In modern Christian apologetics, Sola scriptura is cited by protestants as the only framework available to preserve the authority of God’s word. I am not critiquing the common caricature of “me and my Bible under a tree”. In fact, the best Protestant defense explicitly denies that sola scriptura means “my Bible and me.” This distinction matters, but I do not think it saves the system.

My argument is that even this stronger form of sola scriptura functionally collapses into solo scriptura, because every supposedly subordinate authority is only accepted insofar as the individual, or his chosen denomination, first judges it to agree with Scripture. But once that happens, the final operative authority is no longer Scripture considered in itself, but is the individual’s fallible interpretation of Scripture. And ultimately leading to issues with their own assurance of salvation.

The issue is not that Protestants have no authorities. The issue is that their external authorities cannot objectively and finally bind them. Note this argument is not the same “Jay Dyer” meta “where did you get your canon from” kind of argument. In this article, I grant that protestants have a canon.

A Steelman of Sola Scriptura

“Scripture alone is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. This does not mean Scripture is the only authority in any sense whatsoever. It means Scripture is the only infallible authority. It simply means that everything we ever might conclude or claim about the faith is checked with Scripture…It’s also worth noting that this doesn’t mean that doctrine can only be derived from Scripture or that you can’t read any other book (solo scriptura)”12

They are not saying, “I reject the Church”, “I reject tradition”, or “Private judgment is infallible”, but they are saying, “The Church is under Scripture”, “Tradition must be tested”, “Only Scripture is infallible”.

The Hidden Premise

The Protestant position is simple: “Everything must be tested by Scripture”. However, it can never simply be “tested by Scripture” since Scripture is not some sort of abstraction floating in the nether somewhere. Rather, it is Scripture as interpreted and applied by someone. Therefore, what ends up being tested is not “Scripture” but rather, “my interpretation of Scripture”.3

This is not merely a play on words, for the source of authority is clearly shifted. The Bible is a book of words and those words are only understood in the mind of an interpreter. When a debate on doctrine starts, there needs to be a decision about which interpretation is right. Is it the private interpretation of the individual believer? Then Sola Scriptura is really Solo Scriptura. Is it the interpretation of my denomination? Then the denomination itself has become the interpreter of Scripture. Even if it is the historic Protestant confessions of faith, then why should these and not others hold normative authority?4

Note: Orthodoxy does not reject testing claims by Scripture. False traditions and teachers do exist. No tradition can nullify the Word of God. But the issue is not whether doctrine must be scriptural; rather, it is whether every individual believer becomes the final judge of what counts as scripture.

Authority in Name Versus Authority in Function

The language of “subordinate authority” is unstable. For example, if I can only agree with a council when it first agrees with me, then it is not an authority over me, but it is just evidence for my individual judgment. There is a difference between a source that I respect and a source that can actually bind me. When a Protestant or evangelical says, “Nicaea is authoritative because it agrees with Scripture”, the question then is, Who determines that Nicaea agrees with Scripture? If the answer is “I do,” then Nicaea is not the binding authority the individual’s interpretation is.

This all means that councils have advisory authority, but not binding ecclesial authority. They can inform and maybe even persuade people, but they cannot finally bind the conscience unless the individual has already independently decided that their teaching is biblical.56

That is why the strongest Protestant positions still collapse into Solo Scriptura. Not because they reject all tradition, but because it makes all tradition subject to private ratification.

The Canon Problem

The problem becomes more focused when we turn to the canon. Before Scripture can function as the only infallible rule of faith, someone must first identify what makes up said Scripture. Scripture is not some abstract thing, it is a concrete list of specific books, yet the Protestant framework faces a significant epistemological issue: how to know, with assurance, which books are indeed scripture and not just authoritative. While Protestants argue that the Church “recognized” rather than “created” the canon, relying on factors such as apostolic origin, doctrinal consistency, and self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit, this distinction is insufficient.7

If the recognition of the canon is a fallible human act, the result is the famous problem of a “fallible list of infallible books”. Even if the Bible is infallible in itself, a believer’s access to it remains fallible if the boundaries of the canon are known only with fallible certainty. Ultimately, this renders every doctrine derived from the text conditional, dependent not only on the book’s inclusion in the canon but also on the individual’s fallible interpretation. A foundation far weaker than the rhetoric of sola scriptura often suggests, below I will list and go through each issue of assurance that follows from here.89

The Assurance Problem

1. Canonical Assurance

The first issue is canonical assurance. I already touched on it above, but I will do another summary of the issue. This issue asks how the believer knows that the books in their Bible are truly Scripture.

If the answer is “the Church recognized them”, yet that Church is also defined as fallible, then the believer is only left with fallible certainty that their canon is correct.

If the answer is “the Spirit confirms or bears witness”, the question arises as to how this inward witness is distinguished from private conviction, especially when Christians disagree over the Old Testament canon and various disputed books throughout history.

Finally, if the answer is “the books are self-authenticating”, one must ask why don’t all Christians recognize the same canon by these same standards.

Ultimately, while the Protestant can have strong historical confidence, rational evidence, or personal conviction, they cannot, on the principles of their own framework, have infallible certainty that this exact canon is the canon of Scripture. This issue is fundamental because, again, Scripture cannot function as the only infallible rule of faith until the believer knows exactly which books are Scripture.

2. Interpretive Assurance

But let’s grant the canon, the next issue is interpretation, which challenges the Protestant claim that Scripture is sufficiently clear in “essential” matters. In reality, the very doctrines considered essential, like Baptism, the Eucharist, Justification, Church government, etc., are heavily disputed among different groups that all claim to read the text faithfully, and even disputed among protestants.

While a Protestant may appeal to tools like grammar and original languages. These methods do not apply themselves as the framework admits. Different traditions use these same tools only to reach contradictory conclusions. This will always be because every individual must “use their brain” to interpret the text, and since human beings are “humbly fallible”, any doctrine derived from Scripture is necessarily mediated through that same humble fallibility.

Ultimately, even if a doctrine is true in itself, the believer’s possession of it remains only fallibly known, leaving the problem of assurance unresolved, and then leading to the next issue.

3. Doctrinal Assurance

Every Protestant doctrinal conclusion is founded on a fallible chain of reasoning: a fallible canon leads to fallible interpretation, which then leads to a fallible doctrinal synthesis, all of which then supports a claim of infallible doctrine. When a Protestant says that their doctrine is infallible because “Scripture teaches it”, the underlying logic is troublesome. The doctrine is only “infallible” if the canon is correct, if the interpretation is correct, and if the synthesis is correct.10

This framework does not produce the absolute, infallible assurance the system often promises, but it yields only conditional assurance. This is not an argument that does not suggest that Protestants know nothing, but it does expose that their epistemology cannot provide the stable, infallible foundation it claims to possess apart from the Church.

4. Conscience-Binding Assurance

Next, there is the question of conscience, starting from the Protestant claim that “Only Scripture can bind the conscience”. However, in practice, the conscience is bound by a specific interpretation of Scripture, and since the framework typically rejects any ecclesial authority capable of finally objectively settling these disputes, the individual conscience is left to navigate through opposing interpretive claims alone.

The fundamental issue is: if the individual interprets incorrectly, they may bind their conscience to a “damnable heresy” while truly and sincerely believing they are submitting to God’s Word as intended by God. Therefore, while sola scriptura aims to protect the believer from the supposed “authoritarian” rule of fallible men, it functionally subjects that same conscience to the individual’s own fallible judgment or a denomination’s fallible confession.

