For a bit more on Ignatius, see this video: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mp9gms2dzK-cpHU.htmlsi=l-5RIGBsD3xOtCyt

Hi Dr. Ortlund- thanks so much for the engagement and the kind words. We hope to have a reply video posted sometime during the summer, around the time that Michael's book is published. Much love in Christ- please remember us in your prayers!

A truly iconic video, Dr. Ortlund!

Thank you for coming back to this topic, Gavin!

Thank you Dr. Ortlund. You put your finger on the very reason why I follow Christian apologetics: the thirst for something solid, for assurance and certainty, and a deep-seated dread of being deceived. In part thanks to your work, I have found that there is no certainty anywhere except in the Word of God, "which liveth and abideth forever."

Thank you, Gavin, for actually taking James 3 seriously. I see the deliberation in your engaging these topics which is a sign, I believe, of your reverence for God and the role of teaching in the body of Christ. I see so much haphazard, puffed-up, reactionary teaching online and it's a breath of fresh air to see you so painstakingly and even-handedly address these crucial topics. We need this kind of earnest teaching in every local church.

I just hope everyone who clicks on this video watches it in its entirety with an open mind and heart before forming any views about it. You have no idea how long I've waited for this video, and I'm happy to say it lived up to my expectations

Absolutely thrilled you've addressed these responses. I never found them strong at all, yet they lacked response. Praise God for your extensive work in this field!

I never thought I would find this topic so interesting but you do a really great job of explaining the history of this practice. Video was engaging the whole way through. Thank you!

We are never spacing out brother. Keep em coming ❤

To paraphrase Dr. Heinz Doofenshmirtz, "Your Seventh Council is infallible. And by infallible I mean COMPLETELY FALLIBLE!!"

I just finished your original video on icons. What timing.

Thank you so much for SHOWING the written truth that was clearly recorded from the early church, in many historic writings!

Thank you gavin, your videos have been an answer to my prayers. I was really trouble in my faith and came across your channel, by the grace of God. May God continue to use you greatly

Thank you for being so firm at the end while also being Christ-like and kind. It needed to be said.

I grew up Baptist, and I really love the worship of the EO church. I have been attending one for some time, and I am still unsure of how I will proceed. I am thoroughly disillusioned with ANY church’s claims of having perfectly preserved all apostolic traditions, but I still think the historical ecclesiology, unique spirituality, and time-proven consistency of the EO church are big points in favor of it. Thank you for these videos, Gavin.

The amount of time you have put into this video boggles my mind. Much appreciated

Best Protestant apology gets a sequel!

Get ready for these comments : "I was an Orthodox before watching this, and I am still an Orthodox " "That's just your interpretation" "You are proving you don't understand Orthodoxy" "Eastern Orthodox is pre-denominational.." "Luke painted the first icon" "Don't you venerate your parents and have pictures?"

My learning curve watching your videos has accelerated. Thanks.

What an excellent and well-articulated case. Thank you Gavin!

Gavin, if our confidence in the 7th ecumenical council is so shattered, would you consider doing a video covering which of the councils are reliable, and why? Ex-Orthodox here, trying to get my bearings. Deeply appreciate the fantastic work you do!

Someone keeps making a comment with dishonest accusations against Seraphim Hamilton and then deleting the comment whenever other people respond with more accurate information. Seraphim Hamilton, as Dr. Ortlund himself acknowledges, is a good, honest man. If that person makes his comment with accusations again and then tries to delete it, feel free to comment the truth here.

I am not Orthodox ... here are some wonderings about their use of icons (I have some concerns about the way its being treated in this video). 1. Is there a distinct difference between what you think the Orthodox are all about with respect to icons and what the Orthodox say about it themselves? They will report veneration is akin to respect (*not* worship), the "praying to saints" as akin to asking a friend to interceede for you on a matter meangful to you, etc. 2. I wonder, does it matter how they describe the mechanics of icon use, when it is distinctly *not* worship? I mean, who are we to impose upon them our reactions to icon use and ignore the fundamentals of what they say they are doing? Would you want an outsider to tell you what you are "actually" doing when taking communion without regard for what you would say about it? 3. I also wonder is it really important whether use of icons was an Apostolic tradition, in light of how they describe they use them? Is it sin to use icons as they describe they are using them? Isn't that the central issue? I keep coming back to this, because they explain it very differently than what you seem to understand it is. 4. The historical aspects and the issue of anethema are one set of issues, but the actual implementation of icons is the crux of it, isn't it? I think you and the Orthodox may be talking past each other conceptually?

