Gavin Ortlund on Icon Veneration

Gavin Ortlund on Icon Veneration

#catholic #protestant #calvinist #calvinism #theology #debate #apologetics
_________________________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: Any view expressed by a host, contributor or guest is not necessarily reflective of the views of other hosts, contributors or guests.

🔴PLEASE HELP THIS CHANNEL GROW🔴

🔴SUPPORT

🔴VISIT

[bryanwalters]

I think what has people most concerned is not the fact that there is a lack over ante-nicene evidence for icon veneration, but rather Gavin’s claim that early church was universally aniconic; which would mean Nicea 2 anathematized the consensus of the early church. The issue is more serious than mere silence. I think it deserves close attention.

[PatrickHutton]

Don't forget that Nicaea 2 anathematised those who disagreed with the Veneration of Icons. It was no small deal.

[hestongraves]

The issue isn’t merely “can Jesus be imaged?” But that Nicea 2 makes venerating with affection images of Mary and the saints necessary for salvation and anathematizing to hell those who don’t kiss the images.

[codytempleton]

It absolutely does matter if there is a lack of historical evidence. Because the second council of Nicaea is claiming historicity and basing it upon proven false documents. Then it proceeds to anathematize anyone who doesn’t agree with their claim.

Icon veneration runs completely counter to biblical doctrine and has a serious lack of evidence in the early church. There is however much evidence countering the claims of icon veneration.

[bairfreedom]

Gavin absolutely slayed on that icon video. People should be questioning . It wasn't just some sloppy video. It was WELL researched with shown historical development of it in the church over a couple hundred years and the forbidding of it in the truly earliest practices of the church.

[goldenspoon]

Nicaea II wasnt about whether we can make an image of God or the saints. Its about anathematizing those who dont wish to pray to these images. Vast difference. Protestant churches, books are full of these images too, but they do not pray to them.

[Ragnar-hglm]

I think you missed the mark here. I grant that the early church needed to unpack fundamental doctrines but Gavin shows that the early church clearly condemns the use of religious imagery. I myself am not an iconoclast bu the church fathers sure were

[BBassistChrist]

Not bothered by things that people need prior commitments to? It seems like Catholicism has a lot more prior commitments than Protestantism. Catholics have to prior commit to the truth of the Papacy, the Marian Dogmas, Icon veneration, and many other things. What prior commitments do Protestants have?

Furthermore, Dr. Ourtland's arguments weren't that they weren't established yet, but rather that it was unanimously agreed upon that such images tended to lead the Church to idolatry. And that the church had not gotten to the question of whether they could make an image of God? That question was settled before Christ was even born (Exodus 20:4-5, Leviticus 26:1, Deuteronomy 4:15-16).

[PracticalChristianLessons]

Nicea II. "Icons are apostolic."
It is a big problem if they aren't apostolic.

[jordanvelazco]

The point of the argument is that the council reversed the consensus that was prior to that point. The fathers were unanimously opposed to icon veneration until the sixth century. If this is the case, then the claims of Nicea II that it was part of the apostolic deposit to the church is false. This destroys the claim that the councils are inerrant and calls into question the legitimacy of appeals to tradition as an authority.

[galantkoh]

Perhaps it has to do with the fact that so much focus has been placed on how the RCC is the historic faith based on the passed down Apostolic traditions and holding the agreement of the Fathers. The repeated criticism of Protestant theology that it doesn't have historical basis. And yet now a lack of historical evidence doesn't matter?

[Narikku]

My friend, it does matter if icons were not figured out in the 3rd or 4th century, because of how the Second Council of Nicaea frames the issues.

Nicaea II frames the situation as if this is the apostolic faith - that this has always been what the church has taught. This is simply not true.

If you don't think that's important, then okay. But don't disparage others for thinking that is important.

[MrJMB]

As an Eastern Orthodox boy and that fresh theology student. I found him moving the goalpost. But just mission how this truly matters.

[Frankjp]

The problem of the late development is that the “infallible” 7th ecumenical council anathematizes those who say that the tradition of icon veneration wasn’t passed on by the holy fathers.

[leeorrose]

You should be bothered by a lack of historical evidence because it is Catholics who are making the apostolic claim. 💁🏼

[bigfootapologetics]

I'm a simple man. And to me, the simplest proof of veneration being acceptable is this: would you kiss the Virgin Mary's hand if she appeared before you? I bet you most Protestants would do it.

So that being said, why in the world would it be wrong to kiss a statue of Mary, knowing the gesture would likely be appreciated by the real Mary in heaven?

If it's not worship when we interact with human beings on Earth this way, it's not worship when we interact with the Holy Family (and other saints) this way.

[ProfYaffle]

But if Gavin is right, you should be bothered

[Collin_Brooks]

Your logic disagrees with Nicaea II. They do not present icon veneration as some development of doctrine which is built off of prior foundational beliefs. N2 claims that icon veneration was an apostolic practice, a tradition handed down from the apostles. It seems you are ironically in agreement with Dr. Ortlund: icon veneration is a late development; it is not itself an ancient practice.

[Pavan]

So i am still learning about the faith, i wasnt born into Christianity. Ultimately i just want the truth.

The thing that really has me bothered, is that as far as i am aware, Orthodoxy makes icon veneration a requirement...
There is no point in scripture, as far as i can tell, that requires icon veneration for salvation.
It is murky grey area if we go by sola scriptura.

And as it is a murky grey area, as it is not a requirement for salvation, why enforce it?
Why make rejection of icon veneration anathema?
Why make it a requirement?
That is what raises huge red flags for me, any church forcing practices that are not required for salvation seems evil to me.

[ike]

The earlier Christians already settled the question. Images were discouraged.