5. Assurance of Salvation

Most ironically, the issue reaches salvation itself, particularly the Protestant claim that their system uniquely preserves “blessed assurance”. However, this assurance rests upon doctrines that are themselves products of the Protestant fallible interpretive framework.

For example, the conviction that a believer “cannot be un-glorified” requires a specific reading of Romans and the “Golden Chain” of salvation, a interpretation that the framework admits must be done by the individual. As a consequence, a Protestant’s assurance often rests not simply on Scripture, but on their confidence that their subjective, and fallible interpretation of Scripture is correct. Once a believer begins to wonder if they have misread Paul or if the historical Church held a different view, the system offers no external, infallible resolution to the anxiety that follows the doubt.

Sola scriptura may provide deep personal conviction, but it lacks the ecclesial certainty required to ground that assurance as strongly as its own rhetoric attempts to have.

The Protestants’ counter: “Fallible but Sufficient” Knowledge

A strong Protestant will respond to the assurance issues by retreating to “fallible but sufficient” knowledge. They might argue that Christians do not need infallible certainty regarding the canon or even their interpretation, but only a “moral certainty” or warranted confidence is needed. While this is a serious, philosophically valid reply, it fundamentally changes the Sola Scriptura claim. By conceding that their access to the only infallible rule is fallible, they admit that Sola Scriptura no longer provides an infallible epistemic foundation. Instead, it offers a fallible path to an infallible object, which is a much weaker claim that fails to support binding the conscience against all opposing ecclesial claims.11

The Problem of Epistemic Asymmetry

This retreat into “sufficient knowledge” exposes asymmetry in Protestant reasoning. The Protestant will often use maximal skepticism and Evidentialism when attacking Church history, questioning the corruption of tradition or the errors of bishops, etc., yet retreats to modest fallibilism when defending the canon. If fallible historical reasoning is sufficient to identify what constitutes the Bible, it cannot then suddenly become insufficient when that same history is used to identify the apostolic tradition of the Church. To trust the Church’s historical reception of the New Testament while rejecting the same Church’s reception of the Liturgy or Church governance is special pleading and cherry picking, akin to borrowing fruit while rejecting the tree that produced it.

Material Sufficiency vs. the Sufficient Tribunal

The main philosophical misunderstanding in this system is the confusion between Material Sufficiency and Formal Sufficiency.12

• Material Sufficiency: The idea that the full faith of the apostles is contained in Scripture.

• Formal Sufficiency: The idea that Scripture is sufficiently clear to function as the self-interpreting final authority apart from the Church.

The Protestant proves the former (Scripture is “profitable”) and then assumes the latter, but a text, no matter how inspired, does not apply itself. It does not list out its own canon nor its own interpretive rule/hermeneutic. This leads to the “Norm vs Tribunal” (Definition of Tribunal: an adjudicatory body) problem: just as the Constitution requires a Supreme Court to function as a tribunal, a materially sufficient text requires a formally sufficient interpretive body. Without an authorized tribunal, the “Only Infallible Rule” is left without a way to (infallibly or not) settle disputes by definition, leaving the individual as the final judge, functionally.

Ultimately, their use of the word “sufficient” hides a deeper issue. A conviction may be sufficient for private belief, but is it sufficient to publicly and definitively bind the faithful to dogma? Particularly if they don’t understand or agree? If a believer’s access to “the only infallible rule” is fallible, then no external authority can truly bind their conscience against their own judgment. As I said earlier, “…they cannot finally bind the conscience unless the individual has already independently decided that their teaching is biblical”.

Conclusion

Sola scriptura claims to protect the believer from authoritarian fallible human authority, but in practice it still ends up depending on fallible human judgment. A fallible judgment of the canon, a fallible interpretation, a fallible judgment on doctrine, etc. It does not eliminate human mediation, it simply relocates it to the individual.

If the list of scripture is fallible, then we can’t say we know for sure that any book is indeed scripture with any assurance other than high probability and hope, and that follows to the doctrines from said books. If my confidence in salvation depends on doctrines from a fallible canon list, that is recognized and interpreted fallibly, then the foundation of my assurance is ultimately rests on my own fallible judgment about Scripture.
This is why sola scriptura collapses into solo scriptura. Councils, creeds, Fathers, and the rest of tradition may be respected, but they only have authority when an individual first judges them to be biblical. At that point, the final authority is not Scripture alone, but private judgment about Scripture alone. Solo Scriptura.

The Orthodox alternative is not to lower Scripture beneath the Church. It is to receive Scripture as the highest, inspired, and normative part of Holy Tradition. The same Spirit who inspired the Scriptures also preserves the Church in the apostolic faith.
The question isn’t: Scripture or Tradition.

But instead, the question is, Scripture in isolation from the Church, or Scripture within the Spirit-Guided life of the Church?

Next, I will post part two, presenting the Orthodox position as an alternative.

Bibliography

Ortlund, Gavin. "The ULTIMATE Case for Sola Scriptura." YouTube. August 19, 2025.

Apologetics, Anderson. "My COMPLETE Defense of Sola Scriptura." YouTube. May 4, 2026

One of the main doctrinal issues for those from the “Non-Apostolic” traditions is that of “Prayer” to the Saints. In this article, I will not only explain this doctrine in a way that is not normally done in “Pop” apologetics, but also show that it is not as scandalous to the already held ideas of Christianity once terms are properly defined and metaphysics explained. Keep in mind that this article is NOT to convince anyone of the doctrine, but to explain Orthodox teaching so that future conversations on this matter are more fruitful.

Defining the Doctrine

Now, why, you may ask, did I put the word “Prayer” in quotations? That is because calling the doctrine “Prayer to the saints” now is a misnomer.

mis·​no·​mer, noun, “a wrong or unsuitable name”- Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary

This is not to say that “Prayers to the Saints” is heretical when properly understood, but in today’s modern English, it is a misleading term that does not properly represent the doctrine. This wasn’t always the case; in ancient English, the verb “to pray” simply meant “to ask” or “to petition” someone for something.

Pray, “to ask earnestly”, - Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary

Examples:

“I’ll bear your logs the while. Pray, give me that.” (Shakespeare, The Tempest, Act III, Scene i)

“And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways…” (Genesis 19:2 KJV)

“Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.” (2 Corinthians 5:20 KJV)

The issue this can cause in the modern context is that the verb “To pray” is almost exclusively used to refer to communication with the Divine or God and as a form of worship. So, in modern language, to say that anyone “prays” to anyone who isn’t God is automatically handwaved away as blatant idolatry, often with no intention of understanding what is actually believed or claimed.

It is therefore wise that the alternative term, “Intercession of the Saints” be used especially in conversations with those who don’t properly understand the doctrine, and it is how I will name it for the rest of the article. Once more, I feel it must be stressed that I’m not saying that it is heretical or wrong to call it “prayer” but that it is a misnomer in the modern context.

So to define it, “Intercession/Petition of the Saints” is simply that we on earth ask the Saints in heaven to intercede for us before Christ.

But that raises the question… what does that mean in practice?

Explanation and Attestation

I believe the most concise explanations of this doctrine come from the venerable Saint Paisios of Athos when answering questions from a young man with Protestant leanings, published in O Hosios Gregorios (Holy Monastery of Gregoriou, Mount Athos, 1995).

