Iconoclast heresy

[Xeno.of.athens]

One reason is that the Orthodox and Catholic churches make it obligatory to do with anathemas attached if you don't.

No they don't.

 

[The Liturgist]

That quote is either not authentic or taken out of context. So that is why I don't trust the quote from Basil.

You just said you hadn’t looked up the quote. But now you presume to judge a quote you just looked up a few minutes ago? Assuming it is even the right quote? Frankly that’s absurd.

By the way I’ve never seen Roman Catholics (other than sui juris Byzantine Rite Catholics) venerate an icon in the Eastern Orthodox manner.

But I have seen Oriental Orthodox venerate icons, despite not being present at Nicaea.

 

[All Becomes New]

You just said you hadn’t looked up the quote. But now you presume to judge a quote you just looked up a few minutes ago? Assuming it is even the right quote? Frankly that’s absurd.

Got the information about the quote from Basil from Dr. Gavin Ortlund.

 

[All Becomes New]

No they don't.

That is what is in Nicea 2.

 

[The Liturgist]

No they don't.

That’s true - I’ve never seen someone take any flak in a parish for not venerating an icon, but the flipside is that the attitude of the member in question reflects both iconoclasm and contumacy. He presumes to judge his churches based on his own reading of an unknown translation of the Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod and then to dismiss as inauthentic the sayings of important Church Fathers.

 

[The Liturgist]

Got the information about the quote from Basil from Dr. Gavin Ortlund.

Who is a known Presbyterian iconoclast, and not an authority on Orthodox Patristics or iconography. At any rate, its immaterial, since there are numerous other quotes that I supplied, but its clear you’ve made up your mind, so please leave Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and Roman Catholic and Lutheran and Anglican members alone to practice our faith in peace.

 

[All Becomes New]

Who is a known Presbyterian iconoclast, and not an authority on Orthodox Patristics or iconography. At any rate, its immaterial, since there are numerous other quotes that I supplied, but its clear you’ve made up your mind, so please leave Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and Roman Catholic and Lutheran and Anglican members alone to practice our faith in peace.

That's DR. Gavin Ortlud. He has a doctorate in theology and knows Church history. He knows how to do research which he has done to arrive at his view. He knows the scholarship on this issue which is different than what a priest knows because scholars are more honest with the faults of their own tradition.

 

[jas3]

That's DR. Gavin Ortlud. He has a doctorate in theology and knows Church history. He knows how to do research which he has done to arrive at his view. He knows the scholarship on this issue which is different than what a priest knows because scholars are more honest with the faults of their own tradition.

To his credit, Dr. Ortlund is one of the best Protestant apologists on Youtube, but he's not an expert on iconography. He admits as much in his videos where he says he's not familiar with the iconographic traditions in the Oriental Orthodox and Church of the East communions. And like many academics, he tends to take an overly skeptical view of early Christian writings (and he absolutely holds a double standard when demanding proof for doctrines like icon veneration or the assumption of Mary versus his own rejection of baptismal regeneration or first-millennium ecclesiology).

 

[The Liturgist]

That's DR. Gavin Ortlud. He has a doctorate in theology and knows Church history.

So what? We also have professors with doctorates of theology, doctorates of Eastern Christian studies, doctorates in Church History specifically, and other subjects.

It doesn’t change the fact that Dr. Ortlund is a known advocate of iconoclasm, like some, but not all, Presbyterian scholars of theology, going back to John Calvin, who is almost single handedly responsible for reviving iconoclasm, which led to the mass destruction of stained glass windows, icon screens and other cultural heritage in Britain, the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe.

 

[The Liturgist]

To his credit, Dr. Ortlund is one of the best Protestant apologists on Youtube, but he's not an expert on iconography. He admits as much in his videos where he says he's not familiar with the iconographic traditions in the Oriental Orthodox and Church of the East communions. And like many academics, he tends to take an overly skeptical view of early Christian writings (and he absolutely holds a double standard when demanding proof for doctrines like icon veneration or the assumption of Mary versus his own rejection of baptismal regeneration or first-millennium ecclesiology).

Indeed, his lack of knowledge on Oriental Orthodox iconography is really an achilles heel in this case since the Oriental Orthodox venerate icons like the Eastern Orthodox and do all this despite not having participated in the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which by itself disproves the absurd idea that icon veneration was some how an eighth century innovation.

 

[All Becomes New]

So what? We also have professors with doctorates of theology, doctorates of Eastern Christian studies, doctorates in Church History specifically, and other subjects.

And they agree with Dr. Ortlund that it is a sixth-century accretion because they are honest beyond having blind faith.

eighth century innovation

Sixth.

 

[All Becomes New]

It doesn’t change the fact that Dr. Ortlund is a known advocate of iconoclasm, like some, but not all, Presbyterian scholars of theology, going back to John Calvin, who is almost single handedly responsible for reviving iconoclasm, which led to the mass destruction of stained glass windows, icon screens and other cultural heritage in Britain, the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe.

You realize that much of the Church is responsible for Anti-Semitism, right? And denying that the Jews have a role in God's plan any longer?

