Truth Unites - Icon Veneration is STILL an Accretion (Response to Hamilton/Garten)

Episode Date: May 20, 2024

Gavin Ortlund responds to Michael Garten and Seraphim Hamilton on icon veneration as defined at Nicaea 2. See their video: https://youtu.be/xo6-UDl7zq8?si=S5Lgm4COZhXUX_69 Truth Unites exists to promote gospel assurance through theological depth. Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) is President of Truth Unites and Theologian-in-Residence at Immanuel Nashville. SUPPORT: Tax Deductible Support: https://truthunites.org/donate/ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/truthunites FOLLOW: Twitter: https://twitter.com/gavinortlund Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TruthUnitesPage/ Website: https://truthunites.org/

I think this will be one of the more important videos that I do defending Protestantism. It's going to be about the veneration of icons. I see the veneration of icons, even though historically it's kind of a neglected issue. Seems like in the history it's not been as much in the focus. I see this as a watershed issue in ecumenical disagreements. It's right there at the nerve center of what separates Protestant, and then especially from the major non-protistent traditions, Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

And I see it as kind of a watershed issue for two reasons. The first is it's the subject matter of an ecumenical council, namely the seventh ecumenical council, Nicaea 2 in 787 AD, and the two biggest alternatives to Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy, think of that council as infallible. So if that council was, in fact, wrong, then this issue represents a falsification of their ecclesial claims. The second reason I see this, and by the way, I'm going to define all these terms as we go, so if you're new to this discussion, we'll explain it as we go, try to make it clear.

But the second reason I see this is such an important issue, even though historically it's not been as much in the mix. You know, historically it's been more like the Protestants complaining about indulgences and the papacy and these kinds of things. This issue has come up, but it's not been as much in the focus, but I think it should be. The second reason for that is because the historical evidence concerning icon veneration is clear and consistent. we can conclude with confidence that the early Christians did not bow down to images or kiss them

or pray through them as a window to heaven as Nicaea 2 mandates with anathema. That's about as clear as anything that we can say about the early church, and the more you look at it, I think the more clear and undeniable that becomes. I put out a video on this topic in January, 2023, and basically making the case that icon veneration is an accreted practice, not an apostolic one, and therefore it represents a reason to be a Protestant Christian, because apostolic teaching should stand above later non-apostolic decisions and developments in the church and pass judgment upon them. That video got a lot of discussion. If you type in Gavin Ortland icons to YouTube, you will see a lot of the responses

and so forth, and I'm grateful that it got responses. And I hope that the net result of all of these conversations will be for the good of the church, for the good of truth, and so forth. By the way, if you never watched that first video, that would probably be the one to start with. But again, I'll try to explain and get people up to speed here as well. Maybe you've watched it and forgotten, so I'll try to catch us up a little bit and define key terms as we go.

But in the immediate aftermath of that video, I tried to keep up with responses. And I put out four previous responses. First, I responded to Trent Horn and Jimmy Aiken. They're coming from a Roman Catholic perspective and arguing for doctrinal development. I also briefly commented on Swan Sana's lengthy response, which also involves the notion of doctrinal development. On the other side, the Eastern Orthodox side, they tend to put much less emphasis upon doctrinal development, sometimes none at all.

And I responded to Craig Truglia from that perspective. It's kind of a different conversation a little bit there. and then I put out one general response, kind of summarizing some of the better and worse points in the discussion. But then at a certain point, I got sort of overrun with the responses, and I couldn't keep up with them all. So looking back now, a year and a few months, as the dust has settled, I wanted to engage a video that several people have mentioned was one of the best ones. Several people said they thought that was the best response. And that's this video. We'll put up the thumbnail of this one. This was on Serafim Hamilton's channel. think highly of him. I don't know him well, but there's the videos I've seen. I've appreciated.

And then Michael, I really apologize to Michael that his face is not on the thumbnail for this video. I mean, this thumbnail was made a while back. But those two, and especially Michael Garten, I think his name is, were, I appreciated their response for two reasons. One is that it avoided and even identified some of the problematic responses of other videos. Like, for example, if people are going to appeal to doctrinal development in such a way that the theory of doctrinal development is itself rejected with anathema by Nicaa 2. That's obviously a problem. And they, you know, that and some other things, they call out as not good responses. And then they gave a thoughtful response. I also appreciated it was more professional, more charitable. I get lots of

stuff coming at me, especially from Eastern Orthodox Christians, calling me a wolf and sheep's clothing. After a dialogue I did recently, there were some comments saying things like, we need to rough him up to humble him and this kind of stuff. It's like just weird stuff. So this was, their response was much more refreshingly charitable and professional. Now, and they put out several videos. Some of them I had some points of agreement with. Their first one on biblical foundations, you can see my comment on that video. But I'm going to respond to their second video. This is where we have the most disagreement. It's probably the most important of their videos, at least the ones that I've seen so far.

And this is where they try to point to passages that support icon veneration in five pre-Nicine figures. So Christians before the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, so that earliest phase of church history. And they go through Ignatius, Clement of Alexandria, origin, tertullian, and Methodius. And what I want to do in this video is respond to those claims and show that each of these five figures and the texts involved fall way short of establishing the claims of Nicaea 2, the historical claims about icon veneration, and that the problem here is an equivocation with the word veneration. That's basically in a nutshell my response here. And actually, I have a whole section on this video defining what the word equivocation means,

if that's a new term for you, or a little rusty, you know. So we'll go in three steps here. I promise you'll want to watch to the end of this one if you're interested in these discussions between different Christian traditions, because I'm going to try to kind of put my foot down where I think I need to on some things that are just clear, and we just clear up and bring clarity to. So we'll go in three sections. Number one, I want to reiterate what Nicaea 2 meant by icon veneration and kind of summarize my prior case about that. That'll take a little bit of time. Second, I want to explain the nature of this equivocation that's

happening in this response with the phrase icon veneration. What does that mean to equivocate on that? And then third, I want to walk through each of the five examples that they give and document how the equivocation is happening here between what Nicaa 2 meant by Icon veneration and which of these figures is talking about, which is manifestly something different. So first, let's just talk about Nicaa 2, and we've got to be really clear about this because Nicaea 2 made very specific historical and theological claims about Icon veneration, and it then required those claims with anathema. So if this council is purported to be infallible, it's totally fair to let its claims set the bar for the discussion. You know, it's a reasonable approach to say, okay, let's play by the

rules that Nicaea to set. This is the supposedly infallible counsel that is defining this. And sometimes people, I'm emphasizing this point, because sometimes people will say, you know, why are you making so much of icon veneration? And the answer to that is because of the anathemas. You know, it definitely feels like gaslighting coming against us when people are saying anathema upon you and don't make a big deal about it. It's like someone who, holding you at gunpoint and saying, give me all the money in your wallet, give me all your credit cards, and give me the shirt off your back. And then they also say, as if that's not enough, they also say, and don't complain about it because this isn't a big deal. It's like, okay,

if you're going to take all my stuff and take the shirt off my back, don't further insult me by acting like I'm the one making an issue out of it, right? And I see it too, makes these claims about icon veneration and enforces them with a series of colorful anathemas. And so we're allowed to evaluate that. We're allowed to look at those claims and see if these claims are true. And as much as people continuously downplay anathemas, what I often point out is the way people come later, it's revisionist history. We have to know what did the bishops themselves mean by anathema. And they are very clear to tell us that. It's an anathema expels you from the kingdom of heaven. It carries you off into the outer darkness. It means you are condemned on the day of the Lord.