Question: The Lord taught us to pray to God the Father. The Orthodox Church prays to the Theotokos and the Saints who are people. Is this correct?

Answer: Listen. All prayers go to God. We pray to the Virgin Mary and the Saints, that is, we ask that they pray to the Lord for us. And their prayers have great power….

Now, here it is odd to hear him say that, “All prayers go to God…” but then right after he says, “We pray to the Virgin Mary and the Saints…” he explains it with the answer to the next question:

Question: Yes, but (I interrupted) the Virgin Mary and the Saints were people and they died. They do not hear us, nor are they present everywhere. Perhaps God is angered over the fact that we pray to them?

Answer: My child, to God no one dies. When someone dies, they die to us who are left here on earth. They do not die to God. And if that person has boldness before God, they learn from Christ that we are asking them to pray for us, and so they pray for us, and Christ hears and rejoices. The prayer of the righteous has great power.

Above, we see Saint Paisios say that the Saints in heaven are aware of our petitions because Christ makes them known to them. This same idea is also found in 1st Century Jewish thought, written by Philo of Alexandria, a contemporary of Saint Paul and Jesus Christ:

“In the second place, the holiness of all the founders of the nation, because they, with souls emancipated from the body, exhibiting a genuine and sincere obedience to the Ruler of all things, are not accustomed to offer up ineffectual prayers on behalf of their sons and daughters, since the Father has given to them, as a reward, that they shall be heard in their prayers.” (On Rewards and Punishment, Chapter 9)

Here we see the same idea, that prayers of the righteous, even after death, are by their participation in the life of God, effective through God’s own activity and not as a parallel or independent power or ability. This is a single unified act in Christ, our only mediator to the father.

Now, how does this work?

The first thing that must be understood is that Orthodox theology is not made up of independent propositions but instead is a holistic system where to understand one doctrine in depth, one must already have a basic understanding of the underlying metaphysical/traditional framework, in this case, and for most, the Energy-Essence Distinction (EED) is crucial.

Now, that is not to say that the average Layperson needs to have a thorough understanding of philosophy, but such understanding is necessary when examining how specific doctrines work at the metaphysical level.

Energy-Essence Distinction

For the purposes of this article, I will do a basic overview of EED. The idea is simple: God’s essence is distinct from his Actions/Operations. Though we cannot participate in his essence, we can participate in his Energies (Actions/Operations). His Energies, being God as He manifests Himself, are not created or separate from Him.

Union with God is real, all without collapsing the Creator-creature distinction. In the context of the intercession of the saints, it is through grace, that is, through participation in the divine energies, that the Saints are alive in Him, participating in His knowledge, love, and activity.

When the saints intercede, they do so not by some independent power, but by participation in God’s own energies. Their intercession is a manifestation of God’s own activity working through them. In this way, the communion of saints is not a parallel system alongside God, or Idolatry, but actually the extension of His divine life and action within His Body, the Church.

Doctrine in Practice

One of the best ways to learn about any orthodox doctrine is by going to a Sunday liturgy and seeing for yourself. Because, again, Orthodoxy is holistic, and basically every point of Dogma is either explicitly mentioned or practiced in the liturgy. Here are examples of our intercessory prayers during worship:

“Through the intercessions of the Theotokos, Savior, save us.” (The Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom)

“Forgive all our voluntary and involuntary transgressions, sanctify our souls and bodies, and grant that we may worship You in holiness all the days of our lives, through the intercessions of the holy Theotokos and of all the saints who have pleased You throughout the ages.” (The Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom)

“Wash away, Lord, by Your Holy Blood, the sins of Your servants here remembered through the intercessions of the Theotokos and all Your saints. Amen.” (The Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom)

“It showed us the height of humility. But while instructing us by your words, Father John Chrysostom, intercede with the Word, Christ, our God, that our souls be saved.” (The Apolytikion for St. John Chrysostom)

Deacon: Commemorating our most-holy, pure, blessed, and glorious Lady, the Theotokos and every-virgin Mary; the holy, blessed and glorious prophet and forerunner, John the Baptist; Stephen the first deacon and martyr; Moses, Aaron, Elijah, Elisha, Samuel, David, Daniel and all the prophets; and all the saints and righteous, that by their prayers and intercessions we may all receive mercy. (The Divine Liturgy of Saint James, the Brother of Christ)

Notice that not once is our attention taken away from Christ, but the Saints are invoked in a prayer that is entirely directed to God. Let’s visualize it with a Flow chart using the liturgy, the parentheses are mine:

Help us, save us, have mercy on us, and protect us, O God, by Your grace.

(Prayer is to God)

↓

Deacon: Commemorating our most holy, pure, blessed, and glorious Lady, the Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary, with all the saints, let us commend ourselves and one another and our whole life to Christ our God.

(Saints are invoked but not as the final hearer of the Prayer)

↓

People: To You, O Lord.

(The direction of the Prayer is confirmed, to Christ the entire time)

It is no more of a distraction from God than if one were to think of another while praying for them, but instead of praying for them, through Christ, we ask for their prayers for us.

This also solves the “how do the Saints hear us?” issue. Once it’s understood that Christ makes known to them our requests, short of saying that Christ does not have the power, it’s no different from asking anyone among you for prayer.

But why do it?

The importance of intercessory prayer to God

The following are examples from scripture showing not only times where God made intercession mandatory, but that he ordains that his gifts are often given through the prayers of others.

First, we see God command the friends of Job to bring a burnt offering to Job and ask him to pray for God’s forgiveness:

“Now therefore take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and offer up a burnt offering for yourselves. And my servant Job shall pray for you, for I will accept his prayer not to deal with you according to your folly… and the LORD accepted Job’s prayer. And the LORD restored the fortunes of Job, when he had prayed for his friends. And the LORD gave Job twice as much as he had before.” (Job 42:8-10)

Next, we see a situation where forgiveness is granted only insofar as they follow a certain order established by God: Restoration → prophetic intercession → divine mercy, but if the first step is not completed, then there is no prayer, and therefore they will die. This reflects what later became formalized in penance, which are concrete acts tied to reconciliation:

“And God said to him in a dream, “Yes, I know that you did this in the integrity of your heart. For I also withheld you from sinning against Me; therefore, I did not let you touch her. Now therefore, restore the man’s wife; for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you shall live. But if you do not restore her, know that you shall surely die, you and all who are yours.” (Genesis 20:6-7)

And the last example we will use shows the people asking for intercessory prayer, and Samuel the Prophet has the impression that if he ceases to pray for them, then he would be sinning against God:

“And all the people said to Samuel, “Pray for your servants to the LORD your God, that we may not die; for we have added to all our sins the evil of asking a king for ourselves…Moreover, as for me, far be it from me that I should sin against the LORD in ceasing to pray for you; but I will teach you the good and the right way.” (1 Samuel 12: 19,23)

In each of these cases, God does not act in isolation, but through righteous persons. Grace comes from God but is given through the prayer of another. Are we to say that God changed so that intercession is not necessary anymore? Of course not, we still see this commanded in the New Testament.

“I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions… be made for all people.” (1 Timothy 2:1)

“Pray for one another… The prayer of a righteous person has great power.” (James 5:16)

“Strive together with me in your prayers to God for me.” (Romans 15:30)

Now, if prayer, as we see, is commanded, powerful, universal, and rooted in an unchanging Christ, then why would it stop after death?

