Subbed! I was very impressed with your purgatory video and so took a look at your other videos. As a protestant with a long held interest and love of religious art, including icons and reliquaries, I am LOVING your content so far! This interest of mine long ago sparked a wider interest in Catholic and Orthodox liturgy and practices so I'm over the moon looking through your videos to see lots of interesting content to binge! We are really blessed with some quality Christian content on KZfaq, it may not get the audiences it deserves but I will definitely be recommending your channel to others now. Thankyou also for your integrity and the care you take to honestly represent what Catholics and Orthodox believe and where practice diverts from official teaching. Its very important that a Catholic/Orthodox believer recognises themselves and what they believe in our descriptions of them and aren't misrepresented. Your desire for fairness and respectful handling of their beliefs makes me happy. Thanks again for all your hard work and research. I hope to see your channel grow!

Dr. Gavin, I honestly believe that God used you and Dr. Cooper to keep me grounded in my Protestant convictions. You are one of the few Protestant apologists who can defend your worldview when in dialogue with Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians. Keep up the good work.

I am so glad I found your channel. I’ve been listening so much to Catholic channels like Pints with Aquinas, Ascension and even recently Capturing Christianity (not yet Catholic from what I hear), that I’ve been craving to hear some sensible (and fair) Protestant perspectives on these questions. So grateful.

I’m a current student at MBTS and seminary really spurred my love for church history. Your channel is amazing and the things I’ve learned are being expounded upon further and I love it! I wish our seminaries had a more comprehensive track for church history studies but I’m thankful for resources like this!

Your scholarship is so impressive, and I can't wait to buy the book!

I stuck with this thing through the whole video and you know what? it turned out to be a very good and thorough covering of the material.

This was an excellent treatment of the subject. Thank you!

Superb video, thank you Dr. Ortlund

Incredibly helpful!!!! Thankful for you!

Thank you Dr Ortlund, as always I greatly appreciate all that you do! What a refreshing perspective from the protestant stream!

IVE BEEN WAITING FOR THIS!!!

This was very thought provoking. Thank you Pastor Gavin.

Just revisited this. Really excellent.

Lots of patience, alot of nice arguments, I think you did an excellent job of teaching here! I thought I knew stuff about this topic but you covered alot of stuff I did not know! 👍

Very thought provoking questions at the end.

The spirit of the Iconoclast continues to challenge the role of Icons in our Orthodox Church since the seventh Ecumenical council and is unlikely that a universal acceptance will ever occur. From a simple minded Orthodox layperson, I wear a Crucifix and have an Icon of Christ in my bedroom. I do not worship this Icon but for me it is a constant reminder of God’s presence in my life and indeed his universal omnipresence. Does this make me a weak/lesser Christian, in need of an Icon to remind me of Christ’s constant presence in my life? -quite possibly but what can I say, it helps me to stay focused on Christ whenever I see and venerate the Icon. So how can anything that helps you to focus your thoughts towards Christ be a form of idolatry? The Israelites built and worshipped golden statues of animals and other entities as did the Vikings, ancient Egyptians, Hindus, Buddhists and so on. It is beyond my comprehension how one can compare a picture of Christ used as a simple reminder of his presence compared to worshipping statues of false Gods. When I kiss an Icon of the Virgin Mary or a Saint of the Church, I am merely paying respect and using the image to focus my mind on the person depicted in the Icon. I also kiss a photo of my recently deceased father, does this mean I am worshipping that photo or the person in the photo, certainly not, I am simply remembering my father and everything he did for me during his life.

Thanks for the excellent video, Dr. Ortlund. You state that icons can be used for teaching and decoration. Do you think they can be used for inspiration just as any type of art might be?

First, I admire your charitability. As someone who venerates icons, I don't judge you and I know you don't judge me. As for your historical sketch, I would add some caveats, i.e. the synagogue of duros-europos, christian catacombs, and that kind of stuff. Just to give the rounder context that hebrew and early christian culture was not void of images. As an iconodule, it is easy to justify the sparsity of images with the fact that identifying openly as Christian would get you killed, hence why the ixtus fish was so prevalent. I have stuff to say about Charlemagne, even though he was only a footnote in your story. Charlemagne's reaction against veneration was due to a faulty translation of the Greek text, confusing veneration with worship. Plus, he was politically motivated to react against the East as to legitimize himself as the Western Emperor. The bishop of Rome wrote to Charlemagne rebuking his position against veneration. This doesn't say anything about the theological justification of the icon though, which is what is most important. For that, I would recommend the introduction and first chapter of the book "The Meaning of Icons" by Lossky and Ouspensky. Especially the introduction deals with the question of innovation and tradition in the church and I highly recommend it, you can find it online nowadays. As to my own interpretation, here goes. So the Old Testament prohibits an image of God. In my understanding that is so because the Hebrews did not have an image of God. Through the incarnation of Christ, that changes. When God attained bodily form, people were able to point at him and say "This person right here, this is God". We were able to recognize God in this man, which opened up the ability to recognize God in an image. Of course, the justification of images is not the same as the justification for its veneration. When we kiss the painted hand of Christ, our veneration goes to Him who it represents. Do we not do the same with pictures of our beloved? I'm also convinced that many protestants instinctively kiss the cross they wear around their neck. When we venerate saints, we venerate people who have incarnated Christ in themselves. They were the good soil, and they have been gathered into the seed, the Word, and have become part of its body, and have become a plant bearing fruit. This fruit has in it the seed which is the Word of God. As it is said, we kiss the hand of our emperor to show our allegiance, and we kiss the hand of our duke for the same reason. It is not rebellious to submit to the duke if the duke has submitted to the emperor. Likewise, the saints are co-rulers with Christ and are submitted to Him. Moreover, if you see a person doing a heroic sacrifice, is there anything wrong in adoring that and wishing to imitate their embodiment of God-given virtues? We do it all the time, most of us don't even realize we're doing it when we're watching Marvel hero movies. I say, whatever historical reservations you may have about icon veneration, you have to judge a tree by its fruits. If, bowing down and kissing icons helps me humble myself before God, then that is good. Test everything. Keep what is good, and stay away from everything that is evil. The big problem with idolatry in the old testament is that it is a rebellious act against God, and people worship fallen angels as their creators and liberators, instead of recognizing God as their creator and liberator. There is no such confusion in the Orthodox Church.