It is nothing other than separation from God and so on and so forth. And I've documented those kinds of things at greater length elsewhere. But an anathema is as bad as it sounds. It means you go to hell with Satan. You are in hell if you are anathematized. Unless something changes about your status. Okay, that's what anathema means. undemned, outer darkness, separated from God, et cetera. And people come in later and try to soften the blow. So if that's what's coming at us, if there's an anathema, or people will try to limit them arbitrarily in ways that the council itself didn't limit.

And they do all kinds of things like this. But if this is what's at stake, then we're allowed to respond and to take these bishops at their word. That when they said, complete separation from God, that's what they meant. but what happens a lot of times is people want to adhere to Nicaa 2, but they want to kind of back off from some of the claims at Nicaa 2. And so you'll even find people, this is a debate, you know, how much of Nicaa 2 is infallible and so forth. But they were in blood earnest. I mean, that the fighting and the torture and the horrific political dynamics surrounding Nicaa 2 and the other councils on the iconoclast side as well were pretty intense. they meant it when they said anathema.

Okay, so those anathemas are given in relation to very specific historical and theological claims. What is being mandated at Nicaea 2 is not just a general respect for art. Veneration is defined as involving specific physical acts. Kissing, bowing, or deep kneeling, or prostration, and lighting candles before. Okay. This is conducted under a specific theological framework, namely figural representation or figural mediation. I'll define that as we go, and this is claimed to be untainted apostolic tradition, preserved throughout the church age. That is what Nicaea 2 says. Okay, let me document that. And just to start off here, I'll quote from the, you'll get a sense of the theological

outlook of Nicaea 2. I'm just looking at the definition or the decree, I think is a better translation of the word Horos, of the seventh session, the climactic ending, where they say, this is the faith of the apostles, this is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Orthodox, this is the faith that has sustained the world. Believing in one God to be praised in Trinity, we kiss the honorable images. May those who do not hold accordingly be anathema, may those who do not believe accordingly be driven far away from the church. We follow the ancient legislation of the Catholic Church. We observe the decrees of the fathers.

We anathematize those who either add anything or remove anything from the church. We anathematize the intrusive innovation of the accusers of Christians, those are the iconoclasts. We accept the sacred images. We subject those who do not believe accordingly to anathema. That's just one's representative paragraph. see there is a lot of what we're going to get into here, the reference to a specific practice, namely kissing, the honorable images, and then it immediately adds, the very next sentence, may those who do not hold accordingly be anathema. And then you see a little bit of the rationale,

the historical rationale for this claim, and that is a claim of apostolic tradition. Okay, you see the phrase, this is the faith of the apostles in the immediately preceding sentence to the kissing of icons. You see the words, the ancient legislation of the church, the decrees of the fathers. This language does not refer to a general theology of art. It refers to specific liturgical practice sanctioned by the church. And this practice is set over and against the intrusive innovators. These are the people who want to come along and change the practices of the church.

That's the iconic class, those who don't want to bow down to images. The whole appeal is it's our side that is preserved. what the church has always done. We add or subtract nothing. You on the other side, who don't accept our practice of image veneration are innovating. And if you read through the decree of Nicaa, too, you find this appeal relentlessly made over and over and over. It's not even qualified a lot. It's very clear. We add nothing and take nothing away but preserve undiminished all that pertains to the Catholic Church. We preserve without innovation, all of the traditions of the church that have been laid down for us, whether written or unwritten.

You can see already, by the way, why using doctrinal development to defend Nicaea II is going to be an awkward project, right? Because you're going to have to use a way of thinking that seems very alien to the bishops of Nicaea II. Richard Price, great scholar, who has helped us so much translating the acts of Nicaa II, many other councils as well, and he's helped shed so much light on Nicaa II, comments. that this strong emphasis on tradition at Nicaea 2, and especially unwritten tradition, was novel compared to previous councils like Constantinople 3. You can pause the video and read

about that if you want. Now, just previous to the passage I read, that this is the faith of the Apostles passage, the decree references artistic representations of Jesus, Mary, angels, saints, and so forth, and then stipulates, these are to be accorded greeting and the veneration of honor. Price comments that these words refer to something quite concrete, kisses, and a prostration, or deep bow. Then the decree references the practice of lighting candles and incense before images. And here is where it invokes, as it does many other places too, the theology of figural representation or figural mediation. You can find different terminology for this. But you can see on the screen there the reference to the incense and the candles, and then the emboldened line,

for the honor paid to the image passes over to the prototype. That's what we mean when we talk about figural representation. The idea is pretty simple. What you give to the image, passes through it to what the image represents. If you are praying to an image of Mary, then you say, I love you. Then you're saying to Mary, I love you, right? Goes through the image to the prototype. That quote that I put up, that emboldened there is a quotation from Basel, and that is the

linchpin of the theology of Nicaa, too. though, Basel was talking about God the sun as the image there. He's not talking about physical images in church buildings. He's talking about the Trinity, and that is not in dispute. Here's how Mike Humphreys puts it. Basel is not referring here to Christian art. His interest was in the Trinity, and certainly he was not condoning the cultic veneration of Christian figural imagery. That is not in dispute. He's talking about the Trinity. You can say, oh yeah, but it applies to image veneration. Okay, you can make that case, but certainly Basel doesn't make that case. Nonetheless, this quote from Basel becomes the linchpin of the theology of icon veneration at

Nicaea 2, which you give to the image passes through it to what the image depicts, and the icon functions therefore as a kind of portal or a kind of window into the heavenly realm. This is why, and I'll put up one example of this, you'll find Eastern Orthodox theologians, frequently speaking of icons, as windows to heaven, a kind of transit or portal to the spiritual realm. And this is why the visual nature of icons, as distinct from other physical objects that play a role of spiritual mediation, like say relics, is so important for the way that icons function in prayer, for example. So all throughout and I see it too, part of the argumentation you will see is this idea that it's the image and word together that are both necessary and both

on par with one another. So icons are functioning in a very specific way. Icons are not just like a generic kind of art. They have a particular liturgical role in the church. Okay, picking back up with the definition of Nicaa II, it continues, or I'll say decree, it continues by once again, right after that bit I read about the Basel quote and the incense and candles and so forth, it then locates this practice as apostolic, tradition. In this way, we follow Paul, who spoke in Christ and the whole divine company of the apostles. So that's all the apostles, and the sanctity of the fathers holding fast to the traditions we have received. Then it goes on to condemn those who spurn these traditions, then it includes

the bishop's signatures, and then it goes right on to that final paragraph saying, this is the faith of the apostles. So I hope it is clear to everyone that icon veneration is being stipulated as apostolic tradition. That's a historical claim being made. The claim, we follow Paul and the whole divine apostolic company, so in other words, to shorten that, we follow all the apostles, that claim is made with specific reference to holding fast to the traditions we have received, which, and the tradition received here is the burning of candles and incense before images. And this is called an ancient pious custom. they call it. You see a similar theology in the letter, the bishop's send to the emperor and empress after the council. Coming out of the council, later on in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, you find