May God open the hearts of those who need to hear this.

Gavin, would you be willing to compile a list of citations so that those of us who want to dive in can read through them? Excellent video as always!

Really well done thanks Dr. Gavin! Very helpful as always.

I'm really glad you adressed the core of the responses to this topic. Even though they weren't very good in the first place, it helps to be clear about why. Hope people get it. Maybe a dialogue on this very point with a reasonable catholic would also help.

"Colorful anathemas." Lol. Yes, that is one way to describe them. Thank you for your continued work on this issue, Gavin.

Extremely well researched and thorough. I personally found this very edifying and a powerful testimony for the Protestant view on this topic. Thanks so much for sharing Gavin!

Great walkthrough and response. Hope this reaches many of those considering converting to the East or Rome

This is pretty dang strong

Ortlund vs Hamilton debate! That would be awesome

Obligatory note that the Empress who called the 2nd Council of Nicaea gouged out of the eyes of her own son leading to his death (Irene of Athens)

Icon veneration is an accretion. You can argue or respond from emotions, however it's clear that the evidence is against icon veneration. God bless you immensely, Gavin ❤️✝️🙏

The heart of the matter is the consideration of "What is apostolic teaching?" For us non-Catholics, Apostolic teachings was the teaching of the Apostles that was handed on to the early church. If it wasn't taught by the Apostles then it is not part of the Apostolic Deposit of Faith. That doesn't mean we can't alter our traditions as culture and technology change and advance. But it does mean that any traditions we have can't negate or add to the Gospel message by introducing things that either ignore or negate or make additional requirements of what it means to be "In Christ". Dr. Ortlund has made a great case that Icon veneration was not part of the Apostolic Deposit of faith. Instead, it became the practice of Christians in later centuries.

Gavin, thank you so much for identifying the equivocation of veneration around 35:30 with the example of hand-over-heart vs. bowing down praying. This was very helpful to me.

Thank you Galvin, great summary.

Love your videos, nice to see a great reformed Baptist apologist on KZfaq

Hello Gavin, do you have a source for the English translation of the Council of Frankfort? I would like to read it.

Hi, Gavin or anyone else do you know where I can read the canons of Frankfurt? I can't find them on google or on pdf libraries.

Gavin, Thanks for this video, came at a great time. Been talking to friends who are discouraged with protestantism and attracted to EO, so this video a great resource to have

Great job as always, Gavin!

Excellent. I really think the iconophile position must grasp at straws these days. Also, your setup and lighting in this video are on point!

Gavin, you’re such a blessing for, especially as an ex-eastern-orthodox. You make me want to dive into the church history so much more! And the situation with icons and any other church tradition is sad, because the mentioned churches have committed to be infallible and now it’s just impossible to confess that they were wrong and correct anything that has creeped in. It’s sad… I don’t want to offend anyone, but it is very much like the situation with the Pharisees

Time-stamp 7:50 - Exactly. The reason why icon veneration is an issue is because Eastern Orthodoxy **makes** it an issue. It’s bizarre to be part of a church that casts an anathema and just shrug your shoulders. They need to own it. 27:20 - Eusebius is most decisive, I think. 1:15:20 - Frankfurt 1:16:32 - Slam dunk 1:16:53 - “787 was a human event.”

And hour and twenty minute long truth unites video! Time to go get the popcorn

Dr. Ortlund why is it that Session 7 from Price’s Acts of Nicaea 2 are not found in the papal encyclicals? Is it not considered by the RCC as infallible? If so, is it viable to continue to use it?

Good video! The veneration of icons is historically problematic. I could in principle be open to perhaps this being a legitimate doctrinal development, but it still wouldn't eliminate the problem of an infallible council making historically problematic claims. Perhaps someone could say that the Council taught correctly as far as dogma is concerned, but in terms of the historicity of the doctrine, it could be mistaken. If I remember correctly, Trent Horn presented something like this somewhere. I just don't know if the 2nd Council of Nicea allows this way of thinking, as it would seem to defend theology (venetration of icons) with historical arguments (it is of apostolic origin). It would be great to see a debate/dialogue on the topic.