Another enlightening lesson on Church history. Thank you for sharing the history of the early church and their perspective against the veneration of the saint Jesus told his disciples as we read in John 16:13-14 "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but what ever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you." The veneration of saints is bringing glory to the saint. When one asks "Who is your patron saint?", or if one wears a necklace of a saint that tells us who is getting the glory.

In the Bible the clear difference is seen in the bronze serpent. When gazed upon properly it brings healing as it is an image of the cross. Later it is worshipped in and of itself and is commanded to be destroyed. There are images in almost all of the early examples of churches from the catechombs, dura Europa, and Megiddo. Christ says if you have seen me you have seen the Father. That is why we use the psalms about seeking God's face. I do not worship wood or paint. Only God alone.

The problem with the "falling into idolatry" argument is that idolatry always led Israel AWAY from God into worshipping OTHER gods. Veneration of icons for over a thousand years has never steered the Orthodox away from worship of the Holy Trinity and faithful adherence to the Nicene Creed. Has the practice produced good or bad fruit? Protestants have to show from Scripture that the practice is offensive to God and thus sinful, or that it has produced bad fruit. I don't believe - having watched this video twice - either of these points was addressed.

Really enjoying watching your videos! You mentioned some books that you like on the subject of the church fathers/Catholic Church/Orthodox Church…I’ve recently wanted to dig further into all of this and really see where my Protestant beliefs come from, historically, and how the east/west split came about with their beliefs. Besides the books you mentioned in this video, any more books you’d recommend to get started? I’ve only read a couple intro books for the Orthodox Church (Kallistos Ware), and I feel like I don’t even know where to start!

You are incredibly charitable and honest in your pursuit of the truth. I appreciate that so much. Listening intently.

As always, your videos are a breath of fresh air to many evangelicals. Keep up the good work

The Council of Frankfurt sounds really interesting. Can you recommend some more sources about this (both primary and secondary)?

This is why I love my Protestant tradition and heritage that has been given to me. Because we have the room for correction and freedom to follow our conscience. It often seems that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have hurt themselves by claiming to be infallible or almost infallible because then they can not take any criticism or reformation. It is insulting to them to even suggest that they may have gone astray on a topic, even slightly, because then it is like you are questioning the entire tradition and church teachings and god forbid you suggest they could be wrong on something.

Well done!

Hello Dr. Ortlund, how are you brother? Is it allowed to translate your videos and upload them? You could use the translated videos, for free of course, for your channel too. What Do you think? God bless you

Great work brother, it's good to learn of the history. Personally I though it happened much earlier than it did. When did they actually begin putting an icon at the head of the mass and on top of the popes staff?

Fascinating stuff - thanks Gavin

As a ex-Protestant, I kissed The Bible when I would feel extremely touched by something I read. I also used to kneel at the steps of the stage (that they called the “altar”) towards the cross behind the stage - in a moment of repentance during an “altar call”. No one there ever called me an idol worshipper for that. But now being an Orthodox Christian, I have constantly heard my family and old Protestant friends call us idol worshippers for showing honor to a holy image of Christ or His Saints. Also a notable point: One venerates an icon of a Saint because of Christ shining in them. You cannot understand the mysteries of Christ and His Church unless you participate in them.

Brilliant video. As always you handled the facts with care and good measure.

John of Damascus is "like a window into another world". Sounds like an icon to me.

what can you say about images in catacombs in rome pre-constantine era?

I've heard the "venerating" argument before but it seems like this word is used to confuse the issue. Venerating holy people or holy objects is contrary to both Old and New Testament theology. Slipping a new word in on us (as "veneration" is never used in the bible) is a trick to get us to think it's okay to bow down in worship to holy people or holy objects. "Venerating" religious objects is worship, according to the bible. Let's talk about the Commandments: Lev. 26:1 - Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the Lord your God. It's not the image so much as the bowing down to it, which is considered offensive to God. (More about being offensive to God later.) Whether you're a Muslim circumnambulating a black cube or you're a person kneeling before a statue of Mary and lighting a votive candle, it's all the same thing. I was raised Roman Catholic. Our mom took us kids to the darkened church building where we knelt in front of a statue (usually Mary), lit a candle, then dropped a nickle into the slot beside the bank of candles. I always wanted to light more than one candle but mom made me stop at just one. I was "confirmed" in the sixth grade, where I (along with my class) knelt down and kissed the bishop's ring. Kneeling down to holy things or holy people is worship. Covering it up with a different word (venerate) is just so much semantics. A rose by any other name... Now let's look at some New Testament passages and examples of how the Apostles and angels behaved. Acts 10:25-26 - And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. 26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man. Would Peter have allowed me to kneel before him and kiss his ring? Not according to the New Testament. Later on, those who hijacked Peter's office gladly welcomed such practice but not Peter. Rev. 22:8-9 - And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. 9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God. The Apostle John fell down at the feet of an angel, who instantly corrected his action. "See thou do it not!" Is God offended by our bowing down to holy people or holy onjects? Are you willing to take that chance? I mean, fear of the LORD is part of our "reasonable worship" of Him. Is bowing down to that image of Mary so important to you that you'll run that risk? Think about it. If you ask, "How close to breaking a commandment is safe?", then you're off on your own trip. You've violated the spirit of the commandment. As the Apostle Paul noted: "There is no fear of God before their eyes." Romans 3:18 Finally, I'll refer you to one of the STRONGEST warnings against worshiping idols that I have ever read and IT'S IN THE CATHOLIC BIBLE! Read Wisdom starting with the 13th chapter and then continue reading through the 15th. The author talks about the evolution of idolatry and how it STARTS WITH VENERATION and then turns into full-blown idolatry. When I read this, I was amazed that I was reading it in the Douay-Rheims version of the bible. I thought to myself that Catholics all need to read their own bible. It would change lives. Read Wisdom 13 thru 15.

There is a “long tradition of dissent” to Nicea 1 as well. Arianism survived in massive numbers all over the place for the first 800 years or more of Christianity. Can I just appeal to the long line of arians throughout church history? I don’t know how valid that argument is

Do you have some book recommendations on this subject? especially on the seven ecumenical council?