This doctrine is based on a fundamental point: Scripture presents the Body of Christ as a single, unified body, not divided after death. Hebrews 11 even says, “…that they should not be made perfect apart from us.” Thus, the Body of Christ consists of both on earth and in Heaven, united in Christ.

Conclusion - We all do it anyway

Now, to conclude, the doctrine is in principle no different than asking anyone you know to pray for you. The difference is that if it is true that “…The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much,” then why don’t we ask those who are the most righteous and in the presence of the Lord?

“Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much.” (James 5:16)

If worship (Revelation 7:9-15), prayer (Revelation 5:8), communion (Hebrews 12), knowledge of Earth (Luke 15:7), all continue after death, then intercession, being an expression of that same love and communion, would not cease, but instead is made perfect. Therefore, to ask the Saints for intercession is not to go around or bypass Christ, but to participate fully in His Body, where all prayer is to God. Offered to the Father, through the Son and in the Holy Spirit.

Introduction

The Seventh Ecumenical Council defined Christian teaching on veneration and of Icons. Protestant/Evangelical objections, especially those raised by Dr. Gavin Ortlund, often stem from misunderstandings of what the Council taught, what theological problems it resolved, and how it was received, understood and interpreted.

This article provides a brief explanation of the 7th Council’s conclusion and final decree/dogma, by addressing increasingly common objections.

The Dogmatic Definition (called the Horos):

In Richard Price’s translation of the Council’s decree (Pages 563–565), we find the following excerpt of the Horos:

“The image of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, of our immaculate Lady, the holy Theotokos, of the honourable angels and all the saints are to be set up in churches, houses, and streets. For by so much more frequently as they are seen in artistic representation, by so much more readily are men lifted up to the memory of their prototypes and to a longing after them; and to these should be given greeting and honourable veneration— not indeed the true worship which pertains to the divine nature alone. For the honour paid to the image passes over to the prototype…”

This is the foundation of the Orthodox theology of icons.

This article can easily repeat what the Council says. Still, the fear is that it would be no different than reading the entirety of the Horos. This article will demonstrate the Council’s position by addressing several objections.

These objections and worries are frequently raised by Protestants today, mainly following the videos made by Dr. Gavin Ortlund.

In this article, we will use his objections because his videos frequently cause recurring misunderstandings.

Objections and Answers

Objection 1

“Veneration is worship.”

Dr. Ortlund does not say “Veneration is worship” verbatim. What he repeatedly argues is that the actions performed during the veneration of icons (prostrating, kissing, etc.) function exclusively as acts of worship. He makes this argument thoroughly in his video titled “Is Icon Veneration a Big Deal? What Most People Miss” (this is where we will get most of his objections).

The first part of his argument is that, because Nicaea II teaches “The honor paid to the image passes to the prototype,” actions like bowing or kissing an icon become acts of religious mediation and, therefore, are “worship-like.” Let us define “mediate”:

“Mediate: to be a means of conveying; to form a connecting link between two things.” - Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “mediate,”

That is it. Nothing about worship or divinity is intrinsic to the Word itself. A mediator is something or someone that connects two parties without becoming either of them. There are many types of mediation, but his argument assumes that if something mediates anything related to religion, then it must mediate worship. This premise is simply and obviously false. Scripture mediates God’s Word – but we do not worship Scripture. Preaching mediates the Gospel – but we do not worship the preacher. The sacraments mediate divine life – but we do not worship sacraments, it is the same logic for icons. The honor given to Christ through preaching does not end in the words but terminates at Christ.

Now, let us anticipate a reply following his video’s logic, “But the Act Is Directed Toward a Heavenly Being…”

Yes, and it still does not make it worship. One can ask someone to pray to God for another or even bow to a king because of the office he holds. However, it is not the direction of the act that defines its category but the mode of the act. Worship involves sacrifice and the acknowledgment of a divine nature, not merely remembrance, honor, love, etc. Those are very different acts in different categories.

Let us use an everyday analogy, suppose one were to kiss a photograph of their late mother (who is in heaven). Are they worshiping the photo paper? Are they mistaking the photo for her? Are they offering some kind of sacrifice? No. They are expressing their love through an image (icon) that’s directed at a person. The image mediates their love without worship. Icons (which means image) operate with this same logic but are elevated by the Incarnation.

Another mistake Dr. Ortlund makes is that he reads later metaphorical language, such as “Windows to Heaven,” back into the Council, then proceeds to critique the Council for it. That is textbook anachronism, not honest historical analysis. This phrase is not found in the Horos and is later devotional language.

Objection 2

“No Biblical distinction prior to the 7th century”

This is a serious error to claim that Scripture never makes a distinction between bowing that is idolatry and bowing as veneration. So, to him it must follow that all bowing to creatures is condemned, and the distinction is a late invention.

This fails under Biblical evidence; let us look at the verses that condemn bowing only when it is explicitly worship. The emphasis is added.

“You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God…” – Exodus 20:5

“…And take heed, lest you lift your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun, the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven, you feel driven to worship them and serve them, which the Lord your God has given to all the peoples under the whole heaven as a heritage.” - Deuteronomy 4:19

“…who has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, either the sun or moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded…” - Deuteronomy 17:3

The condemnation is never just, “You shall not bow down.” However, it is always, “You shall not bow down and serve.” The Hebrew verb “to serve” in this form and context denotes sacrificial devotion and cultic service (see Blue Letter Bible, https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h5647/kjv/wlc/0-1/)

So that is one category of bowing that is condemned; now here is the one that’s not: Bowing as honor. Here are some verses that show the same bodily action of bowing (hishtachavah in Hebrew, proskynesis in Greek) being used constantly for non-worship purposes.

“So they told the king, saying, “Here is Nathan the prophet.” And when he came in before the king, he bowed down before the king with his face to the ground.” - 1 Kings 1:23

“Then Abraham stood up and bowed himself to the people of the land, the sons of Heth.” - Genesis 23:7

In all these verses above we see the same verb with the same physical act with no sense of condemnation or confusion with worship. The objection assumes that if Scripture condemns bowing in the context of idolatry, then all bowing in any religious context outside of bowing to directly to God (how ever that would be done without a kind of “icon”) must be idolatrous. This is a non sequitur (it does not follow), the Council does not invent a new category here, but formulates and names one that has existed for thousands of years. Just like in the case of the Trinity, the hypostatic union, or any other words created to put a name on doctrines, naming does not equal inventing.

Objection 3

“Remembrance is not veneration.”

He starts this objection by making a false dichotomy, “Art vs Icons”. He draws a sharp line that art is for remembrance, which is acceptable, and Icons for veneration, which, to him, is illegitimate. His idea is that looking at something is remembering, but an accompanying physical act, like bowing or kissing, is a cultic escalation.

This is flawed because he assumed that remembrance is purely cognitive and that a physical response is merely an unnecessary add-on, but Scripture does not support this. When Scripture commands to “remember the sabbath” or “remember the covenant,” is the command to think about it? Or do these commands entail embodied actions? So, for Nicaea II to say that remembrance equals embodied action is not a later development or corruption but is purely Biblical logic.

He continues by saying that the defenders of icons wrongfully appeal to catacombs, early Christian art, and commemorative imagery to justify veneration. He believes this confuses categories because, again, to him, painting something to remember it does not equal veneration. However, the appeal to early art does not mean that early Christians physically venerated icons exactly as we do today; that would be a straw man. The appeal is much more basic: Christianity was never iconophobic. So the conversation goes: if images were not seen as intrinsically idolatrous, the question is how images may be used rightly. This is the question that Nicaea II answers.