Amen brother Gavin

I like the new setup, especially the Chemnitz volumes in the background.

Dr Ortlund, greetings from Australia. I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for your lovingly charitable approach to apologetics. I am currently studying the classics at a catholic college here in Australia. Almost all of my contemporaries are practicing well read Catholics. I feel I am constantly in a state of defence for my faith and it can be at times discouraging to constantly have to argue against straw man arguments being made against my faith. Having grown up non-denominational with a slant towards low Anglicanism I never really had my beliefs challenged by fellow brothers and sisters in Christ in this way. Your videos provide a beautiful model to what I wish to achieve, your knowledgeable, gentle, and moral defences of Protestantism are truly an inspiration. Thank you for contributions to scholarship and God bless.

Where can someone find the Council of Frankfurt? Or even written treatments of the council?

Hi Gavin, loved the video as usual. a topic i would really appreciate you one day making a video on would be contemporary christian worship music and the historical case for or against it

My opinion on this issue is that religious art is not bad and should actually be encouraged. I’m so tired of seeing churches that are bare rooms with not effort out into them. However, I am also against giving images a type of honor they were never meant to be given, such as kissing and lighting candles too.

Can’t wait to watch the video when I get off of work! Your videos, especially the ones on icon veneration always reassures me with my anxiety for not venerating icons. I’m curious to know, what is your opinion on icons as religious art NOT as an object of veneration but just as a piece for appreciation and remembrance?

I have been listening to Michael Heiser recently, and the way he describes idol worship is almost, if not actually, identical to icon veneration. I struggle to see how it can be anything other than the same thing. I really do.

Ignatius speaks of the altar here: “Be careful, therefore, to take part only in the one eucharist; for there is only one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup to unite us with his blood, one altar and one bishop with the presbyters and deacons, who are his fellow servants. Then, whatever you do, you will do according to God.

Many cultures bow down, light candles and incense in front of their ancestors' pictures as veneration. When they become Christians, we tell them not to do this. Why should it be ok for Christians with the icons? Obviously, I'm not saying art, candles and incenses shouldn't be inside churches. In the same way, we are not saying to cultures who venerate their ancestors to throw their family photos in the garbage once they become Christians. It's the way it is used that is problematic.

This is a very powerful and clear argument. Thank you Gavin!

Personally I think the evidence is clear that this wasn’t practiced by the Early Church. It was slowly brought in by pagans who converted, and is definitely an accretion. Sadly we as people easily get trapped in our own traditions and sometimes blinded by them too. The work you’re doing and the light you’re shining on these issues is important and appreciated. I’ll continue to pray the Lord protects you and blesses your ministry brother. We need more like you. 🙏✝️🙏

Thank you. Excellent!

Im always amazed by the difference in the evidence. It often feels like this- Iconoclast sources: no Christian ever use images! Images are not spiritual! We would never make an image to bow down to. Iconophile sources: we use decorations sometimes. The cross is like a flag for us. We have cups.

This video you commented on is the first part in a series of videos. Do you plan to make more commentaries on the other videos?

Hey Gavin, the "Striving Side by Side" discord link is dead, could an updated link be put up for people to join?

Interesting how the gentlemen “rebutting” Gavin argues from Roman standard traditions and Pliny’s instructions on signet rings. They are literally arguing from pagan traditions to justify icon veneration. They literally proved Gavin’s thesis.