the same argumentation, for example, in Theodore of the Studite, or in the letter of the three patriarchs, basically over and over. This is the argument. The apostles established icon veneration, and so we're just adhering to what the church has always done. Okay. Now, I'm not trying to argue against anything, I'm just trying to be accurate because I find people play so fast and loose with Nicaa 2 and they don't take it seriously. So we're just trying to summarize what Nicaa 2 is saying because it sets the bar for the discussion if it's the purportedly infallible counsel. So we're trying to summarize what Nicaa 2 is saying and we can do so in three steps. Number one, we have reference to specific physical gestures like kissing, lighting candles, and bowing or

deep kneeling. Number two, these actions. are directed to icons on a very specific theological framework, namely that of figural representation, what you give to the image passes to the prototype. And number three, that is held to be apostolic tradition. That is what is being fought over at Nicaea II. That is what the anathemas are enforcing. Okay. So no one has a right to come after the fact and move the goalposts around. Those theological and historical claims to together with their resultant anathemas, those set the table for the discussion. And so we're allowed to take these anathemas seriously when it says to those who do not

kiss the holy and venerable images anathema, or when it even says those who knowingly communicate with those who are in that position, anathema, we're allowed to take this language at face value. Now, what I've argued in my initial video and in follow-up videos is that this claim of Nicaea too is manifestly wrong. The apostles didn't venerate icons. Early Christians are outstandingly clear in their testimony about this matter, and we can produce dozens of quotations from Christians up to the 6th and 7th centuries saying,

we do not use images in worship. In the later periods, all you'll get will be things like the four adjectives I often use, commemorative, aesthetic, decorative, and didactic purposes. So yes, you know, someone's immediately going to be. to talk about in the comments, images in the catacombs or the third century synagogue that's been discovered with images. We're not saying there's no images of any kind for any purpose. All right?

We're saying the specific claim of Nicaea II is a late innovation, right? So commemorative use of images is fine. Didactic use of images for teaching is fine. That's a completely different thing than what's being contested at Nicaa II. And you can just produce quote after quote after quote after quote. of Christians in their early church saying we don't bow down before images, we don't have any sort of cultic use of images. And the response to this is people typically try to say, well, they're just condemning the pagan use of images. And this is just an inauthentic way of dealing with the data.

It's like when people say, well, the Bible's not really against homosexual relationships. It's just against exploitative homosexual relationships. And that's a later category being imposed onto the text, it's not what the texts actually say. The texts are just more blunt. You know, if the early Christians actually did, if Nicaeat II was right, and Christians in the third century or in the fifth century actually did, bow down to images and kiss images and use them as this kind of object of spiritual mediation, then you'd expect that that would come up when they're resoundingly condemning cultic use of images. When Lactantius says there is no religion wherever there is an image, you'd expect some

kind of qualification like, well, except for our images. You know, if he's just condemning the pagan use of images, or when the pagan critic Celsius says, why don't Christians have images in worship? And origin says, being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, we have rejected all images and statues, you'd expect, it might come up, you might say, well, we haven't rejected all images, just the idols, just the pagan images. We, of course, have our own ancient legislation from the apostles about lighting candles and so forth. Of course, that's not his view at all. I'll come back and just hammer home maybe half a

dozen quotes from origin later to make that very clear. When Octavius is asked by his non-Christian interlocutor in Marcus Felix's dialogue about Christian worship, and the question is, why have they no altars, temples, no acknowledged, or you can translate consecrated images? Octavius could have replied, well, we do have images. That's our ancient pious custom. We just use the images differently, right? But that's not what he says. He makes the same appeal that all the anti-Nicine Christians did, and that is to appeal to the invisibility of God. The rejection of occultic use of images in worship is a distinctive hallmark feature of the pagan versus Christian worship debate that is being had by these early apologists. And I pointed to text after text

like this. I just give you three examples. There's a lot more we could go through. And it's specifically, sometimes you'll find this, the theology of figural mediation will be reflected in pagan practice, and that very theology will be what is targeted by Christians and rejected. Okay? You see this in Augustine. Augustine is anticipating that the pagans can respond to the Christian condemnation of cultic use of images by saying, well, you guys have your physical objects in your church services too. And to counter that charge, he says, yeah, but we don't have this theology of figural representation like you guys do. Do we pray unto them? Because through them, we pray unto God? This is the chief cause of this insane profanity that the figure resembling the living person, which induces men to worship it, have more influence in the minds of these

miserable persons, than the evident fact that it is not living so that it ought to be despised by the living. Arnobius deals with the same objection, you know, basically he's dealing with the objection that, well, the pagans don't really worship the images. They just worship what they represent. It passes through the image to what it represents, and he just mocks this idea. It's the whole theology of figural mediation that he is mocking. And people really, I'm emphasizing this point because people really, I think there's a kind of ingrained. ignorance at the popular level. People have never heard the scholarship on this. They've never heard the other side. And so they don't take it seriously. So when I say it, they disbelieve me and they

act like I'm cherry picking the data. I'm not cherry picking. Every piece of data I'm giving from the early church is representative of the whole, not exceptional from the whole. You know, cherry picking is when you pluck out one little thing. And I'm not plucking out one thing from the rest, I'm just giving you what is universal and unanimous in the early church. It'd be like if somebody is a baseball scout and they're observing somebody and they watch them bat a hundred times and they have a zero percent batting average, they strike out every single time, and you say they're not a good batter, and then someone says, well, you're cherry picking the evidence. And the response to that is, no, I'm not cherry picking. I'm looking at the entire unanimous whole of the evidence. And if you

can't give a single counter example, then the charge of cherry picking doesn't apply. But people have tough time understanding just how devastating the case is against Icon Federation in the early church. You have literally the one called the Father of Church history writing a letter to Constancia, the Emperor Constantine's sister. She has requested an image of Christ, and Eusebius is rebuking her and wondering how can you even make this request? Can it be that you have forgotten that passage in which God lays down the law that no likeness should be made, either of what is in heaven or what is in the earth beneath. That's the Second Commandment. A lot of the early Christians appeal to that for this purpose. Have you ever heard anything of the kind, either yourself in church

or from another person, are not such things banished and excluded from churches all over the world? And is it not common knowledge that such practices are not permitted to us alone? He proceeds to recount another episode in which he had to confiscate an image purported to be of Paul and Christ. He says, I took it away from her and kept it in my house as I thought it improper that such things ever be exhibited to others, less we appear like idol worshippers to carry our God around in an image. So you have the father of church history saying, isn't it common knowledge that this is banished from all churches in the world?