The core issue in his arguments is his confusion about the definition of “Icon”. He argues that an “icon” per Nicaea II is not just art; honor “passes through” to the prototype, and therefore it is no longer remembrance but is now in the territory of worship. He assumes that “passing through” changes the act’s category, but, ironically, the principle of the prototype actually prevents idolatry.

“Passing through” means the act does not terminate at the object; the image is not the recipient, and the act is relational, not material. This in actuality, is the opposite of idolatry.

Nicaea II did not say that one must venerate all images, that all religious art are icons proper, or that just mental remembrance is sufficient. However, it said that the images (Icons) of Christ and the saints may be honored because the Incarnation sanctifies that form of visibility and that bodily honor completes real remembrance.

Objection 4

“The apostles never kissed icons.”

Ortlund argues that Nicaea II’s claim that “kissing icons” goes back to the apostles is “manifestly wrong”. He repeatedly says that Nicaea II claims the Apostles kissed icons, but the Council never made such a claim. This misconception comes from the acclamations that say, “This is the faith of the apostles… we kiss the holy images…”. This is confessional language, not a historical assertion about specific physical actions in the first century. He is refuting an argument or claim that the Council does not make.

He continues by making an admittedly rhetorically powerful but logically weak argument. If the apostles had literally kissed icons, the fathers of the 4th and 5th centuries would have mentioned it, but this is a classic argument from silence. This stems from a commonly overlooked point about how the language of theology evolves. This is as far as Holy Orthodoxy goes with “development of doctrine”.

In reality, where there is no controversy, there is no need for precision, and where there is no precision, there would not be technical language. Without that technical language, later clarifications appear to be a newly invented doctrine. However, this pattern of controversy → precision → technical language is how doctrines like the Trinity, hypostatic union, the canon of Scripture, and others all developed. So, in another irony, the silence prior to the controversy proves nothing more than that there was no controversy on the issue.

The fatal flaw in this logic of equating “not yet articulated” with “not apostolic” is that the same standard would disqualify the Nicene term “homoousios”, the Chalcedonian definition, and the New Testament canon. The Council’s claim is not “The Apostles did this exact action or practice,” but rather “This practice follows necessarily from what the apostles taught.” This is how every ecumenical Council works.

Objection 5

“The anathemas make icons a salvation issue.”

Dr. Ortlund’s argument here is serious. The language of Nicaea II is indeed severe; the aim here is not to soften the language. The question is not whether the Council used strong language or not, but what that strong language means within the Church’s theological and juridical framework. We will go into this topic more deeply at a later time, but for now, below is a brief explanation.

Let us start by explaining what “Anathema” means and what it does not mean. Dr. Ortlund is correct that the Council says:

“An anathema is nothing other than separation from God.”

That language is real and should not be dismissed as trivial, but here is the crucial point: we must understand the context. The above statement is not part of the Horos (i.e., the dogmatic definition); it occurs after it is written, approved, and signed. This is explicit in Richard Price’s translation of the Acts. Acclamations are liturgical, responsive, and public expressions of allegiance and rejection, etc. They are not analytical definitions or new dogmatic statements. The phrase “Separation from God” in conciliar language is not meant to be a definitive judgment on any individual’s eternal destiny.

In patristic and conciliar usage, anathemas are used to declare a rupture of ecclesial unity and to separate one from the life of the Church. It is medicinal and ecclesial, not eschatological and final; it is meant to be a call of repentance, sort of a “wakeup call” so to speak. This is why the Church prays for their repentance, the fact that anathemas can be lifted, and that reconciliation is always possible. If anathema meant that one is “damned forever,” then repentance would be meaningless.

In context, as well as with the other councils, “Separation from God” means cut off from the life of the Church. They function as ecclesial “lines in the sand” against the iconoclast doctrine of the current crisis rather than as individual final verdicts on eternal salvation.

This was brief, but the topic of anathemas and salvation outside of the Church deserves its own article. However, in short, what the Council is saying is that to knowingly reject the doctrine, and or accuse those who accept it of idolatry, is to separate oneself from the Church. The Council declares ecclesial separation, and while deadly serious, only God alone judges souls.

Conclusion

The Seventh Ecumenical Council was not convened for religious art or to impose salvific ritual requirements. It was convened to defend the reality of the Incarnation of Christ. At its core, the issue was whether the Word of God who became flesh could be depicted, remembered, and honored without idolatry.

When read on its own terms, Nicaea II does not teach that icons are worship or that they function as a condition of salvation. It teaches that because God has truly become visible in Jesus Christ, matter itself can serve as a means of remembrance. The distinction between worship and honor, and what makes an action idolatry or veneration, is not a later invention but is biblical and early patristic grammar clarified in the context of controversy.

Though they are not the Gospel, icons serve as reminders of it. They are the Church’s visual confession that the Word was seen, touched, and made known, and finally, because of that, creation itself is called to bear witness.

A council is not infallible just because it declares itself “ecumenical”. But, Infallibility belongs to the Church (as the Body of Christ) in so far as it is guided by the Holy Spirit. A council’s teachings are recognized as infallible in hindsight, after they are tested, received, and confirmed by the whole Church. Much like how Scripture came to be recognized.

A good example is when the books of Scripture were first written, they were not necessarily declared infallible at that very moment. but over time, through the continued use, the apostolic tradition, and reception into the life of the Church, they came to be recognized as being truly God breathed.

Likewise, the decrees of the Ecumenical councils (especially regarding matters like the Trinity and the nature of Christ) were not necessarily understood (in the moment) as being beyond all doubt. But as they endured all challenges, proved consistent with Scripture and the rest of tradition, and were ultimately received into the Church’s liturgical, theological, and spiritual life, they came to be understood and affirmed as infallible expressions of the Church's faith.

Often, this reception is formally confirmed by later councils or by the universal consensus of the Faithful. Not that these teachings became true later on, but that the Church, over time, recognizes with certainty that the Holy Spirit truly spoke through them.

In other words, the infallibility of a council’s dogmatic definitions is confirmed by their coherence with the apostolic faith (which includes scripture), their continued endurance against all alternative doctrines, and their full reception by the Church in both teaching and worship.

On the Nature of Canons and Infallibility in the Orthodox Church

1. Canons Are Contextual, Not Dogmatic

The canons of Nicaea and other councils that govern how the Church is to be run may be called infallible, not because they are immutable truths, but because they are appropriate and pastoral responses to the needs of the Church at a given time. They are disciplinary and contextual, not dogmatic.

To be clear, Infallibility ≠ Immutability.

If I say “it is raining” while standing in a rainstorm, that statement is functionally infallibly true in its context, but that does not mean it can never be sunny. Church canons are often products of their time, perfectly calibrated for their era, but are subject to change as the “weather” of the Church shifts. Likewise, Church canons must be understood in their proper historical and pastoral context, just as Scripture must be interpreted according to its genre and purpose.

2. The Rudder (Pedalion): The Orthodox Guide to Canons and Dogma

The Orthodox Church’s understanding of canons and dogma is best outlined in The Rudder (Pedalion), by St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite and Agapius. It is a comprehensive collection of canonical material with commentary. For the rest of the article, I will be using it for the position of the Church.