 

[jas3]

Indeed, his lack of knowledge on Oriental Orthodox iconography is really an achilles heel in this case since the Oriental Orthodox venerate icons like the Eastern Orthodox and do all this despite not having participated in the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which by itself disproves the absurd idea that icon veneration was some how an eighth century innovation.

Yes, although in one of his recent videos I watched he seems to be taking a new approach, which is to say that there was still cultural exchange between the Chalcedonians and the non-Chalcedonians, which is why the Oriental Orthodox have icons. He offers no evidence for this theory, which is oddly beneath his usual level of thought put into his arguments.

And they agree with Dr. Ortlund that it is a sixth-century accretion because they are honest beyond having blind faith.

This is just not true. Fr. Steven Bigham, to give one example, holds a doctorate in theology and holds the position that icon veneration is at least ante-nicene if not apostolic in origin. And unlike Dr. Ortlund, his specialization is in iconography.

 

[All Becomes New]

This is just not true. Fr. Steven Bigham, to give one example, holds a doctorate in theology and holds the position that icon veneration is at least ante-nicene if not apostolic in origin. And unlike Dr. Ortlund, his specialization is in iconography.

There are a lot of scholars with a lot of views. The question is what the majority of scholars agree on.

 

[jas3]

There are a lot of scholars with a lot of views. The question is what the majority of scholars agree on.

It's not even that. Gavin has said in his videos - on the subject of iconography if I'm remembering correctly - that there are times where it's valid to reject the scholarly consensus, like he does on the authorship of Daniel. He just thinks that iconography is not one of those cases.

That's an opinion he's entitled to, but just like he recognizes that there's a bias against accepting the traditional authorship of Daniel, we can also recognize that there's a bias in the general scholarship (mainly coming from iconoclastic Protestants, as well as atheists who want to discredit Christianity) against icon veneration having been a legitimate part of Holy Tradition.

 

[The Liturgist]

And they agree with Dr. Ortlund that it is a sixth-century accretion because they are honest beyond having blind faith.

No Orthodox scholar of theology or Patristics has said anything of the sort.

You realize that much of the Church is responsible for Anti-Semitism, right? And denying that the Jews have a role in God's plan any longer?

The Orthodox Church consists largely of converts from Judaism and never engaged in practices such as the auto-da-fe, which were specific to Roman Catholicism.

It's not even that. Gavin has said in his videos - on the subject of iconography if I'm remembering correctly - that there are times where it's valid to reject the scholarly consensus, like he does on the authorship of Daniel. He just thinks that iconography is not one of those cases.

That's an opinion he's entitled to, but just like he recognizes that there's a bias against accepting the traditional authorship of Daniel, we can also recognize that there's a bias in the general scholarship (mainly coming from iconoclastic Protestants, as well as atheists who want to discredit Christianity) against icon veneration having been a legitimate part of Holy Tradition.

Indeed so. And he has no hard evidence or proof that any Patristic writings on icon veneration are forgeries, and the idea is frankly preposterous, since by the sixth century the Chalcedonian schism had already happened, and so there would be no means by which the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox could conspire together to introduce an innovation surrounding iconography. The idea is not even worthy of consideration.

 

[The Liturgist]

There are a lot of scholars with a lot of views. The question is what the majority of scholars agree on.

My own question is what makes you think you can trust third century Patristic writings more than fourth and fifth century Patristic writings. This is a huge red flag, because the fourth century is when the Council of Nicaea and Constantinple happened, and the fifth century is when the Council of Ephesus happened, and in my experience most people who want ante-Nicene references have misgivings about the Nicene Creed, and likewise most people who want ante-Ephesian references embrace Nestorian ideas to varying extents, such as a denial that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Theotokos.

 

[All Becomes New]

My own question is what makes you think you can trust third century Patristic writings more than fourth and fifth century Patristic writings. This is a huge red flag, because the fourth century is when the Council of Nicaea and Constantinple happened, and the fifth century is when the Council of Ephesus happened, and in my experience most people who want ante-Nicene references have misgivings about the Nicene Creed, and likewise most people who want ante-Ephesian references embrace Nestorian ideas to varying extents, such as a denial that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Theotokos.

I affirm the Nicene Creed or else I would not be discussing things here with you. However, I know, and you should know as well, that 200 years is plenty of time for big changes to be made in the Church. The primacy of Rome is one example. Just because it is early, like within the first 300 years, does not mean it is Biblical. I believe that the Nicene Creed uses philosophical language from that time to show what is in scripture. That is not the case with Nicea 2, which was hundreds of years later, which is more than plenty enough time for developments to occur. Heck, even infant baptism does not go back to the apostles but was developed in the second century. I keep saying this and I will probably keep saying it but think of how much the world has changed in the last 20 years. To think that this same sort of change cannot occur in the church is silly.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I did not look up any references. I simply thought about it more. That is what would convince me icon veneration goes back to the Apostles.

Since there is obviously nothing that would convince you; why keep flogging a dead horse. You made your point, so did we.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

One reason is that the Orthodox and Catholic churches make it obligatory to do with anathemas attached if you don't.

Since I doubt that you belong to either of those Churches, why is that an issue? I am shure that you faith group has certain legalisms that few of us here would agree with. I guess you have nothing to worry about.