spoil our innovations with new innovations... AaaaaannnnNNNNNAAAAAATTTtttthhhheeeeEEEMMMMAAAAaaaaaa

[@zemotheon12987]

Hi Gavin, I'd really love to see you do a face to face with Seraphim Hamilton on this question.

[@johnlardas3221]

Opposing icons on the basis of the 2nd Commandment, saying image is equal to idol, inherently does require opposition to art. As far as honor to the image passing to the prototype, this is clear in Scripture as far back as Genesis 9:6.

[@issaavedra]

The funny thing is that half the people here complain that the Church anathematizes them for their lack of iconodulia; the other half say that iconodules are idolaters (and idolaters are not part of their church, I suppose). Which is it? Is the exclusion of people from the Church according to their relationship with icons a good thing or not?

[@veganminimalistpastor]

The premise of your question is misplaced. The inclusion of a believer into a true church is not based on their relationship to icons, but on their relationship to Christ via the Gospel. If you anathematize me for being iconoclast, then you’re saying to me that it’s no longer my relationship with the Christ that brings me to the church and/or the trinity, but my relationship with icons. If you use icons to try and connect with the church and/or the trinity, then your relationship with the church and/or the trinity is not based on the Christ, but on your icons. Nicea 2 is in opposition to the Gospel via the anathemas. That’s what we’re protesting.

[@issaavedra]

@@veganminimalistpastor According to the EO and RC Church you probably hold an indefinite amount of heresies, and you are not part of the Church. Why are you protesting anathemas that were trying to maintain the unity of mind inside the Church? I really struggle to see what is the protestant issue with this. At Nicaea II they understood that the iconoclastic position leads to the rejection of the Theotokos the Saints and ultimately a false Incarnational theology. Considering that most protestant already have a flawed theology on these issues according to the EO position, icons are far from the worst error. What I was pointing out was the funny contrast between people who protest against the anathemas and people who "anathemize" iconodules.

[@issaavedra]

@@veganminimalistpastor According to the EO and RC Church you probably hold an indefinite amount of heresies, and you are not part of the Church. Why are you protesting anathemas that were trying to maintain the unity of mind inside the Church? I really struggle to see what is the protestant issue with this. At Nicaea II they understood that the iconoclastic position leads to the rejection of the Theotokos the Saints and ultimately a false Incarnational theology. Considering that most protestant already have a flawed theology on these issues according to the EO position, icons are far from the worst error. What I was pointing out was the funny contrast between people who protest against the anathemas and people who "anathemize" iconodules.

[@OssoryOverSeas]

The whole early Church overwhelmingly spoke out on this matter, against your position. Hamilton and others have solidly refuted your position. Why dig your heels in against the early Church?

[@elel2608]

How have they solidly refuted his position?

[@HearGodsWord]

The whole early church didn't.

[@Shield_Labs]

a comment for the algorithm

[@chasingtheLord96]

A reply to a comment for the algorithm, for the algorithm.

[@mikeoxmaul1788]

Let me also boost the Al Gore Riddims

[@easytiger35]

Youre doing great man. No one else I know of is making this content addressing this terrible orthodox theology online. And you do a good job with it. The more I learn about orthodox is the more I see it as basically a different religion. They dont believe faith alone saves. The hold their tradition higher than the scripture, worship icons and humans instead of Christ. Also, they believe in a unique version of the Trinity where the Son and Spirit are NOT connected. Now, in my view plenty of denominations have issues, but they need to stop grouping all "protestants" in one group in which they include everything from catholic to mormons. They typically display that they have no real knowledge of the protestant theologies and misrepresent the other side.

[@klemperal]

You ignorance is on full display, but you're right--you do have a different religion.

[@ah4356]

But you’re also worshipping a human - Yushuah. The trinity is nothing but a pagan belief.

[@klemperal]

@@ah4356 Oh, wow. I didn't realize that you thought The Father, The Holy Spirit, and The Angel/Word of God was of pegan origin. What religion are you?

[@easytiger35]

@@klemperal Explain where I was incorrect then.

[@klemperal]

@@easytiger35 Where to begin. The Orthodox do not worship icons, and the only human we worship is the God-man. Furthermore, the Son and Spirit are connected in that they are both God and proceed from the Father (the former begotten of the the Father and the latter proceeding from the Father).

[@Threnodist1]

"Undercook chicken? Anathema Overcook chicken? Anathema. Don't kiss a statue? Believe or not, anathema. I love anathema."