Okay, let me say that again and think about that. You have the father of church history, the one who knows church history, arguably prior to the fourth century when he's alive better than anybody. And he's saying it's common knowledge that this is. is universally condemned. How can you dare to ask me for this? Because the fourth century is the first time you're starting to get portraiture art in the church. You've got similar stories of epiphanius destroying images when they start showing up, they start creeping in to Christian worship in a cultic manner. You've got, even by the time of Gregory the Great, okay, there's still no conception that he has of

images being used in connection to bowing or prayer. They are purely for didactic purposes or teaching purposes for Gregory still in his day, turn of the sixth century. So it's very clear that the early church did not venerate icons. And in saying that, my position is, I'm not saying anything in my videos on icon veneration. All I am is channeling what is basically universally recognized in the scholarship. Father Richard Price, okay, the one who translated it. He's entirely representative of the general scholarly position when he says the iconoclast claim that reverence toward images did not go back to the golden age of the fathers, still less to the apostles, would be judged by impartial historians the day to be simply correct. The iconophile view of the history

of Christian thought and devotion was virtually a denial of history. He's a Roman Catholic scholar. He's honest with the evidence. That position, what Price says is just representative of what nearly everybody says, except for a few outlier views. You could see Mike Humphrey's and his outstanding article in this more recent book, if you want to get a really, really recent overview of both the historical evidence and the scholarship. What he concludes is that what the iconoclass were reacting against was the recent from circa 680, transformation of images of Christ and the saints into icons through which the holy person depicted could be manifested. Any mentions of icon veneration before this point are either

interpolations, that means later textual editions, or referring to basically these are images that are also relics. And those are just still from earlier, a little earlier in the 7th century. So the only debate there is just exactly where you're setting the dials for when it's coming in. That 680 date is coming from, in large part, this great book from Cambridge University Press, about 900 pages book, pages to this book, came out in 2011. Their position is very clear. They say the iconic class of 754 were right when they condemned image veneration as an innovation. So that's referring to the Council of Hyeria, which took also a very large council, which took the opposite view. So all of that's completely standard fair. The only debate is,

are we talking about the late 6th century, the earlier view, or the more common and more plausible view today the late seventh century that icon veneration is coming into the church. Nobody thinks that the Capadocian fathers bow down before images, but alone the apostles. Okay. And now when I reference scholarship, sometimes people just sort of unthinkingly react against this, as though the thinking seems to be something like this. Well, scholarship can be misused, and sometimes it reflects a liberal bias. Therefore, this appeal to scholarship, is suspicious. But the problem with this is not every use of scholarship is bad or reflective of a liberal bias. Sometimes there's a scholarly consensus just because it's obviously true. So like,

you know, if you're debating an atheist and they say, well, we don't even have any good reason to think that Jesus existed. You might say, oh, hardly any scholars doubt that. There's basically a consensus in scholars among historians that Jesus actually existed. Everybody accepts that. Now, it would be really foolish if people started to come at you now and say, like, oh, you're using scholarship, so this is a liberal bias. This is suspicious that you're appealing to scholarship. Because if you're just appealing to scholarship to establish kind of common knowledge, then there's no necessary problem or liberal bias in that. A generic rejection of all scholarship is just as clumsy as a generic acceptance of all scholarship. A person would need to go into the reasons why there's a scholarly on that and why that is wrong. In the case of icon veneration, this is not the result of a liberal bias. These are like, you know, Roman Catholic priests who are saying this. And the reason there's the consensus is just because the evidence is resoundingly clear. So how do people get around this? Well, I've mentioned, you know, when some people go to doctrinal development, I've kind of addressed

that elsewhere, though you can probably already see just from the argumentation of Nica, too, how that's going to be a problem. There are other responses, you know, another response is to say, well, this is just like how people argue against Nicaa 1. That's not true at all. Nicaa 1 has a really strong foundation in the New Testament where the identity of Jesus as God is a motif and is explicit. You know, it's what drives the conflict on the charges of blasphemy and the Gospels. You just open to the Gospel of John. He's worshipped. He's called God and so forth. You might say, oh, you still have to interpret those passages. There was some debate about that. fine, but that's still a completely different ballgame from trying to get Nicaa 2 out of the New

Testament. So Nicaa 2, Nicaa 1, completely different. Completely different. But the other way that people try to respond to this, now to get into my response to the video on Serafim's channel, is people try to go back into the anti-Nycine era, and they try to find passages that have to do with physical objects being given some kind of good treatment, or at least some kind of treatment, that is implied, and they try to argue for icon veneration from this. And the problem that I would like to articulate about this in response to their video is the concern of equivocation. Now, second section of the video, this will be lightning fast. Let me just explain what I mean by that. The word equivocation means when language is used in an ambiguous way to obscure the truth in some way, not necessarily

intentionally, but to obscure the truth. So, for example, if you have the same word or the same phrase that's used with one meaning in one portion of an argument, and then another meaning in another portion of the argument, this is an example of equivocation. I'll put up some examples so you just, everybody can see really clearly what we're talking about. Premise one, annoying co-workers are a headache. Premise two, painkillers can help you get rid of a headache. Conclusion, painkillers can help you of annoying coworkers. This argument is actually valid in terms of its logical structure, but it's not a sound argument because there's an equivocation with the word headache. It's being used, it's being equivocated upon by being used in a metaphorical meaning in one premise

and a non-metaphorical in the other. Another example is someone could say, my parents said that I need to pay attention to the real world more, so I'm going to be watching six episodes of the real world tonight in order to heed their advice. Equivocation, okay? One time you're talking about the TV show, the real world, the other time you're talking about the real world in a non-technical sense. So this is what I'm going to argue is happening with the word veneration, with these passages. And there's other problems as well, but this is the main problem. This is the thread throughout them. A third metaphor, just to get into it even more, could be if you go to school and your teacher says, each morning after we recite the Pledge of Allegiance, you have to bow down before the American

flag and pray to the founding fathers of our nation through the flag. And if this practice is challenged, they then say, well, what's the big deal? I mean, we already venerate the flag. Don't you put your hand on your chest during the national anthem? And you might respond by saying, those are different things. Putting my hand over my chest during the national anthem versus bowing and praying through the flag are just completely different things. So you might use the word venerate for both of them, but we're talking about qualitatively different practices. That is what I want to show with each of these five examples we're going to work through. We're going to see about Ignatius employing Isaiah's imagery about Jesus' death on the cross, raising a standard for the

nations. We're going to talk about Clements Signate rings. We're going to talk about origin, mentioning decorations being brought to the church or altar. We're going to talk about Turtallians reference to paintings on the cups used in the Eucharist, and then we're going to talk about Methodius, talking about paintings of angels. None of those comes anywhere close to the specific target mandated with anathema at Nicaea 2, namely icon veneration in the sense we have just defined. So in other words, the equivocation here is going from going from like one kind of veneration to another, and even using that word veneration is the problem, because it's like,

veneration by concealment or veneration by raising a standard or veneration by decoration or these kinds of things, which are obviously very different from NICU2. And in each case, they're also not about icons and there's other problems as well. So let's work through each of these passages one by one. I know I'm responding to one specific case here, but I think this actually has broader implications for some of the broader discussion as well. And what we will see is with how far short each of these examples falls from actually hitting the target. What it shows is just how desperate the case is. Because I think, and I don't mean any insult to either Michael or Serafim,

I think they do as well as somebody can do. I think they made a respectful and as good a case as you can make for that position. But even so, if this is the best the other side can do, you look at this and you say, you know, why would anybody believe in this? It's just so clear that this is not a historic Christian practice. Let's show that with each of these. First, Ignatius, I'll put up the passage. this is from his letter to the Smyrnians.

Speaking of Christ, right at the start of the letter, he says, Christ was truly born of a virgin, and was baptized by John, in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled, Matthew 315, by him, and was truly under Pontius Pilate and Herod the Tetrarch nailed to the cross for us in his flesh. Of this fruit, we are by his divinely blessed passion. That he might set up a standard, he references two verses in Isaiah there, for all ages through his resurrection to all his holy and faithful followers, whether among Jews or Gentiles, in the one body of his church.