The Seventh Ecumenical Council Held in Nicea, Asia Minor in 787. Under Empress Irene. 367 Bishops were present. The Iconoclast Controversy It centered around the use of icons in the Church and the controversy between the iconoclasts and iconophiles. The Iconoclasts were suspicious of religious art; they demanded that the Church rid itself of such art and that it be destroyed or broken (as the term "iconoclast" implies). The iconophilles believed that icons served to preserve the doctrinal teachings of the Church; they considered icons to be man's dynamic way of expressing the divine through art and beauty. The Iconoclast controversy was a form of Monophysitism: distrust and downgrading of the human side. The Council's Proclamation "We define that the holy icons, whether in color, mosaic, or some other material, should be exhibited in the holy churches of God, on the sacred vessels and liturgical vestments, on the walls, furnishings, and in houses and along the roads, namely the icons of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, that of our Lady the Theotokos, those of the venerable angels and those of all saintly people. Whenever these representations are contemplated, they will cause those who look at them to commemorate and love their prototype. We define also that they should be kissed and that they are an object of veneration and honor (timitiki proskynisis), but not of real worship (latreia), which is reserved for Him Who is the subject of our faith and is proper for the divine nature, ... which is in effect transmitted to the prototype; he who venerates the icon, venerated in it the reality for which it stands." Defenders of Orthodoxy St. John of Damascus (675-745) John Mansur was educated at the Caliphate Court in Damascus. He held a position comparable to that of a Prime Minister. He was a devout Orthodox Christian. He entered the Monastery of St. Sabbas in Palestine, where he wrote many poems, hymns and treaties, one of which is called "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith." This work is a systematic theological summary of all the basic doctrines of the first seven centuries, a monumental work which became a classic in Orthodox Theology. The Triumph of Orthodoxy An Endemousa (Regional) Synod was called in Constantinople in 843. Under Empress Theodora. The veneration of icons was solemnly proclaimed at the St. Sophia's Cathedral. Monks and clergy came in procession and restored the icons in their rightful place. The day was called "Triumph of Orthodoxy." Since that time, this event is commemorated yearly with a special service on the first Sunday of Lent, the "Sunday of Orthodoxy."

Dear Dr. Ortlund, a very relevant topic to delve into in discussing idolatry, veneration of relics against the Bible. As an ex staunch Catholic who was guilty in every sense of idolatry, how would laity be able to discern what constitutes idolatry and veneration? Since the veneration of Mary was deemed right to the extend that she is seen to give grace and mercy for salvation, how would this prevent worship to her too? As the Biblical Trinity is the Father, Jesus Christ and the Blessed Holy Spirit, from where I had come from the Trinity is Joseph, Mary and Jesus....so where and how is a Catholic to focus on worship without the presence of the Holy Spirit? Idolatry is essential for worship. Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Roman Catholism have this common practice, idolatry. Thank you very much once again Dr Ortlund. Untold blessings to those whom you Pastor.. May God continue to shower you with His choicest blessings and divine wisdom to clearly divide between true pure Christianity from paganism. God bless.

Man, Dr. Gavin, thanks for your work. Seems like KZfaq is Saturated with Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists who just bash American Protestantism, without any knowledge of classical Protestant theology. Thanks for all your work and your wonderful defense of the reformation. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox positions, as I contemplated them, were ultimately depressing. Too much looking to myself, no assurance, the heavy focus on Mary and the Saints. It just wild. Reformed theology is so wonderful and God centered. It’s so beautiful, comforting, and assuring, knowing I am secure in the hands of God, and that it is the Will of the Father that Christ loses NONE of which is given to Him. Keep up the good work and God bless!

Very Nice and gd

The Jews hated Jesus because he claimed to be in the image of the Father. The understanding of icons comes down to the Incarnation. Either you see it or you don't.

How isn't venerating icons EXACTLY LIKE "saluting the flag" or "bowing for the King of England." It is EXACTLY THAT...and a tiny bit more, because they are venerating A STORY about that Saint.

U gotta remember the strong influence of Islamic iconoclastic behavior at this time too...I feel like that would be playing a role historically too

Does the Brazen Serpent (which is a type of the Crucifix) not constitute a venerated icon... that needed to be destroyed when that veneration turned into adoration?

I lived in a Catholic country and how they treated their saints particularly on Saints Day really shocked me. If one accepts (and I am not sure about it) the veneration-worship distinction the way these people treated these statues of the saints was at time delirious.

Sadly the apologetics in the protestant circles are very abrasive in approach and often resort to straw man arguments. So I started listening to Catholic podcasts a lot. I am thankful to find an peaceful and reasonable protestant. And yes, this is an issue I cannot get behind although I admire many good qualities in most Catholics like being philosophical, reasonable and their high view of sacraments.

If this lesson tells us anything, it's that whenever "the church" (your church, my church...whatever the confession) gains temporal power, all hell breaks loose. That's not our purpose, not our charge; God's kingdom is not of this world, and never will be, not until he himself decides to reign.

Anathema to the calumniators of the Christians, that is to the image breakers. Anathema to those who apply the words of Holy Scripture which were spoken against idols, to the venerable images. Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable images. Anathema to those who say that Christians have recourse to the images as to gods. Anathema to those who call the sacred images idols. Anathema to those who knowingly communicate with those who revile and dishonour the venerable images. Anathema to those who say that another than Christ our Lord hath delivered us from idols. Anathema to those who spurn the teachings of the holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church, taking as a pretext and making their own the arguments of Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus, that unless we were evidently taught by the Old and New Testaments, we should not follow the teachings of the holy Fathers and of the holy Ecumenical Synods, and the tradition of the Catholic Church. Anathema to those who dare to say that the Catholic Church hath at any time sanctioned idols. Anathema to those who say that the making of images is a diabolical invention and not a tradition of our holy Fathers. Anathemas of the Holy Seventh Ecumenical Council

Hi, Gavin! Thanks for this video! One thing it made me think on and that I’d like to ask you about is your concession of Nicaea II as an ecumenical council. I imagine you’d agree that there is nothing objective about the councils themselves that can differentiate seven of them from all others, which makes defining ecumenical councils problematic from any perspective. Catholic and Orthodox perspectives will generally lean on some kind of eventual universal reception as a key part of what makes a council ecumenical. But then key to that identifying the normal seven is the view that those other than themselves are not part of the church. With your view that the church is and was wider than those groups, and has been divided, at least from the time of Chalcedon, how do you affirm (or, perhaps, what do you mean by affirming) the ecumenicity of some of these councils without conceding to these groups that Coptic and Assyrian churches, for example, were not a part of “the church”?