We will start with a necessarily important function of canons, that canons can be adapted for economy (pastoral reasons):

“As for all rare actions out of economy, necessity, or bad state of things, and, in sum, all things done contrary to the canons, they are not to be construed as a law or canon or example of the Church...Once this matter of economy or necessity has passed, the canons are again in force.” - St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite & Agapius, The Rudder, p. 71 (Interpretation of Apostolic Canon 67; cf. Canon 46 and Canon 13 of the First Ecumenical Synod)

3. Dogmas Cannot Be Adapted or Changed

In contrast to the canons, dogmas are absolute and derived from divine revelation. They define the unchanging truths of the faith and are not subject to modification, even for pastoral reasons.

“The divine law is perfect and infallible, while, on the other hand, human legislation is defective and full of errors… Amendments are made to human laws, but not to the laws of God… The dogmas of the Church are definitions of the Covenant: they are truths of the Holy Bible that have been brought to light scientifically and have been confirmed by means of the Bible, and have been corroborated by signs and wonders… Persons who undertake to correct or abrogate or to alter them (under the guise of economy) forfeit all claims to Orthodoxy.” - The Rudder, p. 42 4.

4. True Infallibility Resides in the Holy Spirit, Not Institutions

Holy Orthodoxy does not view infallibility as something intrinsically possessed by councils, by any bishops (in groups or individually), or by ecumenical synods in isolation. But instead, infallibility belongs to the Holy Spirit, working in and through the Church.

“Infallibility in the Church is neither in individuals by themselves nor in the clergy, nor in synods, whether local or ecumenical, considered by themselves. It is not in the one or the many, but is found only in the mind of the Holy Spirit as defined in reference to related or endorsed by synods acting in the Holy Spirit.” - The Rudder, p. 37

The Church is infallible insofar as it abides in the Holy Spirit, with Scripture as the guiding reference point, not because of mere institutional authority.

The First Council in the Scripture

The Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15: How the Apostles Modeled Councils for the future church.

1. A crisis demands mutual discernment

“Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’” (Acts 15 : 1).

Ecumenical Councils are convened to address crises occurring within the Body of Christ. In the above verse, we see that there was a crisis within the church to a point where Paul and Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem to consult

“…the apostles and the elders…” (Acts 15 : 2).

It is clear that the council is summoned because the truth of the gospel is at stake, and from that, the unity of the Church.

2. Deliberation together in the Spirit

In this section, I will lay out the main events of the Council:

Deliberation and debate begin after an initial report (Acts 15 : 4-7).

Peter recalls the event with Cornelius, saying that God did not discriminate between Jew and Gentile, and that faith purified their hearts (Acts 15:7-11; see also Acts 10:44-48).

Then, Paul and Barnabas report “signs and wonders” that God had performed among the Gentiles (Acts 15:12).

After which, James quotes Amos 9:11-12 to prove that Scripture had foretold Gentile inclusion (Acts 15:15-18).

And only after the recall of experience, testimony, and Scripture do they write their findings and conclusion, which begins, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” (Acts 15 : 28). Scripture makes it clear that the fundamental source of authority of the council is that of the Spirit.

After the council concludes, they send a letter, functioning as the Horos or Definition of the Council, from the Church to the surrounding churches to clarify the Church's proper and official doctrinal teaching.

3. Dogma Distinguished from Discipline

There are two levels that exist in the apostolic letter.

1. Immutable dogma:

“We believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they [the Gentiles] will” (Acts 15 : 11)

This is a clear dogmatic rejection of salvific circumcision.

2. Pastoral canons: Gentile converts are told to avoid meat sacrificed to idols, blood, strangled animals, and sexual immorality (Acts 15 : 20, 29) so that Jews and Gentiles can fellowship together without scandalizing one another. Evidence of economia in the application of canons can be seen in how the dietary laws are later applied flexibly (pastorally) by Paul, who allows eating meat that is sold in idol markets, so that no brother is scandalized (1 Cor 8:4-13; 10:25-30; Rom 14:14-21).

Now, are we to think that Paul is contradicting what the Apostles and the rest of the elders, i.e., the Church, said? Or is it the case that even in the time of the earliest Church, it was understood that there was a distinction between Canon and Dogma? Surely, the latter is the case.

Paul does not say this to rebel against the Jerusalem decree, but his pastoral flexibility is a proper application of the spirit of the canon in a new context.

So even in the definition of the first Council, the decree is infallible in intention and contextual purpose but flexible in its disciplinary applications. Dogma is immutable, but discipline is contextual.

4. Reception Confirms the Decree

Delegates then carry the letter to Antioch, and the Christians read it “and rejoiced because of its encouragement” (Acts 15:30-31). Paul conveys the same decisions in his later journey to the churches in Syria and Cilicia, and then later to those in Galatia, for them “to observe” (Acts 15:41; 16:4).

Importantly, it must be noted that long before the account of the Council itself becomes part of canonical Scripture, and by the close of the second century, Apostolic Father, Saint Irenaeus, invokes Acts 15 as a model of apostolic consensus and praxis (Against Heresies 1.10.2, 3.12.14, 3.12.15).

And importantly, evidence that the Canons of the Decree of the Council of Jerusalem were not dogmatic. That they “Allowed the Gentiles to act freely” while, "They themselves... continued in the ancient observances".

“And the apostles who were with James allowed the Gentiles to act freely, yielding us up to the Spirit of God. But they themselves, while knowing the same God, continued in the ancient observances… Thus did the apostles, whom the Lord made witnesses of every action and of every doctrine… scrupulously act according to the dispensation of the Mosaic law, showing that it was from one and the same God” Against Heresies 3.12.15

5. A Model for All Later Ecumenical Councils

The pattern established in Acts 15: crisis, council, discussion/debate, Scriptural basis, appeal to the Holy Spirit, a final twofold decree of dogma and canons, and finally gradual reception of said decree, reappears at Nicea (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), and the rest of the ecumenical councils.

Conclusion

Acts 15 is an example of Orthodox conciliar theology. Verses 1-2 show councils meeting only for necessary crises; verses 4-18 display deliberation illuminated by the Spirit; verses 11 and 20-29 show the distinction between unchanging doctrine and circumstantial canons; verses 30-31 and 16:4 show how reception by the faithful seals a council’s authority. When later synods follow this apostolic pattern, they also share in the same Spirit-guided method of settling disputes first demonstrated at the Council of Jerusalem.

Initial Questions and Answers

Before exploring how the scriptures treat remembrance, honor, and the communion of saints, for context we will answer three initial questions:

1. Can we have images (specifically of created beings) in a place of worship?

In the Old Testament, we can clearly read that God himself commanded the making of images for use in his places of worship:

“You shall make two cherubim of gold … and the cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat … There I will meet with you” (Exodus 25:18-22).

Usually after peoples initial reaction to images being something like, “The Bible calls all images idolatry…” its often shocking to them to see that God himself commanded that the curtains be decorated with figures of cherubim (Exodus 26:1; 36:8), and that Solomon’s Temple had carved cherubim, palm trees, and flowers throughout the inner courts (1 Kings 6:23-29). To see that God himself commissioned images to sanctify his house, and therefore Scripture does not forbid images in worship is the first step to lay out the rest of the theology. But through Scripture, we see that images of created things (creatures) can and have been commanded by God to glorify him.