Thank you for being so clear in your arguments. It makes it easy to pinpoint the disagreements I have with you (as a long-time Orthodox viewer). Your response makes it clear that in regarding Seraphim and Michael's arguments as equivocation, the difference between you is a *philosophical* difference, not a *historical* one. The key is in your denial that various objects are inherently objects of veneration, such as a national flag, a standard, or a signet ring. This is a desacralisation of the world that I would argue is clearly inconsistent with the incarnation, and that is in fact the key argument of St John of Damascus. There is no such thing as "non-venerating honouring". The category that you are making does not align with reality and I would argue would not make sense to any of these early church writers, even the more aniconic ones. Take a look at how you argue against baptismal regeneration, something that is totally unanimous in the church fathers, and then how you argue against icon veneration, which I will happily grant is much harder to find. This is about philosophical presuppositions, not the weight of evidence. We can't come at these issues in the way you want to, without the guidance of the church, as Fr Stephen tried to get across in his discussion with you on Sola Scriptura, or we end up in tangles where you have this theology of your own making. Talk to Sam Tideman at the KZfaq channel "Transfigured", the Unitarian who rejects Nicaea 1, or at least listen to one of his videos, to hear that his arguments are just as reasonable as yours against Nicaea 2! To emphasise the point about philosophical coherence: If I was convinced of your arguments against icon veneration, I wouldn't become a protestant, I'd become an Orthodox Jew or Noahide, because at least they actually have a coherent tradition that fits with aniconism! I.e. protestantism is so fundamentally methodologically flawed that being convinced it was the approach most true to Christianity would kill my faith in the very resurrection of Christ (which, God willing, won't happen, don't worry!). God bless you, and I mean that sincerely. I hope that one day you find our mother the church. Sorry for writing such a long comment. There's a level of investment I have about this because of that weird parasocial relationship that watching so many hours of a KZfaqr creates. In Christ, Zac

To keep it short, that was airtight and awesome. Thank you!

I’m a little confused because you said that very early churches did have images (they just didn’t venerate them) but then you use the quotes from the fathers that say there is NO use of images in the early church whatsoever. So if we know there were images in the early church, despite the quotes of the fathers that say there weren’t images at all, is it possible that they were just referring to pagan imagery? Currently a Catholic very much considering Protestantism and I love your videos, but I’m trying to think as critically as I can.

Enjoyed this a lot. Even though I'm leaning towards the other end (due to the fact that virtually all churches that split prior to Nicaea 2 have and venerate icons in almost the same manner, and due to the West having a high amount of, frankly, gross religious art that involves nudity and strange non-biblical depictions of cherubim as a direct result of their lack of sacramental understanding of art), I still think this is a valid discussion and critique of the way EO Apologetics work. I would love to see you and Sam Tideman sit down and have a chat as well. I'm curious how far the skepticism can go. Might be fun to have a chat with Paul Vanderklay as well.

Serious question, how do you reconcile your position with the fact that the two other ancient churches (Non-Chalcedonians, and the Nestorians) both venerate icons despite never accepting Nicea II? It's rather universal in the ancient communions today, and is practiced by ancient churches that were far away from the influence of the Roman Empire. The only record of iconoclasm we have was the controversy in Byzantium, Charlemagne, and some Protestants. Those aren't early enough to contend as apostolic. So is the position that Rabbinics don't venerate icons today, therefore it wasn't originally there? Because the Biblical argument from the ten commandments is undercut by things like Joshua 7:6.

Hey Folks - I don't think comments are being deleted. If you use sort by Top Comments, then some of the responses in threads do not appear. If you sort by Newest First, you will see your comments appear in the thread. Not sure why youtube does this, but I'm pretty sure it isn't Gavin making this happen. And even if it is, this is his account. He can do what he wants.

Should a distinction be made between icons of Christ and icons of saints in these discussions? Because most of the examples I've seen of what are argued to be icons before Nicea I are about saints and not Jesus. Would a Catholic or Orthodox be okay with such a stance (icons of saints but not Jesus)? Serious question. I don't see how that would contradict Nicea II

Thank you Gavin! You have been instrumental in my conversion to Orthodoxy. I dont mean that as a slight either. I watched many of your videos during my searching and you are one of the first people I heard speak about it. You make great content, shame we disagree! God bless my friend.

Thanks Gavin

Can you please put together or do you have a document with all the church father quotes you’ve used in these two videos for easier reference?

Great work Gavin! Love your channel

Everyone: dude what? EOs: ...it's a mystery 💫

Gavin, thanks for all you do. I was heavily in the process of joining the Orthodox Church (from a non-denomination church) and saw your first icon video and it made me tap the brakes. Thanks to you and Dr Jordan B. Cooper I am now attending a LCMS church.

Pastor Gavin Ortlund could you give me your top ten book recommendations on divine simplicity?