When are you having a discussion with Jay Dyer or Kabane?

As with every topic you address, I appreciate your approach on the subject of icons as well. As a Protestant, I completely understand where you’re coming from and I agree. I do have some icons on my bedroom wall such as the Annunciation, Nativity, Jesus’ Baptism, Transfiguration, Crucifixion, Resurrection, and a few saints and martyrs such as Athanasius, the Forerunner, Stephen, Ignatius, and Apostles Peter and Paul. I find them beautiful depictions of events and people in salvation history and church history. But my Protestant conscience will not allow me to greet them upon entering my room, or to bow to them even with all of the research I’ve done on the argument in favor of icon veneration. I will say that I appreciate all the thought, care, and guidelines that go into painting , or as some would say “writing” icons. I love how in Orthodox iconography, Mary is almost always depicted with Jesus and she is always directing attention toward Him with her hand. I was seriously considering becoming Orthodox at one time but I never could arrive at a sense of peace about it so I remain joyfully Protestant. I couldn’t agree more with your point about being able to work things out in Protestantism as opposed to being required to practice things that violate your conscience as a convert from Protestantism to Orthodoxy or Catholicism. I realize that many Protestants have converted and I don’t judge them. But I have read several confessions of former Protestants who struggle with venerating icons even after having converted some time ago. I have also read material from other converts who seem to have no issues with it. Obviously, I can only speak for myself. I love my Orthodox and Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ. I’ve learned many beautiful things from them and I continue to do so. Thanks for this video!

Dr. Ortlund as a protestant what do you think or what do you say to wearing crucifixes or hanging a crucifix on a wall at one's home? Not for adoration or veneration or praying too or anything like that. Simply as wall decoration, a memorial and reminder of one's faith in Christ's sacrifice, his blood, death and resurrection. Or wearing a crucifix as a fashion choice and as a symbol and testimony of one's faith to others??

St Basil "I acknowledge also the holy apostles, prophets, and martyrs; and I invoke them to supplication to God, that through them, that is, through their mediation, the merciful God may be propitious to me, and that a ransom may be made and given me for my sins. Wherefore also I honour and kiss the features of their images, inasmuch as they have been handed down from the holy apostles, and are not forbidden, but are in all our churches. (Letter 360)"

Awesome video! You are so gracious in your speech. I to have gained peace in my protestantism by listening to your defenses. I was in a place of intense stress over whether I should be E.O and you have helped relieve the doubts in my head. God Bless!

I’m Roman Catholic 62yrs Never ever have I been told to venerate an icon. It’s not part of the “Deposit of Faith.” But I’m sure is scares a lot of ill informed Protestants

Modern Christianity in a nutshell: All "know" (about) Christ but practice very little of what He did. Remember, those who know a lot will be held accountable for the things they knew but did not do. Also, humility means accepting the fact that you do not know or understand everything, but do it in obedience to those who have experienced more of the divine grace, because they practiced their faith more than you have time to. Maybe, Icons are wrong to venerate, but I know that people who witnessed their faith for Christ during the most dangerous times, without fear, and without stumble, who gave up their lives for Christ centuries/millennia ago also practiced what I practice today. That is enough proof that venerating and showing respect to those through who God worked are worthy of such veneration and respect. And finally, who are we to judge how we choose to show our love and respect for those who served God unto death (or end of life)?! Veneration and bowing down to an icon is not a requirement or a law in the Orthodox Church, it is a choice! Icons not only beautifies the Church, but it is a constant reminder of who we aim to become, images of Christ!

Having been raised in a protestant church, this subject has always been difficult and even troubling for me. However, where a protestant church might use a verse such as Romans 9: 5 "...Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.," in an Orthodox church, with Christ Pantocrator at the top of the dome, above the apostles, saints, Old Testament Patriarchs, early church fathers, and the congregants of the church - a picture is painted that is infinitely more effective (for me) of Christ's kingdom - here, today, right now...timeless. I agree with the difficulties of veneration, adoration, etc. These strike me as dangerous. I appreciated Dr. Ortlund's comment: "Icons are acceptable for teaching and decoration." I was very much taught by the image of Christ's kingdom via the icons in the Orthodox church.

I'm an Orthodox Christian, I like your channel, thank you for your work! God bless you. Just a comment about your concluding question: we are not venerating an object, we venerate what the object show, the material object is the window (as you quoted in the beginning). In the tradition, we often talk about the images in the same way of the words: codes that inspire themes in your mind. There is no much differences between words and images, that is why there is little room for innovation in Icons as there is for other aspects of the liturgical life (you don't invent while writing an Icon in the same way you don't invent while interpreting the Bible). Every part, from the theme, form and color, etc, follow strict guidelines.

Having previously been a Protestant, the content contained nothing particularly new that I hadn’t heard before. But it nevertheless is a well thought out and charitable Protestant critique communicated with great meekness and love. I would like to note, however, that a significant oversight in the argument is in the failure to recognize the distinction for Orthodox between unanimity and conciliatory, particularly as it regards what Orthodox consider to be the voice/position of the Church (past and present). The Orthodox Church does not recognize the authoritative voice of the Church along the lines of unanimity but of conciliarity. As such, the truth may always be opposed by some and at some points by many/most, but that doesn’t diminish the truth we hold to as the authoritative position of the Church (so we claim). So, the fact that many (even significant) Christians throughout Church history may not have condoned the veneration of icons, and the fact that at one point those Christians may have even been the majority does not necessarily carry significant weight to Orthodox as an argument against veneration of icons. A similar (but not 1-to-1) situation is Arianism which was pervasive in much of Christendom and at many points was the majority stance for long periods of time (it wasn’t Athanasius against the world just as hyperbole, after all). But that fact is rather insignificant as an argument for Arianism. A lot more could be said, but I think that suffices. And a final, shorter note: I feel the end of the video which touches on icons/saints giving us what we can and should be seeking/receiving from God alone could have benefited from a charitable caveat conceding that that specific point is more complex than could be treated in that short portion of the video. I say that because that particular point strikes at deep and well established Orthodox belief regarding what salvation is/looks like as well as a number of other significant areas of Orthodox belief, and the comments made about it toward the end may have an unintended effect of making it seem like Orthodox don’t also believe that God alone is our salvation and that Christ is the one mediator between God and man who offered himself for us as a sufficient, once and for all propitiation of our sins before God. The only difference is what exactly we mean by that. Like I said initially, I appreciated the video. And overall I consider it a rather well stated position that holds even greater weight because of the humility and love with which it was communicated.