Now, initially, you're probably already, if you're paying attention, you're saying, where is icon veneration in this? Neither icons nor veneration seem at all within the scope of the passage, and I've never heard someone try to argue for icon veneration from this passage. But let's hear how they argue. I'll try to play about almost three minutes of their clip to try to be fair to give a a summary of what they are saying. Of this fruit we are, by his divinely blessed passion,

that he might set up a standard for all ages, through his resurrection, to all his holy and faithful followers, whether among Jews or Gentiles, in the one body of his church. So this quote is interesting for a number of reasons. It's very easy to pass by if we are not sort of entering into the cultural context

in which St. Ignatius of Antioch is speaking. The word standard, that's just not very familiar. It's not very common for us. And it actually might be the fault of the translators, well, not the fault, but because it's, you know, sort of older English translation, that we miss the fact that he's basically talking about a banner or a flag. Now, independently of this quote, there are various forms of honor that St. Ignatius of Antioch describes giving to the cross. And in our in-depth dive videos, I'll go into specific quotes. where he expresses this. He talks about sacrificing himself for the cross. He talks about making himself nothing before it, sort of lowering himself and turning himself into off-scouring to use the biblical word that he incorporates. And he talks about loyalty, being afraid of speaking falsehood against it. It's also important to recognize that he views the cross as distinct from Christ's death.

So when he says cross, it's not just kind of like a substitute word for the passion of Christ, the sufferings of Christ, the death of Christ. They are inseparably connected, but they're not identical in his theology. And I'll get into why that clearly is the case when we do the in-depth dive. The cross here is described as a standard, which, pardon my lack of knowledge of Greek pronunciation, but I believe this is Sussamon, and it can also be translated as Ensign or Bambon. All those basically meaning the same thing. This is deliberately distinctly military language,

and it references the cult of standards in the Roman army, the practice of worshipping Roman military banners, which I'll get more into how this is related, of course, when we do the deep dive. There's also a connection to the prophet Isaiah. Susamon is used in the Septuagint three times to describe a banner by which God gathers his people and the nations. So here are some examples.

of Roman military standards, the one on the left, is basically like a modern reconstruction, whereas the one on the right is actually, from my understanding, a Roman Aquila standard, representing the eagle, which is a representation of Jupiter. Now, the Greek word Sussamon here is often translated sign. You can see it in Mark 1444, speaking of Judas Ascariat, giving a sign. What Michael seems to be arguing is that Ignatius is using this word sign to refer to the cross of Christ. Now, right there out of the gate, we've got a problem. Before we even get to the main concern about equivocation on the word veneration here, we've got a major problem. And that's

when Ignatius is using this word, note that he quotes these two passages in Isaiah here, as both Michael and Serafam commented on in their video. And this is often translated, you know, standard or flag or signal or something like this. I'll put up the passage where you can see this from Ignatius there. And so you see Isaiah 526 and Isaiah 4422. Well, let's take a look at those. In these passages, the word here is being used as a metaphor for God's summoning the nations to judge his people. So, and for Isaiah 5, he's saying, God is saying, basically, I'm going to raise a banner and summon the nations. And this is for the purpose of judgment for God's people. And this is an image or a metaphor. The other image is God whistling to them. Obviously,

We don't think there's some literal banner over Jerusalem that this passage is describing or a literal noise of a whistle that God is making. It's metaphorical language for summoning the nations for judgment. Similarly, with the second passage in Isaiah 49, though here it's about Israel's restoration, but it's the same idea. God is raising a signal to gather the nations to Israel where he will restore his people before them and they will know that the Lord is God and so forth. It's not talking about a literal flag or a literal standard.

standard or something like that. So back to Ignatius, you have this older translation that's a little clunky here, but essentially Ignatius is just saying that Jesus, by his death and resurrection, has set up a standard for all ages to all his followers, whether Jews or Gentiles in the one body of the church. He's using the word standard here like Isaiah 5 and Isaiah 49 do. He's speaking of Christ's death and resurrection metaphorically as a standard to be raised to the nations. And you see it's a single standard, not plural, and it's a perpetual standard, a single standard for all ages, just like in the prophecies in Isaiah. This is a summoning of the Gentiles, and you see then in Ignatius's text, the union of the Jews and Gentiles into one nation. So, Jesus is, or Ignatius is not saying

that Jesus died and rose again in order to have physical banners in church buildings, or something like that. It's one banner for all time to summon the nations. So that's the first problem here. This has nothing to do with physical flags or physical banners and church buildings. The second problem is even if it were about that, there's nothing in this passage about veneration or prayer through such objects or something like that, you know, bowing, kissing, nothing like Nicaea too. But here's how they try to get to veneration.

So standards are, of course, inherently objects of veneration. They're honored by being exalted or placed high up, which focuses community loyalty on the ideal represented. The focus and other visible reverence to a standard mirrors the commitment to a person, a nation, a deity, an idea, so on and so forth, represented by it. And given Ignatius' own talk of lowering and sacrificing himself for it, this is public ritual veneration that we are talking about. The devotion or honor given to the standard, the image, passes to the cross of Christ. the prototype. And so here we have exaltation, veneration by exaltation, and possibly veneration by bowing as well. Okay, so they say standards are inherently objects of veneration. Now that's the equivocation. No standards are not inherently objects of veneration as understood by Nicaea 2. Okay.

Even if you assume that physical banners in the plural are in view here, and even if you thought that physical banners are inherently raised up in some sort of venerative way, there's a major equivocation here. I'll put up the equivocation for each of these on a slide, because you've got to get from veneration by raising up or exaltation of a banner to veneration by bowing. And these are just completely different things. Veneration at Nicaea, too, we've seen how that's defined. So there's a real problem, you know. And there's no mention actually in this passage in Ignatius, if you paid attention when it was read, there's no physical behavior toward the flags or standards, even if they were literal standards, that comes into view here. Nor is there any theology of figural representation or

figural mediation. All that has to be read into the passage here. So I'm trying to follow the argument here, but, you know, there seems to be an appeal to other passages that they made, where Ignatius refers to the cross. But I did a search for every reference to the cross in Ignatius's letters. There's nothing that I can find that would be really relevant here, any different from like a passage like Galatians 614. So, you know, I don't want to be insulting, but we need to see how problematic this way of arguing is and how circuitous. You go from A, Ignatius employs Isaiah's imagery of a standard to describe Jesus' engrafting the nations through his death. To B, that means literal standards are in churches. To C, standards are in hands.

inherently objects of veneration, to somehow now you get to D, because we have this one kind of veneration, flags being raised up, then we get to another kind of veneration, namely bowing down, praying through figural representation, et cetera. You see how problematic this is? And what we're going to see is in each of these cases, it's like if these are the passages you have to go to try to get icon veneration in the early church, it speaks to the difficulty of the case. Because there's times where we just have to put our foot down and say, no, that is not a good argument. This is nothing to do with what is being mandated at Nicaea 2. All right.

Second example, Clement of Alexandria. If Clement was a proponent of icon veneration, this would be remarkable because this would be a discovery. This would overturn everything. I mean, he's not generally interpreted that way. His other statements are hard to square with that. In my previous videos, I've discussed the influence of Platonism on him. He's very far into the an iconic position. He says works of art cannot be sacred and divine.

People often, when I give a shorter quote, they'll often assume I'm taking it out of context. I'm not. Look into Clement, and you tell me, if Clement sounds like he's in favor of bowing down to images, he is not. Clement, to my awareness, is universally taken as an iconic class. Here's how Brewbreaker and Haldon put it.