Doesn't the Coptic church also venerate images?

Well researched answer!

Interestingly, reading through Fr Richard Price, whom Dr Ortlund relies on extensively as an authority, he has something interesting to say about the "Letter to Constantia" which is cited at 26:50. Price accepts the authenticity of the letter, although he acknowledges that some argue against it because, as Price says, "In his Ecclesiastical Histories, Eusebius is happy to mention images of Christ and the apostles." Price's answer, however, is that Eusebius happily mentions early images of Christ and the Apostles merely as past history, referring to an earlier period in the Church when people hadn't yet learned not to imitate pagan practices, but that Eusebius believes those things should no longer be done. Note: that's not him quoting Eusebius, but rather giving his opinion of why Eusebius would be pro-image in his Ecclesiastical Histories but anti-icon in the Letter to Constantia. But if that is true, if Price is right, that's very important. Dr. Ortlund used Eusebius as a witness that there were no images of Christ, that such a thing was unheard of and, as Dr. Ortlund says, he would know, as the greatest Church historian of his day. But Price says that Eusebius was not making a historical argument, that he positively acknowledged early icons, but rather he was making a theological argument that it shouldn't happen. I myself think there's a good likelihood that the "Letter to Constantia" is not an authentic work of Eusebius, but even if it is, even if Price's expert opinion is the correct one, this **does not** support a "scholarly consensus" that aniconism was universal in the first few centuries (indeed, such an opinion is not in keeping with abundant historical evidence). Rather, it shows a scholarly arguing that Eusebius's supposed aniconism would be a historical innovation, not a continuing of an apostolic practice.

So informative. Thank you.

Pardon me if I have missed it but “Why” do WE protestants do not nail, our sola scriptura to the definition of the word canon (measuring rod or rule of faith) am I missing something?

The EO argument is thoroughly exposed as an impressionistic gematria, as religious imagination posing as argumentation. Great work!

Serious and dedicated research went into this video, in fact into all the videos. I do have an honest question, though. The Church of the East and the Oriental Orthodox both left the Ancient Church centuries before the iconoclastic conflict. Do either of these traditions have churches in which icons are truly venerated? Are there any writings from these churches that might also shed some light as to when this practice developed? Again, these people left before the 7th Council. Certainly someone here is knowledgeable about these churches.

Great video Gavin, would you take the historic reformed view of the 2nd commandment for no pictures or images of the trinity?

Very well presented. This is a fair, yet hard-hitting video.

Great video! Thanks!

Gavin “I remain skeptical” Ortland

Are those Chemnitz’s “Examination of the Counsels of Trent” in the background?

Gavin, are you familiar with the quote from Athanasias in support of icon veneration?

Its strange you posted this video now becouse just yesterday i watched some videos of yours about icons. I am finnish eastern orthodox. I dont think we are doing idolatry by venerating icons but i like your respectful way of talking. I will watch this.

Gavin, I would like to ask you, if saluting the American flag is not venerating an image, what is it? You say that placing your hand over your chest is "qualitatively different" from bowing and kissing, but how so?

Are there scholarly books that defend the Protestant position in inter-denominational dialogs? Edit: Okay, I got some, but putting the sources in the comments or the description would be helpful.