Great stuff. I think of it in the terms how the Bible treats the other well defined sins- like they're made of fire (dangerous to play around with). When there's potential to misinterpret, or to get confused about a thing, the Bible just says 'just don't do it at all'.

I am OO and thank you for this, I have the same issues and concerns, however, I am not iconoclastic, there’s still a purpose to them. The main reason why I am in favor of them is because I’ve learned so much from the icons, and more about how I am supposed to be like as a Christian. All of the icons we have in Church are of Martyrs, who had great faith and who are people I want to be like. I do get concerned seeing some people worship icons, especially RC and some EO, who don’t understand the difference between veneration (which I see, but don’t do) and worship (which is only due to God). It looks suspicious at times and is a cause of concern. We could do away with them at any time if the need arises. In my personal experience, I don’t see anyone ever venerating icons outside of kissing some relics/items, and I don’t see bowing to them ever, either. I don’t think that kissing the icon or relic or item is worship simply due to what we say about them, just having an attitude of gratitude towards God for His mercy and grace and for that item being a representation of it. For example, in my church we have relics of St. John the Forerunner and some people venerate them in thanking God for St John’s presence and his role in Jesus’s life. The icons never become a focus of Church and are only used to focus back to God. The icons on the wall actually depict people who had similar experiences to the life of Jesus (they’re mirrored from the icon of an event of Jesus life). Never do I see people claim that icons do things, however I’ve heard some say that God works through them, not the icon itself or even the person depicted doing anything, just God doing something around icons. I really can’t answer because who knows, He might and we can’t tell God where he can and cannot work at. There might be a difference between the EO and OO view on icons.

Nailed it! I actually just wrote an article against the veneration of icons recently. I must be reading your mail!

Thank you so much! I knew about the Council of Hieria for some time, but I never knew just how brutal the history was. I also never knew about Frankfurt and just how lame some arguments where.

I applaud your tone and approach in this video because this practice seems so utterly indefensible that it's difficult for me to even know where to begin to formulate an argument against it. It's like asking me to justify systematically why I shouldn't stick my face in a campfire - it's so self-evident that it can be hard to articulate the reasons. In my opinion, none of the "for" arguments are even remotely compelling. Claiming that Jesus' incarnation changed the rules is entirely unconvincing to me. Yes, we're under a new covenant, but that clearly never meant all the old rules were void. All the other commandments hold true, for example. This one being singled out to have changed sounds like post hoc rationalization. Yes, Jesus incarnated as a man. But getting from there to "It's not only fine, but encouraged to create, bow down to, kiss, and pray through/with images of people who died before us in God's service" seems like a massive leap to me. Even if the incarnation did change things, allowing icons and images to be created would not automatically prove that venerating them was good or necessary. The bronze serpent Moses made was never to be venerated. They were only supposed to look at it. No bowing or kissing. It was eventually destroyed because the Israelites crossed the line by burning incense to it. 2 Kings 18 - "He also crushed to pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the sons of Israel had been burning incense to it; and it was called Nehushtan." So-called veneration quite often goes at least that far today. I'd wager that at least some of those who burned incense to the serpent would have argued they weren't being worshipful of the serpent itself, but rather showing gratitude to God because of how he'd used it to help them. Yet it was still considered right in the eyes of God that it be destroyed. Saying that it doesn't count because icons represent people, whereas the serpent was just a non-living symbol, is not convincing. If anything, it seems worse somehow. And God himself explicitly called for the serpent's creation. The same claim cannot honestly be made for any modern icon. I've heard no compelling reason to believe there's some intrinsic difference between 2D and 3D renderings, either. The veneration/worship demarcation itself is little more than semantic quibbling. Both words today essentially mean to express great honor and reverence toward something or someone. Both entail ritual acts of devotion. Venerate comes from venerari/veneratus, which means "to solicit the good will of, to worship, pay homage to, to hold in awe." Worship comes from the Middle English word worþschipen, meaning "to hold in honor, esteem, show respect for, revere." The two words are now and have long (if not always) been synonyms, despite the church continuing to draw an artificial line between them. It's a line that everybody on the other side of the debate insists is clear, but many people seem to cross it despite that. No, I don't know their hearts when they appear to cross that line. But I hear what comes out of their mouths, and some of it is clearly problematic. I don't think the existence of images in churches is innately evil or that they are always negative. They might be fine on their own or used as teaching tools. However, veneration can so easily turn into idolatry, and I see that happening in the world. On the other hand, I don't see what we actually gain by trying to toe the line. The biggest thing I always come back to is NECESSITY. I don't understand why anyone thinks they need these things when you can go straight to God. Even for the sake of argument, let's say you can depict Jesus because of the incarnation. I find that argument uncompelling, and can does not equal should, but let's assume it anyway. How does that account for/allow for any other depictions? Jesus would be the exception in that case, not the rule. When people argue that all these things only serve to point to God, I have to ask what the point of them is in light of that assertion. Take Mary as an example. I often hear the claim, "She just leads you to Christ!" Then why not just depict Him instead? Why not go to him directly? Your eyes are supposed to be on Jesus. He is our pattern of conduct. It's Him we are meant to emulate. Not the apostles or the church fathers, but Jesus. Putting anything in the way, physically through actual images or in the spiritual sense, could only ever obscure your vision of Him, not enhance it. This is not a symbolic case of looking through a lens so you can see Him more clearly, because He IS the lens through which we are supposed to view the world. It's more like painting shapes on the lens and then still trying to see clearly through it. This simply cannot be defended rationally. That doesn't mean their lives can never be inspiring, consoling, or motivating. But only insofar as it points you back to Jesus. Only Jesus is worthy of your devotion and emulation. From what I've seen, this whole thing often eventually comes down to statements like "You wouldn't get it; you just have to experience it for yourself." or "If you had real faith, you'd understand." I won't dismiss out of hand the history of the church or the idea that people have had profound religious/spiritual experiences in the context of these icons and relics. But I also have real faith and have had profound spiritual and religious experiences, none of which had anything to do with icons or relics. I'm not even saying I believe God cannot or has never worked through such things. I'm more just confused as to why you would go out of your way to try to make him do so. It seems so limiting. "It's a window into heaven/the divine." If that's what you want, then look around you. The entirety of creation cries out in testimony to the majesty of its Creator. His works make anything we could produce pale in comparison.