[@robbchristopher158]

I don't consider kissing a statue as anathema. I like the Roman Catholic statues of Mary's mother Anna and Mary as a child that are in a Catholic Church that's not far from where I live. Now that being said I would not kiss those statues myself because that is my conscientious conviction.

[@MrNobodylj]

Hah

[@devinsaettel3725]

“Honey wake up Truth Unites just drop another video”🕺 Thank you always brother

[@lazaruscomeforth7646]

If veneration passes from the icon to the prototype, and if veneration is not adoration, why are we only venerating the Lord Jesus through His image? Shouldn't we be adoring Him, and therefore adoring His image?

[@HandlesAreStupid2024]

Watching people pray to a picture on a wall or a statue is definitely... not it. Not for Christians.

[@brando3342]

I think that’s a misrepresentation of what’s actually going on.

[@tymon1928]

Is praying to a white wall Christian then?

[@Psalm19-1]

@@tymon1928No, praying to God is.

[@kodyoneill497]

@@tymon1928no? We don’t pray to any object if you are truly following the faith. We pray to God alone as we are commanded.

[@TheB1nary]

@@tymon1928 Who prays to a "white wall"?

[@toddvoss52]

Price has been a willing interviewee on KZbin a few years ago. If he is still around , see if he will come on your show and ask him why he is willing to submit to Nicea 2’s teaching In icons as a Catholic given his statements in his book you have quoted.

[@keithwilson9172]

The ark was bowed down to. David was bowed to. Neither were said to be worshipped. Jews kissed their torahs and other objects.

[@BlakeCoulter777]

He’s covered this stuff in other videos if you care to go watch the lengthy videos on this from the past. Way different scenarios.

[@keithwilson9172]

@ I will probably listen to them, but bowing to David isn’t much different. In an orthodox liturgy they would say the body of Christ is there worshiping with them, so they bow and revere the great men of faith that came before them, because God worked through them.

[@BlakeCoulter777]

@ There’s an important distinction between bowing to honor someone, like King David, and venerating an image or icon. When people bowed to David, they were showing respect to a living person who was their king, not worshiping or attributing divine qualities to him. Venerating icons, however, risks blurring the line between respect and the kind of reverence reserved for God alone. The Bible consistently warns against creating or venerating images in the context of worship (Exodus 20:4-5), emphasizing that our worship should be directed to God in spirit and truth (John 4:24).

[@keithwilson9172]

@ okay, but orthos are very clear they don’t worship icons, there are even different Greek words to differentiate, so we know it’s not the same. The worship still goes to god, because that person is in the image of god and they venerate with this in mind and the persons heart disposition would be the determiner of what’s going on. Orthos have the correct understanding that those in Christ are not actually dead, he is the king of the living not the dead, so in either scenario they are bowing to someone who is alive.

[@BlakeCoulter777]

@ I understand the distinction between veneration (proskynesis) and worship (latreia), and I appreciate that Orthodox Christians intend for their worship to go to God alone. However, the main point of disagreement is the declaration of the Second Council of Nicaea, which anathematized those who refuse to venerate icons. This goes beyond allowing veneration as an optional practice and makes it mandatory for all believers. While the intent may be to honor God through the image, requiring veneration creates a significant issue for Christians who take seriously the biblical warnings against making or venerating images in worship (Exodus 20:4-5). Jesus calls us to worship God in spirit and truth (John 4:24), with no need for intermediaries like icons. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the earliest church history of Christians venerating icons. In fact, early church leaders like Tertullian and Epiphanius explicitly warned against the use of images in worship, consistent with the biblical commands. This suggests that icon veneration is a later development, not a practice rooted in the apostolic faith.

[@TsionY]

I’m immensely benefiting from your videos! God bless you! Your prior videos re: Ethiopian Orthodox Church and reformed movement by Estifanos was eye opening! FYI The Ethiopian Orthodox Church continues facing a significant issue with the overwhelming distractions that have veered away from the TRUE GOSPEL one of w/c is practice of venerating icons and collecting relics of martyrs. This has become increasingly prominent over the years. This has led to a shift in focus within the congregation, with individuals directing their prayers ? Worship towards specific martyrs, saints, angels, & of course Mary mother of Jesus. Unfortunately, this emphasis on icon veneration has overshadowed the core message of salvation through the work of Christ alone. The use of parables and imagery from the Bible has become the primary method of teaching, rather than delving deeper into the significance of the cross. There are fables that amount to pagan idolatry. The act of bowing, kissing, and prostrating before these images is a required practice within the church, further perpetuating this cycle of heresy over centuries. It is crucial to address the issue of idol worship and refocus on the true essence of the gospel. The church hides under the veil of being an ancient protector of the nation which is heartbreaking in light of how it has held captive 30+ million Ethiopians in this heretical religious practice. When asked those in the practice cite made up evidence that relics and icons were how the message of the gospel propagated from the 1st century church. No one within the congregation questions that if they do they’re ’anathema’. You are right in that icon veneration is the WHOLE POINT! Bless you brother! You touched on a personal pain point for me as an Ethiopian and reformed Christian.