2. Can we bow, prostrate, or show reverence (respect) to creation and human beings?

Scripture has many examples of bowing or prostration to creatures without the charge of idolatry (It will be a bit of a spam, so feel free not to read it all):

“Then he crossed over before them and bowed himself to the ground seven times, until he came near to his brother.” (Genesis 33:3)

“Now when Abigail saw David, she dismounted quickly from the donkey, fell on her face before David, and bowed down to the ground.” (1 Samuel 25:23)

“Bathsheba therefore went to King Solomon, to speak to him for Adonijah. And the king rose up to meet her and bowed down to her, and sat down on his throne and had a throne set for the king’s mother; so she sat at his right hand.” (1 Kings 2:19)

“Then Abraham stood up and bowed himself to the people of the land, the sons of Heth…Then Abraham bowed himself down before the people of the land…” (Genesis 23:7, 12)

“So Moses went out to meet his father-in-law, bowed down, and kissed him. And they asked each other about their well-being, and they went into the tent.” (Exodus 18:7)

“As soon as the lad had gone, David arose from a place toward the south, fell on his face to the ground, and bowed down three times. And they kissed one another; and they wept together, but David more so.” (1 Samuel 20:41)

“And Bathsheba bowed and did homage to the king. Then the king said, “What is your wish?…So they told the king, saying, “Here is Nathan the prophet.” And when he came in before the king, he bowed down before the king with his face to the ground.” (1 Kings 1:16, 23)

“Now as Obadiah was on his way, suddenly Elijah met him; and he recognized him, and fell on his face, and said, “Is that you, my lord Elijah?” (1 Kings 18:7)

“Now when the sons of the prophets who were from^[a] Jericho saw him, they said, “The spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha.” And they came to meet him, and bowed to the ground before him.” (2 Kings 2:15)

And most clearly:

“Then David said to all the assembly, ‘Now bless the Lord your God.’ And all the assembly blessed the Lord, the God of their fathers, and bowed low and did homage (Prostrated/vayyishtachăvū) to the Lord and to the king.” (1 Chronicles 29:20).

In each of these cases, the act was not worship reserved for God alone, but are acts of reverence, honor, and/or submission. Bodily actions, such as bowing, kissing, prostration, etc., are all biblical expressions of veneration toward people. Therefore, bowing, kissing, or other acts of veneration by the body are not idolatrous in themselves.

3. Does the respect or disrespect given to an image truly pass to the one represented?

Scripture is clear: honor given to an image (Icon) passes to the one represented (Prototype).

• Humanity (Icon) was made in the image of God (Prototype), and to harm anyone with that image is to insult the God whose image they bear. Jesus explicitly confirms this:

“The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me’… to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me’…” (Matthew 25:40–45).

• Paul calls Christ, “The image (eikōn) of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15). To see or to honor Christ (Icon) is to see or honor the Father (Prototype):

“…He who has seen Me has seen the Father…” (John 14:9).

This principle is seen in everyday life. No one who loves their relatives would stomp or spit on their picture, nor would a patriotic citizen of a nation burn the flag of their country, nor would a loving Christian stomp on, spit on, or destroy a cross. More on this later on.

Foundational Principles to Fulfillment: Biblical Logic of Veneration

Now that it has been established that images can exist in a place of worship without being the subjects of worship, and that bodily reverence can be shown, and that honor to an image is passed to the prototype, the logical steps leading to saintly and icon veneration can be shown.

Step 1: Saints Remain Alive in Christ

In Hebrews 11, we read that the saints are alive in Christ, and believers (Who are alive) are still in communion with them, as all are joined in the same single body of Christ:

“And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they should not be made perfect.” (Hebrews 11:39-40).

Step 2: Scriptures Command to Remember Them

“Remember your leaders … consider the outcome of their life and imitate their faith.” (Hebrews 13:7).

“I thank God, whom I serve with a clear conscience the way my forefathers did, as I constantly remember you in my prayers night and day, longing to see you, even as I recall your tears, so that I may be filled with joy. For I am mindful of the sincere faith within you, which first dwelt in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am sure that it is in you as well.” (2 Timothy 1:3-5).

The faithful can be strengthened by their examples of lives lived dedicated to God, their examples still “speaks” and their faith continues to bear witness even now.

Hebrews 11 emphasizes this:

“By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous, God testifying about his gifts, and through faith, though he is dead, he still speaks. By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death; and he was not found because God took him up; for he obtained the witness that before his being taken up he was pleasing to God.” (Hebrews 11:4–5).

These verses and many more show that death does not sever the faithful who have passed on from the living. The Saints continue to witness to us, not that they are literally looking at us now as a kind of heavenly “Live Stream”, but that their lives are a witness and testimony to God’s grace, love, and faithfulness. Because they are still actually alive, more alive than us, their testimony is not just a historical memory but actually a real living witness of one who is now alive in the presence of God, having finished the race that others also hope to complete.

“Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us … let us run the race.” (Hebrews 12:1).

Step 3: Scriptures Command to Honor Living Leaders

“But we request of you, brethren, that you appreciate those who diligently labor among you, and have charge over you in the Lord and give you instruction, and that you esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Live in peace with one another.” (1 Thessalonians 5:12–13).

“The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.” (1 Timothy 5:17).

If living teachers are to be honored, why should that stop at death? For death is no less than being in the presence of God, an eternal existence more real and more alive than what is experienced on earth. How much more honor should be given to those who are now partaking in the Lord’s energies?

Step 4: Material Things Being Made Contagiously Holy

Scripture in many places teaches that holiness is not just abstract, but can be communicated through material things:

“For seven days you shall make atonement for the altar and consecrate it; then the altar shall be most holy, and whatever touches the altar shall be holy.” (Exodus 29:37).

“You shall also consecrate them, that they may be most holy; whatever touches them shall be holy.” (Exodus 30:29).

Through the bones of dead saints:

“As they were burying a man, behold, they saw a marauding band; and they cast the man into the grave of Elisha. And when the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived and stood up on his feet.” (2 Kings 13:21).

Even in the New Testament, God’s energies can be communicated through seemingly ordinary matter:

“God was performing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were even carried from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them, and the evil spirits went out.” (Acts 19:11-12).

Step 5: Expressing Reverence Bodily

As seen earlier, bodily expressions have been used and are considered a wholesome and proper way to acknowledge the honor of others:

• Jacob bowed before his brother Esau.

• Ruth bowed to Boaz.

• Paul commands the Church: “Greet one another with a holy kiss”.

And most clearly we see the assembly of Israel bowed to both God and the King at the same time with the same gesture:

“Then David said to all the assembly, ‘Now bless the Lord your God.’ And all the assembly blessed the Lord, the God of their fathers, and bowed low and did homage to the Lord and to the king.” (1 Chronicles 29:20).

Bowing, kissing, prostrating, etc. are not inherently acts of idolatry; they are natural biblical ways to show honor and reverence. The intention and the object itself distinguish between worship and veneration (respect shown to people or holy things).

Step 6: Image to Prototype (the One Represented) Principle

The final step is what ties it together, what is done to the image is done to the one represented, the prototype.

• Humanity is made in the image of God, more specifically the image of Christ (Genesis 1:27).

• Jesus affirms the principle himself: “The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’” (Matthew 25:40).

• “Jesus said to him, ‘Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father…” (John 14:9).

Why? Because as Paul says, “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” (Colossians 1:15).

This principle is evident in everyday life. No one who loves their family members would spit or stomp on their photograph, nor would a patriotic member of a country burn their nation’s flag, and neither would a faithful follower of Christ stomp on, spit on, or burn a cross. Because it is understood that, although the images are just ordinary matter, they represent someone respected, and doing those things would be disrespectful to the one who is depicted.