Icons are not artistic representations. I'm Orthodox and an iconographer. Icons are considered to be written rather than painted because they are considered the Gospel in paint.

Gavin, in Eusebius of Caserea's Church History Book XII, Chapter 18. Around 325 AD. He writes that the bleeding women from the gospel whom Jesus healed, made a shrine of a woman kneeling with a statue of Jesus. Which he writes he had heard of it having miraculous healings itself. And said this shrine was still present when Eusebius wrote this book. He then said it was normal for the Gentiles to have preserved paintings of Peter, Paul and Jesus

This is the first video i see of you. English is my thirth language and i must admit that i have a hard time understand what you are talking about - lots of difficault words. However from what i understand you make sense and also: However i will be so bold to ask you to do a message about Mary the mother of Jesus. This because i have a friend who looovvvvssss her and i want to talk to her about it but don´t know how. She used to be a protistant but now it is just Mary, Mary, Mary and no talking about Jesus. And pictures of Mary all over her house. Or maby you can give me a video i can watch regarding this. God bless you.

One thing I would mention is that the Orthodox typology is that Icons were not allowed in the old testament BECAUSE they would be appropriate after the incarnation and also the beginning of the restoration of human nature. Also the Orthodox position is that every icon is an image of Christ within the saint being depicted. There is also the support for icons that Christ's image was sent to King Abgar of Odessa, and a fairly early tradition that Luke painted images of Mary, and Peter and Paul to send with the apostles on their evangelical trips. I think that there was a protestant lead excavation that possibly found the home of Luke and that painting tools were found there, but I don't know the details.

All i have to say is that the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church ( Eastern Orthodoxy ) gave you the Faith the Tradition the teachings and above all the Scripture ( Bible) in Greek and now you Question the teacher O fools , i Pray our Holy Mother Theotokos and ever Virgin Mary most Blessed Panagia asks our Lord and her Son Jesus to have mercy on this forsaken generation!!!☦️☦️☦️

Now that I am done watching part 2 of the Baptismal Regeneration debate, I felt free to finally watch this! Lol This was very much needed and appreciated, Dr. Ortland. I didn't realize that the early church fathers were very much against this practice. The biggest reason I have struggled with possibly considering another Christian tradition is because of the Eucharist, but the veneration of icons practice in EO, makes it difficult to convert. Unfortunately it remains a struggle. I heard you say in another video that you believe in the real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, even though you are Baptist. Is there a particular kind of Baptist denomination that believes this? I'm at a difficult crossroad here! I asked this question further down in the comment section too, so please ignore that one! Lol Thanks so much for all you do. I truly believe that you are being led by the Holy Spirit to do this work, and that I'm less alone in this journey now.

The question on my mind is: What does an EO person who venerates relics think he's doing? What is the internal logic as practiced by someone who does this? Surely it is not the case that someone woke up one day and said, "Let's see how dangerously close we can get to idolatry without crossing over."

There seems to be a desire for something physical to focus our attention and icon's can play a role to help us do that. This also seems to be a snare as seen in the OT. There is an idea from the celtic tradition of thin spaces a place where we feel nearer to God which I think is a good alternative.

Great work and continue to be blessed in your ministry. One of the most concerning aspects I have always faced once I converted in my early 20s is just this. I truly feel that many false professors have infiltrated the church and have confused many issues like this I currently read a prayer to Mary from the glories of Mary book that quiet frankly scared me. "I shall fear nothing; not my sins, for thou wilt obtain for me their pardon and remission; not the evil spirits, for thou art mightier than all the powers of hell; not even Jesus, my Judge, for He is appeased by a single prayer from thee. I fear only that through my own negligence I may forget to recommend myself to thee and so I shall be lost' Just to be clear this is addressed to Mary. Why in the world should I fear Christ in this context? Fearing Christ is always meant to be understood as obeying his command as it is written: work out your faith in fear and trembling. This then is how a Christian should pray to God. To him directly, for this is putting emphasis and trust in the one who dies judge us as it is written: do not fear this life or those who can put you to death, rather fear the one who can condemn you and send you to death in spirit. Also, God wants us to go to him and reflect on him and him alone. Adding other external influences i fear that we are adding the Gosoel and overly complicating our walk with God! Go in peace to love and serve God and all his people. May the love of God bless you and keep you!

Gavin should study the first 7 Ecumenical Councils of the Church. It spells out the difference between veneration and worship.

In the latest Equalizer film number 3 (set in Sicily) just about all the town folk parade from the church with representations of saints, Jesus's mom, etcetera,I imagine some people might worry that some people might reverence the images too much, and be distracted from being a disciple of Jesus and respecter of his mom first and foremost!

4:15 , 4:43 5:15 - John of Damascus 7:54 - Exodus 20:4-5, Leviticus 26:1 9:32, 16:48 - Where Ortlund is coming from 10:26 - church history 11:22, 11:44, 12:02 - Origen’s debate with a pagan philosopher 13:05, 13:27 - Lactantius 13:57 - Council of Elvira Canon 36 14:22 - Ortlund’s summary of “phase 1” in church history 14:37, 17:45 - Ortlund begins with “phase 2” 15:40 - objects enter the scene 17:11 - icons in the Old Testament 18:37 - Epiphanius on images 19:27, 19:47 - Gregory the Great on images 20:11 - images used as a teaching tool for the illiterate 20:39 - Gregory’s position: veneration vs worship, or teaching vs adoration? 21:16 - Basil 21:39 - “phase 2” summary 21:50 - begins with “phase 3” 24:17 - power struggle 25:28 - “wave of iconoclasm after Nicaea ll” 26:24, 32:30 - Charlemagne and Council of Frankfurt 27:30, 27:55 - Elaborating on Nicaea ll 33:04 - Only talking about abuses?

I have a beautiful ikon of Our Lady of Kazan. She brings me much consolation.