Since Gavin seems to be hung up on the anathemas of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, I'd like to quote from Fr. Stephen DeYoung with whom Gavin had a discussion on The Transfigured Life channel. Father Stephen DeYoung discussed these anathemas on the Lord of Spirits podcast in the episode Torah 2: Back in the Habit starting at the 3:04:13 mark. So, to help anyone here or Gavin to get over these anathema hang-ups, I give you Fr. Stephen DeYoung (SDY) transcribed from his podcast with Fr Andrew Stephen Damick (ASD): >>Why does it sound different when you read the anathemas on paper versus when you talk to an actual Orthodox Christian? Because they’re being applied in a certain way. Let me give you an example in the modern world. SDY: So, if I go to the average layperson, and I say, “Explain the Trinity to me.” Okay. I’m going to get some kind of heresy 9.9 times out of 10. ASD: Yeah, within the first 5 minutes at least one heretical thing will be said. SDY: Yes. But let’s say just for the purpose of this example that the person I go to, this particular person gives me the whole, “water-ice-steam” thing. Right? And is basically a Modalist, basically a Sabellian in the way he explains it, his explanation is Modalist or Sabellian. Okay? But he’s never studied it and doesn’t know much about theology, he’s just got a kind of wrong-headed view of it. Okay? But the view he expresses when asked about the Trinity is Sabellian. Now, let’s imagine I go and I talk to someone who is a theology professor at a Oneness Pentecostal Seminary. And this professor is say in his late 50s and has spent his life writing books against the doctrine of the Trinity. Writing books laying out a model that is Modalist. That is Sabellian. And he has had public debates with Trinitarians about it. Right? Allow me to suggest that the anathema of the Council of Nicaea against Sabellianism applies to these two men differently. Just obviously. Right? When it gets applied to the average Christian layman who is a little confused, it gets applied in terms of “Whoa, man! That’s not correct! Let me lay out for you a better way to understand the Trinity.” Whereas the person who has spent his life arguing against the truth gets rebuked by that anathema. Rebuked in the sense that if you believe that, if you reject the doctrine of the Trinity, the Council of Nicaea, you aren’t-properly speaking-a Christian. You are outside the Church. Right? That’s how those get applied. And that’s not being “inconsistent.” That’s not being “wishy-washy” with the one person. That’s being normal, reasonable, and addressing the two cases. Now, if I talk to that layman and I lay out a more correct way of understanding the Trinity and he rejects it and says, “No, I don’t believe that” and he doubles down with the Modalism and says, “No, this is what I think is true.” He starts moving over into the other category. Right? Then, if he goes and starts talking to his friends to try and form a faction in his church, he’s moving WAY OVER into that other category of rebuke. Right? And so, the Orthodox Church when it’s addressing people who have grown up with no knowledge of the Orthodox Church and its teachings, they’re not going to apply those anathemas to those people in the same way that they apply them to someone who understood those teachings full well and rejected them. Those are two different scenarios. So, just to choose a random example because, of course, this is not directed at any particular person (ASD laughs). The second Council of Nicaea, the Seventh Ecumenical Council, the anathemas against those who refuse to venerate icons, okay? At the time those anathemas were spoken historically, they were spoken to people who had been murdering, imprisoning, and torturing people for owning icons. ASD: Yeah, and smashing icons in pieces, burning them, and throwing them into the ocean, etc. SDY: Yes. So, yeah, they get rebuked! And in pretty harsh terms, okay? Now, we have an average Evangelical Protestant trying to follow Christ as best they know how. They walk into an Orthodox Church one day, they see people kissing an icon, that gives them the heebie-jeebies and they say, “You know, I don’t think that’s right. That seems weird.” Okay? Those anathemas DO NOT apply to the second person the same way they apply to the first person. That is NOT being “wishy-washy” that is being normal. It’s being sensible and reasonable. They’re applied differently in these different cases because they’re different people because what’s the goal? The goal is NOT to identify good guys and bad guys, it’s not to identify an “in group” and an “out group.” The goal is to call people who are on the wrong path or who have wrong ideas to repentance. And if the best way to bring someone to the right point of view is to come and speak to them lovingly and explain and teach them what we believe to be true, that’s what we’re going to do. If a person is hardened and argumentative and opposing the truth then we’re going to try for a rebuke to bring them to repentance. ASD: This is actually baked into the very text of these anathemas. Right. The phrase, “those who teach” exists in most of them. “To those who teach” or “To those who say XYZ” not “To those who think” or “To those who speculate.” SDY: Or to those who don’t know any better. ASD: It’s “to those who teach.” Those who teach this heresy, anathema. SDY & ASD: Yeah!

Thank you

As a Jew, I say that if Christians can get around the 2nd commandment (some count it as the 1st) and its prohibition of idols and images of the Divine, then I never want to hear them cite Scripture again as the "infallible source" of God's will.

Hey Gavin, I am a questioning Protestant. There is a video on “the transfigured life” channel fearing Michael Garten where he goes over arguments and history that I personally had never seen responded to by a Protestant. I think it would be helpful to address the issues he raises. I’m glad KZfaq is allowing us to fast track so much discussion and the ability to really clash with the ideas.