Clement of Alexandria argued that images could be neither divine nor sacred on account of their materiality and of the transcendent nature of the Trinity. That's basically a pretty standard summary of his position on this matter. But in their video, Michael appeals to a passage in Clement's work, The Instructor. And the context of this passage is basically listing clothing and decoration that is permissible for Christians, and then those kinds that aren't permissible. And he covers not only clothing, but earrings, finger rings, face painting. hair, things like this, and he's basically just encouraging modesty, is kind of the bigger picture,

and he's opposing luxurious living. And he gets to finger rings, and he says, and it is necessary for us while engaged in public, if it is necessary for us, while engaged in public business, or discharging other avocations in the country, and often away from our wives to seal anything for the sake of safety, he, that is the word, allows us a signet for this purpose only. So Clement is talking about using rings for sealing purposes, which was a common practice in the ancient world to avoid fraud, for example. And he's saying, that's totally fine, in contrast to ornamental finger rings, which he has concerns with. And then he continues by structuring which kinds of seals are permissible on the signet rings. Quote, and let our seals be either a dove or a fish or a ship scudding before the wind or a musical liar,

which Polycrates used, cradis used, or a ship's anchor which Seleucus got engraved as a device, and if there be one fishing, he will remember the apostle and the children drawn out of the water, for we are not to delineate the faces of idols, we who are prohibited to cleave to them, nor a sword, nor a bow, following as we do peace, nor drinking cups being temperate. So basically he's saying, use a good edifying Christian object on your sickness. ring, not a bad one, something that is an idol or has to do with violence or drunkenness. Now again, you get to the passage and you're saying, is this it? How are you going to, you know, how are you going to get icon veneration from this? This is, this is the passage that they're going to

go to this, you know, but again, it sort of comes across as though any sort of reference to any sort of physical object is being combed through in the anti-nicine era to be seized upon for some purpose. But let's hear their case and then I'll give a response. The way in which this particularly relates to veneration is by means of acknowledging the value given to signet rings, which we've already seen in this common sort of trope of stealing people's signet rings and hoarding them. But also Pliny the Elder, writing in the first century AD, he's like an associate of the Roman emperors, he talks about the ways in which signet rings are basically honored by people. He speaks of, for instance, the practice of wearing

substitutes. If you have kind of like silver bling on your fingers, and it means you've got gold bling at home. Basically, you kind of show the honor and the reverence for your ring by displaying the fact, by displaying, you know, not quite as fancy stuff on your fingers, and it indicates to people signals to them that you've got something even more honorable at home. The practice of hiding signet rings. And then he has this particular phrase. He speaks of the reverent holding of them only to be taken from the coffer,

the sort of storage box for the signet ring, as from a sanctuary. So signet rings were inherently venerated. This holy handling, this honor given to the signet image, passes to the aspect of Christ or his kingdom, which was represented, the prototype. So you have your veneration by means of concealment, as with the, again, the veiling of the Holy of Holies, women's practice of veiling. And you also have memorialization. And I think the more we reflect on the fact that the secular, sacred distinction of modern days was not present back then, and that the house was not just your own property, but the property of the God that you've dedicated yourself to in Roman times, it starts to make more sense. the kind of importance and the spiritual significance that signet rings would have and why they

would be treated with so much honor. And so this is, this does attest then to a Christian practice. When you take the two considerations together, what signet rings were and how they were used and the fact that St. Clement of Alexandria describes the making of them, you have a venerated image. Now, I listen to this four or five times to try to outfollow the argument here. They appear to be trying to use this passage in Pliny the Elder that discusses signet rings being concealed as a way of treating them with honor. And again, you see this language of these are inherently venerated, and this is labeled of veneration by means of concealment. But there are four major problems here. Number one is you have to ignore the difference between icons and signet rings. Let's leave that

aside for now. Fine. Let's say that the, let's say these function like icons, the pictures on the signet ring, even though I think Nicaa two meant something more specific by icons, fine, leave that aside. Second problem is the theology of figural representation is being read into the passage here, or at least adequate textual support has not been supplied, because there's a claim being put on the screen of their presentation about how this supposed holy handling of the signet ring passes through to the aspect of Christ or his kingdom being represented, but I have no clue what their basing that on textually. The third thing is, and this is related, is Pliny the Elder is not a Christian. He was a Roman politician and a writer. He's just describing a practice. Clement says nothing

about any of that. There's nothing in Clement about figural representation or anything like that. All he's saying is use good signet rings rather than bad signet rings. It's pretty simple. But the fourth and major issue that ties into all the issues here is this equivocation on the word veneration. I think I can just make this point simply and then move on. Concealing a signet ring is not the same as the kind of veneration in view at Nicaea 2. I'll put up the statement of these equivocations in each case. Again, it really falls so short of the burden of proof that you can kind of understand why scholars like Richard Price are saying what they do about the historical evidence. It seems pretty clear.

Okay. Concealing a signet ring, it's unclear how you even use the word veneration for that, but supposing you do, it's clearly a different practice altogether from what is mandated at Nicaea two. All right. Third, they go to origin. And again, this would be pretty shocking if origin changed his view or actually held a different view than he's pretty much universally regarded at his holding. He also was pretty vigorously and iconic against the cultic use of images. And, you know, elsewhere, he's pretty emphatic. He's saying, we and the Jews don't use images in these ways. The only exception is if people misunderstand some of his references to our statues, altars, and temples in Contra-Seltes 820. But if you just read through the entirety of 820,

especially if you read through from 817 to 820, you see he's not talking about literal Christians' statues and temples. He's talking about these as metaphors for prayer and Christian virtues and the Christian body and so forth. And I've documented that elsewhere. But Michael and Serafim have a different strategy. They try to get icon veneration or some support for it from his homilies on Joshua, where origin references Christians bringing decorations to the church or altar. Another example of a pre-Nicene writer who attest to image veneration is origin. And this is particularly interesting because many people hold forth origin as a clear an iconist and someone who denies that images are ever venerated.

But he actually affirms the veneration of at least some kinds of images. And so here we have a quote from him from his homilies on Joshua. Now to clarify the context of this quote, is that he's basically going on a little bit of a tirade against sort of surface-level Christians who lack any deep spiritual conviction and lack like a deep spiritual understanding of the outward practices of the church. And you basically kind of live semi-immoral lives, but who can kind of show up to church and fake it.