Thank you for these videos, there are not that many great sources for protstatns explaining why we do not belive in these things. So thank you for taking the time to make them.

Gavin, I confess this may be your most powerful criticism of the Catholic/Orthodox/Coptic theology-measured by an n of 1 (me). I admit, I’ve been a little shook everyday since you released this. This was my FOURTH viewing, and I just can’t perceive a hole in your argument. Very much in a “oh sh*t, what if he’s right?” posture right now. 😬😬😬

Bible Study Apologetics Brod thank you

Actually it's not so much the veneration of icons it's the veneration of the people those icons represent.

I think, because I had a link, KZfaq automatically deleted my initial comment. I'll repeat it without the link: Thanks for the video! I appreciate it greatly. Two things I wish to point out: 1) Lutherans didn't (and don't) have an issue with iconography in worship. Since the late 1800's at least, the same is true for Anglicanism. 2) I highly recommend Jeremy Taylor's "On the Reverence Due to the Altar". Bishop Taylor was an Anglican in the early to mid-1600's.

I don't have a problem w/ icons and artwork in churches. That presentation at 3:19 that you tactfully called, "an icon corner", looks like a shrine to me. No different really than buddhist or hindu home shrines, only the trapping are Christian related.

For the love of God do a podcast with Jonathan Pageau about this topic.

I practiced Vodou for years. I had an ancestral altar in my home with pictures of deceased relatives. I prayed to them and left offerings of water for them, bowed before them and kissed their photos. It was pure witchcraft. There is no biblical basis for venerating inanimate objects in a religious sense. What the orthodox do during veneration is no different from the Dahomean Vodou priest.

Would you consider doing a video on bibliolatry ? There is a restoration movement called the Church Of Christ that replaces a lot of the references to Christ as the word with the bible. The continuation of that logic in one of their examples would mean that at the end of tge world, it is not Christ that comes back but the bible. Which we can agree is illogical.

Go find a weeping icon and stand in front of one yourself and pray and you might find yourself with a different opinion. Coming from someone who has seen a few myself 👍🏻😎

“...the devil led the enemies of the church from one extreme to the other, from worshiping the images of men and animals in paganism to destroying the images of Christ and the saints in iconoclasm.”-Jaroslav Pelikan “Sight, as the primary sense, was hallowed through the visible appearing of God in Christ, just as hearing was hallowed through the word of God. The icon served as a means for this hallowing of sight, combined as it was with the hearing of the word. When they put such an emphasis on the role of the senses in worship, the iconophiles were affirming the role of the body in salvation-of the physical body of Christ as the means of achieving it and of the physical body of man as a participant in it together with the soul. The iconoclasts claimed to worship the invisible God in a purely spiritual and mental way, disdaining the use of visual aids such as images. But "how do you, as someone who is visible, worship the things that are invisible?" Of course the soul could adore the one God, invisible and immaterial, but to do so it required the aid of visible means. Only through such means could one proceed to the worship in spirit and truth. The biblical law and the patterns of Christian worship were material things, but "they lead us through matter to the God who is beyond matter." Man was body as well as soul, and the means of grace were accommodated to this condition; therefore there was a baptism in water as well as in the Spirit, and therefore man also needed to see the divine represented in images. Or, as it was put by [Saint] John of Damascus, from whom much of this argumentation came, "Perhaps you are sublime and able to transcend what is material...but I, since I am a human being and bear a body, want to with holy things and behold them in a bodily manner.” The spiritualism of the iconoclasts seemed to put them into the same class with the ancient Gnostics, who claimed that the body of Christ was not physical but heavenly, and despised the physically minded believers as less spiritual than they. Such statements accorded with the interest of the iconophiles in the use of images as a substitute for books in the instruction of illiterate believers. On the basis of these convictions about doctrine and worship, iconophiles replied indignantly to the charge of idolatry: “The truth is not error, nor are we running back to idolatry.” The accusation against them was based on a failure to make some fundamental distinctions. Because the iconoclasts did not distinguish between the sacred and the profane, they did not understand that there could not be any relation between the temple of the true God and the worship of idols. “What person with any sense does not comprehend the distinction between an idol and an icon?” An idol was the representation of persons or things that were devoid of reality or substance, while an icon represented real persons; those who failed to observe this distinction were the ones who should be charged with idolatry. Ultimately, the distinction between the two was this: the images of heathen worship were devoted to the service of the devil, but the icons of Christian worship were dedicated to the glory of the true God. As Theodore of Studios said in one of his acrostic poems, the representation of Christ in an icon was a way of dispelling idolatry, not of reinstating it. The tree of the cross had replaced the wood of pagan worship, and the eucharistic sacrifice had come in place of heathen rituals; so also the holy memorials of the Savior had overthrown the various unclean monuments of the Gentiles. Was it fair to accuse the entire church, including the faithful departed, of a shameful complicity in idolatry? For "if I worshiped idols, why would I honor the martyrs, who destroyed idols?" It was not accurate to describe the worship of icons as idolatry, for "to make a god" meant to worship something that was not divine as though it were. The true worshipers of the Holy Trinity had excluded and put aside all idolatry in the service of the true God. Their orthodoxy was a via media between the false spiritualism of the iconoclasts and the false materialism of the idolaters. Every remnant of the "heathen and mortal mind” had been set aside in their orthodox confession and purified worship. Because such was the true state of orthodox worship, it was a distortion of Scripture for the iconoclasts to apply to it biblical passages that prohibited making and worshiping false gods, or for them to ask, "Where is it written [in Scripture] that the icon of Christ is to be worshipped?” The answer to this rhetorical question was: “Wherever it is written that Christ is to be worshiped.” In support of their attack on the icons, the iconoclasts were falsely interpreting the statements of Scripture and the “sayings of the mystagogues of the church," the fathers. By "applying to the icon of Christ” those “scriptural statements directed against the idolatrous representations of the Greeks,” they were misconstruing the intent of Scripture. The coming of Christ, whose image the orthodox church worshiped, had put an end to idolatry; when Scripture prophesied that the idols of Egypt will tremble at his presence," this was a prediction of the flight of the Christ child to Egypt. Passages such as Isaiah 63:7-14 (LXX), which had been used by earlier defenders of the faith to prove the identity of essence between the Father and the Son, were useful to the orthodox as proof that they were not guilty of idolatry. In fact, according to Scripture, God himself had been the first to have images of himself. First was the eternal Son of God as "the image of the invisible God"; then came Adam, made in the image of God. The most important proof text in the iconoclast arsenal was the prohibition of graven images in the Decalogue, delivered to Israel through Moses. Yet the same Second Book of Moses that contained this prohibition also contained, a few chapters later, the account of his building the tabernacle, complete with images of cherubim. When one made images of cherubim, these could not be, as were the cherubim themselves, incorporeal, but, as the language also of the New Testament showed, had to be "holy images of them," which were nevertheless referred to as "cherubim." It was evident, then, that the cherubim were depicted in human form. In addition to the cherubim, there also were in the temple the blood and ashes of sacrificed animals, these had now been replaced by the images of the saints, as the rational took the place of the irrational. The saying of Jesus about giving to Caesar what was Caesars and to God what was God’s meant, as the context made clear, that one gave the image of Caesar to Caesar; so also one was to give the image of God to God. The very law that prohibited images was, according to the New Testament, itself only a "shadow" and not yet the “image” of the things to come. In the account of Abraham on the plain of Mamre, he was said to have worshiped an angel. But if God had taken on himself not the form of an angel but that of man in Christ, was not this human form to be worshiped even more? By reading the biblical evidence differently and, in effect, reinterpreting the law of the Old Testament in the light of the incarnation taught in the New Testament, the iconophiles rejected the argumentation of the iconoclasts from Scripture and laid claim to the authority of Scripture for themselves. In a similar way they laid claim to the authority of the practice of Christian worship-indeed, even to that of Jewish worship. To the Jewish attack on icons, the orthodox replied: "As you, in worshiping the Book of the Law, are not worshiping the nature of the parchment or of the ink, but the words of God in them; so I, when I worship the image of God, am not worshiping the nature of the wood and the colors (God forbid!), but, holding the lifeless portrait of Christ, I hope through it to hold and worship Christ himself." Such argumentation was even more pertinent in the discussion between Christian and Christian. If icons were not to be worshiped because they were products of human skill, what, if anything, could be worshiped? Specifically, could the altar or the Gospels or even the cross be the object of proper worship? The worship of the symbol of the cross appears to have been of special concern to the iconoclasts. While maintaining that there should be no distinction, the iconophiles, if pressed, would have to say that "the image of Christ is more deserving of honor and reverence than the symbol of the cross." If, as both iconoclasts and iconophiles taught, there was a special power in the symbol of the cross of Christ, how much more power must there be in the symbol of the Crucified himself, that is, in his icon? A demonstration of such power had come repeatedly in miraculous deeds ascribed to the icons. It was a general axiom that "no reasonable man dare accept any religion that is not founded on divine miracles, which are a proof that their worker truly comes from God." Precisely this was true of the icons, for by the relics and icons of the saints demons had been exorcised, miraculous appearances had been effected, and sinners had been converted. Defending the icons and attaching their arguments to the iconoclasts’ assertion of the real presence in the Eucharist, the iconophiles maintained that the doctrine of the real presence, which the faith and practice of the people appears to have validated beyond any refutation, led inescapably to a justification of the icons and of their worship.”-Historian Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition Volume 2: The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600 AD - 1700 AD)