[@janen668]

"Basically we (Protestants) just want to follow Christianity as God revealed it" (20.42) Really? In Galatians 1:8 and 9 the apostle Paul calls those who 'preach a gospel contrary to what you have received' "accursed" (anathema) Calvin's protestant theology is contrary to the Biblical gospel. Those who sit in glass houses should not throw stones.

[@BernardinusDeMoor]

Could you support your third line?

[@windradyne8724]

Except it isn't. God is all-knowing. That includes all past and future events. If a person was to ask God: "Will I be saved?" There are only two possible answers. Do you really believe God is going to say "I don't know man that's up to you." Of course not.

[@legodavid9260]

Many of the early Church fathers including Augustine believed in predestination and other doctrines that Calvin would later adopt.

[@janen668]

@@BernardinusDeMoor Yes. Calvin believss that God has created some people for eternal damnation. God Himself says that He wants all men to be saved. Nobody is damned except by their own refusal to believe in Jesus Christ. The whole TULIP thing is an abomination and totally unbiblical. Just read the Bible without Calvinistic spectacles on and you will find out.

[@janen668]

@@windradyne8724 God would say what Jesus Christ says. Belief in Him is the condition, not some eternal decree that means that you are saved or not whether you like it or not. Calvinism is a heresy.

[@riffeteddybear7573]

I'm so glad for these videos!

[@donhaddix3770]

turning to other than God is a very big deal

[@ocdchristian]

Just to clarify, what you're saying about "image veneration" also regards the cross/crucifixion?

[@---bl2uj]

such an important topic! so happy to see another video from you on it. thank you thank you thank you!!!

[@nathandrew4522]

Gavin you dont even believe in Nicea 1 and "what those Bishops meant " Your handwaving and eyebrow pounding is misdirection at best

[@HearGodsWord]

How is his body language misdirection?

[@TheresaCronin-kc6wz]

Catholic and Orthodox know how prayer works.Worshipping Jesus at Mass , receiving Jesus the Eucharist.Protestants never stop protesting while His people that know Him worship Him.

[@aceswizzo8665]

So your basically saying when us protestants worship Christ we aren't actually worshipping him.

[@pianoatthirty]

Exactly. Christ instituted the Eucharist. This is worship - a continuation of the food worship in the OT. What Protestants do is focused mainly on cringey sing-alongs and empty feel-good messages (and hating on Catholics and Orthodox to feel better).

[@aceswizzo8665]

@@pianoatthirty your statement is so false I can't even believe you wrote that nonsense u do know that the reformers besides Zwingli believed in the Eucharist they believed it actually is the real body and blood of Christ so your basically comparing protestants to Muslims because they pray to a different god because they reject Christ

[@hughmccann919]

Great video! At the page called OCD, there is now a "Response to Gavin Ortlund - St. Theophan's LETTERS about protestant minister"

[@DavidTextle]

Every channel and their mother wants to reply to Ortlund 😅

[@HearGodsWord]

So many channels do Outlund videos because it gets them clicks, not because they have better things to say.

[@mixk1d]

Absolutely no chance it’s a 7th century development since oriental orthodox churches also have icon veneration, I don’t know why u keep making this bad argument

[@klemperal]

When he can no longer ignore the evidence, he'll say "but they weren't for veneration," and act like that was always his argument.

[@mixk1d]

@ it’s really weird cause the rest of his arguments aren’t even bad. It just makes the whole thing seem a lot more disingenuous since he refuses to acknowledge this point and at least provide an account. I’ve yet to see him address relic veneration as well…

[@TruthUnites]

hello! I address this at 1:33:00 of the video "The Strongest Case for Protestantism." It's at Gospel Simplicity. I would direct you to my answer there. God bless.