And who can give the impression of themselves being holy people by means of various kinds of veneration that they give to aspects of the church. And he compares them to the Ghibionites from the Old Testament in Joshua. And he has an extended rant about the Ghibionites and these Christians and how they're basically all the same kind. So he says, nevertheless, the great extent to which we are instructed by semblances of figures of this kind referring to the Gibbeanites in the Old Testament must be known. Because if there are any such persons among us whose faith is characterized only by this, that

they come to church and bow their heads to the priests, exhibit courtesy, honor the servants of God, even bring something for the decoration of the altar or church. Yet they exhibit no inclination to also improve their habits, correct impulses, so on and so forth. Those who are like this, let them know that they will be assigned apart and lot with the Gibianites by the Lord Jesus. And then they proceed to try to get icon veneration from this passage. And for the sake of argument, let's grant for the sake of argument that this is describing a, common Christian practice, and that's a literal altar or church building. We could talk about those things, but let's just, let's grant that. To get image veneration out of this, you again have to have

a huge equivocation. I'll put up the text. We'll take a look at it here. The first thing is, there are no icons or images of any kind mentioned here. Michael, he argues that the altar is an image of God's throne, but that's not what origin says. such imagery would at any rate be totally different from actually having a literal image, as is in view at Nicaea 2. The role of the altar is completely different from the role of an icon. Again, you have to kind of downplay the difference between icons and other physical objects to, and the specific mediatorial role that icons play in the theology of Nicaa 2. So that's one problem. But the more basic problem here is, again, the equivocation on the word veneration.

okay honoring living human beings is not a problem at all all the iconoclass are fine with that okay i've quoted from the council of frankfort on that for example that's not a problem at all but what michael and seraphim are arguing i hope i'm pronouncing his name right seraphim sorry i think i should i think i've been saying that wrong my bad um by the way parenthetical thought because i'm long enough into the video okay how is it 52 minutes into the video so i'm long enough in that probably people are spacing out anyway. So let's take a parenthetical thought here. I know what some people are going to say is like, oh, but Gavin, you don't have to have an exact reference to icon veneration. You know, you just have to have to have something that's kind of consistent with that and pushing toward that and so forth.

But that's why I went through Nicaea too. Again, the anathemas there set the bar. That's why I tried to say, you know, this is setting the table for the discussion. They are making these claims. were allowed to let those claims be taken at face value. So that's why these quotes really do need to get to that. But at any rate, they don't get anywhere near that. So it's not like we're just a little bit off here. So with this quote, for example, what's the equivocation here?

The equivocation is, I'll put it up on the screen here. It's a equivocation of decoration to get to the, or sorry, it's a veneration of decoration to get to the veneration of Niccia II. Veneration by means of adornment. But Origin never speaks of this act of decorating the church or decorating the altar as a way to venerate it. And if you want to use that kind of language,

like veneration by means of decoration or something like that, then we have a huge equivocation on the word veneration here because decorating an altar or decorating the church is not the same thing as bowing down and kissing an icon under the theology of figural representation. So hopefully this is clear. And there's no theology of figural representation here. This is just, once again, you're going to get the point pretty consistently here.

It's kind of the same issue in each case. We have an equivocation on the nature of the veneration and view, as well as some other problems in these passages as well. Okay, let's keep moving forward here. I'll try to finish off. If you're getting bored toward the end, I'm almost done. and stay to the conclusion, because that's where I'm going to draw the implications out, and I'll go real fast on these last two.

By the way, before we move off of Origin, though, if you just go to Contra-Celsus and do a search for the word images or image in that, you see very plainly his position, okay? Origin says that Celsius, the pagan critic of Christianity, is deceiving those who sought for God here upon Earth in images, in another passage he quotes Celsius' criticism of Christians that they don't have any images, and then he says, that's just like some other pagans who don't have any images also. And in response to that, origin doesn't say, no, no, no, we do have images in worship.

No, he says we don't, and he distinguishes the rationale for why Christians don't use images in worship from the different rationale that these other groups have. And I'll put this up, and you can see to this, our answer is that if these people don't have images, It does not follow that because we cannot suffer them any more than they, that the grounds on which we object to them are the same as theirs. So we're saying, yeah, we may not have images in worship. They don't either, but we have a different reason for that. We have a different rationale for our rejection of images. What is that rationale?

Well, you just keep reading through the quote. Basically, it's we don't want to debase ourselves and debase the worship of God and participate in anything demonic. and he quotes the Second Commandment, it says it's because of these commandments that we are willing to die before we would use images in worship. So you can read through that quote on your own if you want. Look, Origins' position on the cultic use of images

is crystal clear. Everybody I know recognizes this. You know, the only way to escape it is to try to say, oh, well, that's just the pagan use of images that Origin is condemning, but Origin never says that. For origin, it's the use of images as such, that is the hallmark point of distinction between Christian worship and the surrounding pagan spirituality. That's why he says things like, it is not possible at the same time to know God and to address prayers to images. If Origin believed in Nicaea too,

he could have easily clarified, you know, well, except for our images, but he never does that. Instead, he consistently makes this use of images as such, the distinctive contrast between Christian worship and pagan worship. It says, we do not imagine that these images are representations of God, for they cannot represent a being who is invisible and incorporeal. We abstain from doing honor to images. This is the common way. The we there is referring to Christians. You almost read these quotes about, and you just sort of wonder like how clearer could he be? And yet origins thinking about this is in lockstep with all the anti-Nicine Christians and even beyond that time period. All right, number four, real quick, finishing off, Tertullian.

Tertullian is almost everybody admits that Tertullian is thunderingly and iconic. He's often put up there with Clement as on the extreme end of that. Here's how Robin Jensen classifies them. You can pause and read this quote if you'd like to. Basically, they both appeal to the Second Commandment and said we cannot use images in worship. If you don't agree about Tertilian, just read through his treatise. on idols. It's very intense. The level of an iconism will blow your hair back. Turtullian is very clear. But Michael and Seraphim are saying that in his book on Modesty, Chapter 7, he takes a different

position. And basically they quote from this chapter where Trotelian references painting on cups used for communion. Okay. Let the very paintings upon your cups come forward to show whether even in them, the figurative meaning of that sheep will shine through the outward semblance to teach, whether a Christian or heathen sinner be the object it aims at in the matter of restoration. Then they reference a later passage in Chapter 11 where Tratullian is opposing those who appeal to the shepherd of Hermes to argue that you can restore those who fall into post-baptismal sin. That's basically the context of the dispute here. And he references the patron whom you depict upon your sacramental chalice,

depict, I say, as himself withal a prostitutor of the Christian sacrament, and hence worthily both the idol of drunkenness and the bris of adultery by which the palace sip quickly will quickly be followed, a chalice from which you sip nothing more readily than the flavor of the you of your second repentance. These translations are tough, they're old and kind of clunky. But there's the passages, and here's how they make their argument. Looking at some of the points in it, I want to draw attention to the fact that the kind of use of cups that Trutulian is speaking about is not exceptional. It reflects a common practice in a Greco-Roman culture of having ritual cups that are consecrated for ritual use to a deity by means of the depiction of the deity on the cup. A famous example of this is the Lycurgus cup.

from the 300s AD. And it portrays Bacchus, or Dionysius, as the Greeks would call him, the wine god, and a Bacic ritual story on the cup. And so when you take into account the ritual that's being depicted, as well as what we know about Bacic rituals from writing such as the Backe, and when you take into account symposium cups and all other sorts of examples of ritual cups that were used in the ancient Mediterranean, there's this connection that's made between the image on the cup

and the patron of the ritual in which the cup is used. But again, it seems here as though we have sort of any sort of physical objects used in worship as though we're going to stretch from that to icon veneration. I don't accept, first of all, that Turtullian himself is in any way approving of the broader Greco-Roman practice that's being described here. and the specific Christian practice of having images on cups that are used for teaching falls way short of the burden of evidence. These are not icons.

There's no approved theology of figural representation, and there's no veneration. This is just about teaching. So this is the fourth equivocation, equivocation number four here, where you're going from the teaching on cups to Nicaea too, but those are two different kinds of veneration if you can even use the word veneration for the first one at all. One of the ways you can see the problems here is that a lot of these things that we're finding in the anti-Nicine era are actually common in Protestantism. It's very common in historic Protestant circles to have images on communion cups or on communion plates or on communion tables. That isn't something, you know, commemorative use of art, didactic use of art is all fine.