I would point out that Icons 1 existed at least as early as the 2nd century, I’ll admit that many of the oldest ones we can find, those from the early era of persecution seem to decorate tombs rather than churches, but if there’s wholesale rejection of images was really normative, I would think there would be a lot fewer examples of that then what exist. 2 and this is very important to understand, in Orthodox thought an Icon is an image of something that is true. It is not necessarily limited to the images of saints or of stories from scripture, though plenty of those exist, we, living, breathing flesh and blood Christians, having been made in the image of God and redeemed through baptism by water and the spirit (trying my best to put this in Protestant terms here) are living Icons of Christ, because that reality, that holiness, that peace, delivered to the world through the gospel can be seen and experienced through us by people who might not otherwise understand or accept it. Also, I would argue that using the admonitions against Idolatry in the Old Testament against icons to be kind of a week argument for the simple reason that there was a fundamental change between the old and New Testament, in that before Christ, God was unseen and there was no way to make an Icon in the proper sense, because an Icon is a true image. Jesus, being both human and divine existed as a flesh and blood person who could be seen and therefore it became possible to make an Icon.

Very nice and good sharing brother

I’m in the reformed tradition. However, I don’t know if “there is a long tradition of dissent” is a good argument against an ecumenical council. The entire Oriental Orthodox Church has a 15 century long dissent to Chalcedon, but that doesn’t legitimize Monophysitism (though I understand that issue is complicated and they might say they are miaphysite in the style of Nazianzen and Cyril). However, Arianism also had widespread acceptance at the time of the council of Nicaea and had a long life after in many permutations and evolutions. It seems an ecumenical council would only be needed in the case where both sides are powerfully attested to, attractive, and have some legitimate traction in the tradition.

How do Orthodox and Catholics define the difference between veneration and worship in practice?

Imagine if my kids looked at a picture of me and talked to it, or pictures of say their dead grandparents in order to please me. Instead of visiting or calling me. Just seems crazy

It's idolatry for sure. They are making void the command of God for the sake of tradition, teaching doctrines of men as commands from God, Isaiah 29:13, Matthew 15, Mark 7. What I don't understand are the Baptist churches that pledge allegiance to Christian flags and Bibles in their churches, yet they accuse Catholics and Orthodox of idolatry.

Icons used as a teaching tool are great, especially in the ancient world since most people could not read. As an attendee of an Orthodox Church, I am very uncomfortable with the icon veneration. They are beautiful to look at and can help keep the mind focused, but nothing more, IMO. Although I will say, the huge Pantocrator looking down from above is comforting.

I don't know much about how Protestants think. I'd love to hear the other side.

Is the ruling of the Second Council of Nicean heresy?

Without being flippant of the other side's case, isn't a good bit of it a ex post facto justification for what they already embraced? It doesn't seem to be a "we're doing icons because of X reasons," at least not historically.

I appreciate your tone and charitably. This makes this more of a healthy discussion, then a polarized argument. I disagree with your point that icons were not part of the primitive church and came about as an innovation after Constantine. The archeological evidence from the catacombs is overwhelmingly opposed to your claim. Thank you for the dialog and thank you for listening.