[@mixk1d]

@@TruthUnites ok good to hear your response I disagree though because you’ve said it started in the early / late 7th century in this video which would be during the rise of Islam which feels a bit unrealistic. There’s also no record of them getting swept up in iconoclasm as far as I know, despite being in the areas conquered. so they got swept up in iconodulia but not iconoclasm? It feels like there would be much more resistance to the perceived anethematised church picking up an “idolatrous” practise. Whoever started doing it first, the other side would jump at the opportunity realistically to criticize and claim it as evidence for being the true church. During that time especially, since both sides had persecuted each other, which is why the orientals supported Mohammed. It’s only much later where they’ve come together in solidarity. Also where have you addressed relic veneration? Because it’s also inanimate and the same theology ultimately. It’s also much better supported. I think even if hypothetically there was no initial icon veneration in the church but there was relic veneration, then later cross veneration and then ultimately icon veneration. It would still be true that it’s an apostolic tradition in principle. The spirituality is the same… to worship God by showing respect to the saints in his kingdom. The making of images themselves would be against the 10 commandments even without bowing as well, so I feel like you need to explain how that’s changed but this hasn’t. Since you have no problem with images of Jesus. You also need to provide an account for Joshua 7:6, where Joshua prostrates before the ark of the covenant which is an image of two angels. Appreciate the work you’re doing regardless

[@ogloc6308]

Glory to God alone

[@Beefcake1982]

The Bible very clearly condemns any sort of statue or image used in worship. Saying it isn’t worship it’s veneration doesn’t work either because the commandment literally says “you shall not bow down to them”. I really don’t understand how you can do exactly what the Bible explicitly says not to and think you’re correct.

[@protestanttoorthodox3625]

It actually says you can’t even make them… so if you’re using the second commandment as an argument against icons, then the logical implication is that icons cannot even exist according to the Commandment.

[@Beefcake1982]

@ I agree

[@protestanttoorthodox3625]

@@Beefcake1982 Dr. Orland‘s position as I understand it is that religious images are OK for aesthetic or teaching purposes…if he’s using the second commandment to come to that conclusion there is an obvious internal inconsistency with that approach. If the second commandment is addressing all religious images then they cannot even be made.

[@Beefcake1982]

@@protestanttoorthodox3625 to be clear I think the context of the commandment is about making images for the purpose of worship. There was art in the temple and on the ark but it was not for the people to worship. The ark was kept in the inner most chamber and usually only seen by the high priests.

[@jimmu2008]

If the Bible is so clear on that point, then the ark and the temple violated the second commandment.

[@timtabor1181]

I am an Orthodox Christian, and I appreciate the way you present your thoughts and arguments. It is clear what you think and why you think it. I appreciate that it helps me to better understand my faith, and the faith of others. Thank you.

[@earthandouterspace446]

In Ethiopia Orthodox father's have being killed after the wont prostrate before icons

[@Hafstrom1845]

Great episode Gavin. A question; I struggle to find a good answer of exactly how the council of Frankfurt was received by the western church (especially by the pope). Do you have any insights on this issue? Thank you.

[@BernardinusDeMoor]

Parts of it made it into Denzinger, so it was a relatively big deal, I think.

[@Hafstrom1845]

@ , thank you. I struggle still to see how a council that criticised the 2nd council of Nicaea would be accepted. Because as I understand it 2nd Nicaea is still considered an ecumenical council by Rome.

[@BernardinusDeMoor]

@@Hafstrom1845 I imagine Rome only accepted part of it? But I don't know. Rome doesn't even accept all of the councils that they think are ecumenical. Popes didn't like the statements about the authority of Constantinople in some of the councils, for example, so they just refused to accept those canons, and Catholics today will say that those ones don't count as infallible.

[@begelston]

I makes me wonder how many of those clinging to unbiblical traditions are really born again of the Spirit. So much of the purported Christian Church seems to be cultural and nominal. This seems especially true when tradition is so emotionally defended despite the facts.

[@aaronwolf4211]

The irony, of course here is that it is you and your traditions of men that are clinging to nominalism as a foundational presupposition of your entire worldview. At least we are consistent with everything that came before, and we know upon which all of our beliefs rest. You probably don’t even know what nominalism is nor how it so directly informs your worldview.

[@wareaglejf]

So glad to hear Gavin affirm that the anathemas are not targeting those outside the church, ie Protestants.

[@MorrisJohn-vo2vn]

Because Protestants are already Anathemized defacto.

[@austromyrtus]

Well researched and good logic.

[@qazyman]

I've always found it interesting that the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church excommunicated each other in 1054. You would think the one thing we should be able to agree on is that none of us are infallible. I think I read something about humility some place, but I digress. Saying some people are important and need to be remembered is reasonable. Going beyond that......