Again, I feel like a broken record, but I got to keep repeating things. Nicaea too has set the bar, okay? So these other, you know, having images on cups is fine. That's just a completely different thing than bowing down and praying through icons. Okay. So that's Tratullian real quick with Methotius. They were very quick on Methodius, so I'll be quick as well. Basically, there's a reference here in Methodius' writings to making images of angels.

And the problem here is, again, Protestants do the same thing. This is not the same as veneration of icons. You can't just leap. This is like when people talk about, you know, they say, oh, well, the early church wasn't thoroughly an iconic, and they talk about just general religious art, you know, engravings on furniture and the catacomb paintings and paintings and church buildings and things like this. That's fine. Again, you can't just leap from a piece of art to the veneration of that, especially the specific

kind of veneration at Nicaea, too. I think this one is kind of easy just to say, if it doesn't talk about veneration, then it's not about veneration, right? Just having images, constructing images of angels is not the same thing as venerating icons. All right, so I'll put up equivocation number five, you can see there. Now, just to summarize, so we're saying we've got Ignatius's reference to the standard. We've got Clements, signet rings. We've got origin talking about decorating the altar or the church.

We've got Tutelian talking about images on cups. We've got Methodius talking about pictures of angels. Obviously, none of these things are icons. And most importantly, the only way you can call them veneration in any sense is by equivocating on that word. All right. So to conclude here, those of people who follow my apologetics work know, I know I'm sort of trying to state this strongly. I think the reason I'm trying to state it more strongly is I've,

I've learned over time that if you don't state it strongly, you kind of have to to help people take it seriously. Because I just, you know, you'll lay out the evidence. Like, they'll quote Richard Price or somebody like this who's so clear and just, you know, it's kind of saying something kind of obvious and it just still doesn't get through. Again, I think there's kind of a, just a lack of awareness that's gotten deep-seated on an issue like this. And so I'm trying to state it strongly to get people's attention. Those who follow my apologetics ministry know that I like triumphalism, but I also think there are times where we have to kind of just put our foot down and say, enough is enough. When something is clear, let it be clear. If you walk out on a clear

day where there's no clouds in the sky and you say, wow, the sky is blue today. And people start nitpicking your statement today and say, well, no, no, no, don't leap to conclusions. And they're trying to oppose your statement, there's a, there's a place in time where it's appropriate to say, no, the sky is blue. Take a look, you know. And I would say, I kind of feel the need to do that on this issue. Because I care about people where they end up, and this is the kind of thing, you know, people don't count the costs sometimes before they make these big changes in these traditions. Sometimes people, I'm concerned. I'm concerned when people leave Protestantism without really doing their homework on an issue like this. I see that happening all the time. So I need to say,

like we can say, the sky is blue, we can say icon veneration is not a historic Christian practice. It's just not what the early Christians did. And certainly not what the apostles taught. And Richard Price is just right when he says, the iconophile view of history of the history of Christian thought and devotion is a denial of history. And I think that's what everybody recognizes if you look into this with an open mind. And so the problem that this issue represents, is that you have these huge traditions like Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism that hold Nicaea II to be infallible, so that when Nicaea 2 claims to those who do not kiss the holy and venerable images anathema, and if anyone defends anyone who belongs to this heresy

that accuses Christians or who has ended his life in it, anathema. And then when the anathema is construed as being cast out into the outer darkness, being condemned, and being separated from God, then these people and these traditions are yoked to anathemas that are actually anathematizing what was the universal Christian practice until at least the late 6th century AD, probably the late 7th. That is how badly Nicaea 2 has kind of screwed up Christendom, to put it like that. infinitely better to go with the council of Frankfurt in the West. And as a Protestant, you can do that. And so I guess, you know, I could make the appeal like this.

Why not just admit that these brutal, tortuous, politically motivated councils can make errors? There's no insult to God in acknowledging that human beings can err. And I'll kind of finish with this reference to Luther because we all know, So this is a huge piece of Protestantism, just the recognition of fallibility in the church. And Luther's steadfast commitment to the Word of God at the Diet of Verms is often noted where he says, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I'll put up this quote, and those are honorable words. Those words, my conscience is captive to the word of God. If you ever want one way to sum up Protestantism, there it is. But there's also this little line

that is implicit in that statement. And that's for, I do not believe, I'll put this in an emboldened font on the screen, I do not believe in the Pope or in councils alone since it has been established that they have often erred and contradicted each other. So this is part of the appeal that Luther is making here. He's under the gun.

He's trying to stick to his conscience. He's trying to do what he thinks he's right. Luther is a very imperfect person, but on this point I think he showed courage. because he's not yielding to pressure. He's following what is true. And he's saying, I stand upon the Word of God, but part of that appeal is, look at church history, it's obvious that sometimes we got it wrong.

And that applies even to the ecumenical councils. Because frankly, Council of Frankfurt just is a lot better theology than Nicaa, too, and a lot less forged documents, a lot less interpolations being jammed into earlier texts and so forth. So the upshot of all of this is I would invite every person watching this video and those who are wrestling with these ecclesial issues to place your ultimate trust in the word of God. What the bishops did at Nicaea 2 in 787 under the thumb of the cruel Empress Irene, that is not the inspired words of God. That's human. God's at work in the midst of it, but it's human. It can err.

Just as Hyerea and Frankfurt and the other councils at that time that are rejecting it and go in the other direction can also err. They're not infallible. They're not God. Human beings make mistakes. There's no promise anywhere in the New Testament that somehow as you roll forward in the church history, the church is going to have, you know, this council we know won't err, but that council can. It's like all of that is later accretion. Don't put your hope in that system. I think a lot of people convert to these other traditions, these high ecclesialist traditions,

because they're looking for something solid to give them peace. I don't put that motive on everybody, but I think a lot of people, there is that thirst for something really rooted and historical and deep because the world feels so unstable right now. Don't put your hope in the human system. And 787 was a human event. Put your hope in that which is divine. Put your hope in the very word of God himself. That is what will never fail you.

All right, there's my appeal. I responded to that one specific video, but I hope this is relevant to the broader conversation on these issues. I don't think this topic's going away. You know, this hasn't been as much in the history, but it's definitely going to be in the future. In the history, we've often, you know,

focused our attention where the polemics are, the Catholics and the Protestants are fighting about justification, and so there's lots of focus on that. The Protestant Eastern Orthodox relationship, strange to say is relatively new in the sense that we don't have as much of a track record of talking. And this issue, Nicaea II, is going to be a huge one in the years ahead. And if the Lord tarries in the centuries ahead. You know, this is, then Nicaea, that's the thing.

If you say something's infallible, therefore it is irreformable, so you're stuck with it forever. So Nicaa II is never going away. Infinite freedom. Infinite, you know, opening up the windows and letting the fresh air in to just say, you know, counsels are not perfect. They can make mistakes. So that's the view I would put forward to people and commend people in terms of where you put your ultimate trust. All right, thanks for watching everybody. Let me know what you think in the comments. If I miss something, a long video and I talked fast and it's late at night. So I might have misspoke here or there. Hopefully where that may have

happened, hopefully the larger point won't be lost. But let me know in the comments what you think and where the conversation can go from here. All right, God bless. Take care. Thanks for watching, everybody.