[@nicklowe_]

How many times do you have to win this argument before it’s conceded Gavin.

[@klemperal]

If he thought he had won, he wouldn't keep making videos.

[@nicklowe_]

@ No, this is a case of pressing the issue. It’s something you do in debate when you know you have a winning argument and you’re awaiting a concession. The Catholic apologists have not retorted with a satisfying answer. So Gavin offers an ultimatum to concede the infallibility of Nicea II.

[@klemperal]

@@nicklowe_ The Catholics have offered a solution via "doctrinal development," but it is not an argument that the Orthodox recognize as Gavin has stated. In any case, Gavin is ignoring evidence contrary to his point in order to press the issue. There are so many examples of images in pre 7th century churches that it boggles the mind that Gavin would be insisting they weren't there. Certainly there are fewer surviving images thanks to Gavin's iconoclastic forebearers destroying them. Look how he works hand in glove with the iconoclasts of the past--they destroyed the images, then Gavin asks where all the images are. This is why there are anathemas--to keep these destroyers away from the church.

[@dandeliontea7]

As soon as Seraphim and others stop coping in their responses

[@klemperal]

@@dandeliontea7 Counter evidence is "coping" to you I suppose.

[@shannonmorgan2866]

Every Eastern Orthodox I know would be anathematized by the “fathers.” Unless you hold to 100% of what every council in history has said, you are anathema. You don’t get to decide what Eastern Orthodoxy is, you have to believe what the church has said. All of what it has said, with nothing removed or revised.

[@georgwilliamfriedrichhegel5744]

Hot take: Icons being mandatory is less about theology and connecting to God and more about a response to Islam, which was gaining power and bans images.

[@scottc2076]

In islam they kiss the black stone in Mecca

[@mysticalgladness8798]

I don’t see - or have seen - anyone bring up this point on the subject, so let me introduce it. As it pertains to any type of disciplinary action taken by the Church, which operates administratively via canon law - from an Eastern Orthodox perspective - one first has to realize that anathemas are not like landmines which instantly blow you up if you step on one. They require a case to be brought to the Bishop/Synod, making an accusation. Then the issue is investigated and a trial is held. I guess the logical question if we want to take a serious look at this topic is to find out when was the last trial against someone accused of not venerating an icon? Have there been any cases in the last 200 years? There are canons which forbid all sorts of things but unless a case is brought to the Bishop or local council - one is still “in” the Orthodox Church (and in good standing) until such a final ruling is made.

[@Crucian1]

With all due respect, I think your point is an example of anachronism. Anathemas proclaimed at ecumenical councils were considered binding upon anyone holding the condemned position, whether or not a specific individual case had been brought before a bishop. Consider St. Cyril of Alexandria's view of the immediate efficaciousness of anathema: “For it is not we who condemn them, but they have brought the sentence upon themselves by their own actions, being already judged by Christ Himself, who said, 'He who rejects you rejects Me'” (Against Nestorius).

[@AmericanwrCymraeg]

@@Crucian1 With all due respect, it isn't anachronistic. Although St. Cyril anathematized Nestorius's teaching, he continued to write respectfully to Nestorius himself and refer to him as a beloved brother and concelebrant and bishop until the synod had condemned him. This way of canon law operating, not automatically but through a legal process, is very ancient and frequently talked about in the councils and the great historical canonists (Balsamon, etc.) all talk about it as well.

[@Crucian1]

@@AmericanwrCymraeg OK, but even if anathemas don’t immediately condemn individuals, they are binding declarations about the truth and falsehood of doctrines. Thus, anyone who knowingly holds a condemned position, without repentance, is under judgment before God, regardless of ecclesiastical legal proceedings. Let's not forget that the idea of anathema comes from verses like Galatians 1:8-9, and these verses are clear that it is the holding and teaching of a certain doctrinal position which condemns someone, regardless of ecclesiastical procedure. A good analogy is criminal law. Certain actions are against the law, but a person will not be prosecuted until they appear in court. But nobody would say that their crime only became illegal when they were sentenced. In the same way, the holding of an anathematic doctrine is still a damnable 'crime', even if someone is not brought before a human court to answer for it before they die and are condemnded for it.

[@AustGM]

Great video Gavin. Wondering if you could make a video on Bishops and the historical argument that the original church only had two offices. Deacon and Presbyter

[@jameschebahtah]

Barrel aged faith (an Orthodox Christian) has a 3 or 4 parter regarding the word Presbyter and the evolution of Presbyter into the Episkopos and the Presbyter and how it mirrors the 3 fold priestly office of the Old Testament.

[@jacobjackson1614]

I'm currently a "protestant" Christian doing my best to follow Jesus. I don't know if this thought I'm about to express has been touched and I missed it either in this video or another one but what about the Coptic Church Gavin? They split in 451 and their usage of icons is very prevalent despite being excommunicated well before this council. Is it fair for this to be a good point which may temper the full dismissal of Nicaea II's claims?

[@BernardinusDeMoor]

They were in a lot of cultural contact still, I would think? Both in the Byzantine empire for some time. But I don't really know this much.

[@goldenspoon87]

I was once sincerely drawn to the Eastern traditions. Gavin's videos and book helped me gain perspective and i am more certain today that you cannot both serve God and violate the 2nd commandment. Christianity is a faith grounded in historicity. We believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus based on historical evidence and eyewitness accounts. And we ought to judge the acts of the church leaders through the ages with the same acumen.

[@RouterOSRS]

So are you anathematizing those that follow the RCC and EO traditions of Icon Veneration?

[@goldenspoon87]

@RouterOSRS who am I to anathematize anyone?

[@RouterOSRS]

@@goldenspoon87 maybe you misunderstood. By saying “I am more certain today that you cannot both serve God and violate the 2nd commandment” assuming you believe Icon Veneration is a violation of the 2nd commandment, you believe those that do are not serving God. Correct?

[@foodforthought8308]

@@goldenspoon87 I doubt Gavin shares your extreme stance. Would you really condemn all of the great EO saints since Nicea 2 through whom God worked miracles and filled with His Grace? Let's show some humility here

[@goldenspoon87]

@@RouterOSRS there is hope for murderers, adulterers, etc for all who repent and turn from their ways. Including those who violate the 2nd commandment. I do not condemn anyone. There is hope for all sinners, by grace through faith.

[@ocdchristian]

Greetings Gavin! How early of textual evidence do you think is necessary to show that it isn't an accretion? Would 4th century count?

[@TruthUnites]

hello! it depends on the nature of the evidence. What we are looking for is apostolicity.

[@ocdchristian]

@TruthUnites So what about St. Gregory the Theologian, Gregory Nissa and Basil the Great? I need to look a little more into the letter to Antiochus of (pseudo) Athanasius.

[@ocdchristian]

I'd like to make a defense of icon veneration based on the early Fathers and archeological evidence (what are your thoughts on that btw). P.S. I just published a response to the video about St. Theophan's letter(s). I looked at the translation errors, the other letters in that correspondence, and tried to frame the question you were asking. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it! 🤗

[@johnmichaeltau]

What is the cutoff date for apostolicity?

[@ocdchristian]

@@johnmichaeltau good question! I didn't quite understand what Gavin meant by that. Does that mean it has to be in apostolic writings, as in the NT?

[@gabrielgabriel5177]

Also many protestants anathemizes those who do venerate icons. Many protestants say it is idolatry wich leads to hell.

[@cheezman9180]

Those same protestants admit there is idolatry in our own lives, some of it we may not even realize or repent of because of our pride, but God is gracious to forgive. I know some claim Catholics can't be saved because of that practice, but it is not the view of the reformers or the majority now. Only shallow modern fundamentalists believe that. I would recommend not painting protestants in a broad stroke. Protestants don't have a (supposedly) infallible council claiming Catholics or EO are Anathema for the practice.

[@ElectricBluJay]

An important distinction I think is that Protestant churches, so far as I’m aware, don’t claim to have the authority to damn someone to Hell. But the Catholic Church does claim to have that authority. Consequently, their anathemas are much more than a case of the church saying, “it’s our belief that if you do this or that then you are putting yourself in danger of Hell”… It’s more a case of the church saying, “We hold the authority of Jesus Christ, and if you do this or don’t do that, then we formally condemn you to Hell” So it’s quite a heavy and dogmatic position the Catholic Church takes… and considering icon veneration is not found in scriptures nor in the earliest documentation of the church, such dogmatic anathemas attached to compulsory icon veneration seems a bit misguided and heavy-handed…

[@PaperBagGambles]

@@ElectricBluJay very true

[@Jim-Mc]

Some probably do but mostly they just don't think it should be required.

[@gabrielgabriel5177]

@@Jim-Mc no. Mostly those who oppose icons say that it is idolatry wich of course separates from God.