Final Synthesis

It is proper to show how those who venerate saints and their icons think about it in action.

When an icon of Saint Mary of Egypt is seen, it is not viewed as an ordinary piece of art, but as a reminder of the life she lived, from a life of deep sin to one dedicated completely to Christ. From a very young age, she struggled with lust and sexual immorality for 17 years, not even for money, but “for the love of the game”. And one day, conviction struck, and she spent the rest of her years battling her flesh and dedicating her whole life to Christ. Looking at her icon and kissing it is not an act of worshiping paint on wood but recalling her life as a witness to how Christ can transform even the lowest and most hurting among us. Her life and testimony are used as motivation in the race of faith, hoping to finish it as she did, surrendering to Christ, running from fleshly desires. Veneration is not honoring paint on wood, but a real, living human, truly a member of the single body of Christ, who is in the presence of the Lord.

When walking into the church and seeing all the icons, each one is a reminder and witness of what Christ can do in one’s life: Paul, from persecuting Christians to dying for the faith; the good thief on the cross (Saint Dismas), and many others. Their images are reminders that they are still alive, more alive than we are. They’ve finished the race and are in heaven worshiping God as we are. The cloud of witnesses is not separate from us, and when they are honored, it is not a distraction from God, but a reminder of what He can do in one’s life.

Some important notes: to venerate, no physical actions are required, nor are icons strictly necessary. Simply remembering the witnesses of the saints, whether from scripture or after, is veneration (respect to holy things or people). The honor is not idolatrous or based on some inherent trait the saints possess independently of God, but is given to Christ Himself and His work in their lives.

“Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us.” (Philippians 3:17).

Should the honor for Paul and the imitation of his example cease because he has passed away?

“For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example … in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, so that you would follow our example.” (2 Thessalonians 3:7, 9).

Of course not.

“Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith.” (Hebrews 13:7).

The faithful are told to consider the outcome of those who lived lives worthy of imitation, not because they are thought of as God, but because they imitate Christ.

Paul’s life, (And every other Saint) is a living icon (image) of Christ, and when believers remember and imitate him, they honor him and venerate the work of Christ within him, and in doing so, they worship Christ himself. That is veneration.

I. A True Marriage without Consummation

Scripture clearly presents Mary and Joseph as truly married, even while their union was chaste.

In Matthew 1:18-25, we see Mary being described as “betrothed” to Joseph, but before they came together, it says, “she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit.” Joseph, being a man, “resolved to divorce her quietly” (v. 19).

This shows that their “betrothal” was already a legally binding marriage, as Jewish law required a bill of divorce to be obtained even during betrothal (Deuteronomy 24:1). Therefore, we see that the Gospel explicitly depicts them as truly married, although they had not yet consummated the marriage.

“He knew her not until (heōs hou) she had borne a son” (v. 25) is idiomatic and does not imply later relations. We see the same Greek construction is used elsewhere in the scripture, in verses where the prior state continues indefinitely (e.g. 2 Sam 6:23, Psalm 110:1).

If someone were to say that the word “Until” necessarily means that her virginity ended after the birth of Christ, then for each of these examples, they would have to say that:

Michal had children after her death.

“Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death” - 2 Samuel 6:23

And Christ will cease to reign at the right hand of the Father once his enemies are subdued, but no proper Christian would interpret this that way.

“The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies Your footstool.’” - Psalm 110:1

Similarly, “Until” in Matthew 1:25 does not imply a change afterward but indicates a preservation of her virginity up until and through the birth of Christ.

To conclude this section, Scripture testifies to a real marriage, yet virginal and sanctified by divine purpose.

II. Vow of Chastity and the Israelite Tradition

One of the problems when someone of other traditions who thinks of the mother of God’s virginity is the “why” aspect. It’s hard for many people, especially evangelicals, to imagine why or how anyone would live a life abstaining from sexual relations for the sake of their service to the Lord. The deeper meaning and spiritual fruit that flow from the voluntary renunciation of such desires in total service to the lord are overlooked or misunderstood.

This difficulty in understanding the value of perpetual virginity comes mainly from a loss and a disconnect from the ancient religious context in which chastity was seen as a pious and sacred offering. Within Israel’s covenantal framework, these kinds of vows, including those of abstinence and dedication to the Lord, were well established. In the Torah, we see that Israelite women (young and old) can make vows of dedication, even of continence, if confirmed by their father or their husband (Numbers 30:3–8). When these vows are made and the woman is married, the husband is to respect and protect the vow.

Philo of Alexandria (1st century Jewish Philosopher) in “The Contemplative Life” attests that Jewish women freely vowed lifelong chastity in dedication and service to the Lord within a recognized ascetic community.

§68–69: “the feast is shared by women also, most of them aged virgins, who have kept their chastity not under compulsion … but of their own free will, in ardent yearning for wisdom… desiring not mortal offspring but immortal children which only the God-loving soul begets…”

While not “Temple Virgins” in Jerusalem, this is extremely reputable first-century evidence that female consecrated virginity was a known and honored position. In early Christian writings, we see that Christians understood this Jewish ideal and connected it to Mary. The Protoevangelium of James (an early 2nd-century Judeo-Christian apocryphon) extends this idea of piety, showing Mary as a child who was consecrated to God and entrusted to Joseph in marriage, who is to protect her vow. Although apocryphal, the value is historical, demonstrating that the belief did not emerge from a vacuum but is actually in historical continuity with Jewish vows and consecrated life. Though often lost in our modern secular culture, virginity was and is a sacred vocation, participation in heavenly purity.

III. Why Her Virginity Was Known

If Mary were an ordinary wife, living in an ordinary marriage where intimacy would be expected and unsurprising, certainly her pregnancy would not be an issue, let alone so scandalous that Joseph would resort to divorcing her quietly.

“Then Joseph, her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly.” – Matthew 1:19, NKJV

However, the fact that a public stir was created and a quiet dismissal of the marriage was contemplated would only make sense if there was public awareness of her vow, or at least a known intention of chastity.

IV. Conclusion

Once all the evidence is taken together, we see that the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity is rooted deeply in scripture and tradition.

• The Gospels show how Joseph and Mary were truly married but chaste.

• The Torah provides rules for when women make vows of consecration to God, of which their husbands and fathers were to honor.

• 1st century history confirming that such voluntary vows were not just theoretical but real, known and respected, and how early Christians continued these ideals.

• The scandalous nature of her pregnancy shows that sex wasn’t expected or at least respected in her case.

Far from arbitrarily emerging in a theological or historical vacuum, the early Christian idea in the tradition of Mary’s perpetual virginity is theologically grounded and in historical continuity.

Why “God” Is Not Just a Label

Saul Kripke introduced the idea that names are not just “bundles” of descriptions but rigid designators. The idea that a name designates the same object in every possible world where that object exists, not by fitting a bundle of descriptions, but through an initial act of naming (what he calls a “baptism”) followed by a causal-historical chain.[^1]

When talking Bible, the name “God” (Capital G) must refer to a particular being whose identity is fixed by revelation. Just as the name “Aristotle” refers rigidly to a specific historical figure and not just any guy fitting certain philosopher (ish) descriptions, the term “God” refers not to a set of basic attributes (EX: “creator,” “merciful,” etc.) but to a specific being whose self-disclosure (through scripture) grounds the reference.

“The description used is not synonymous with the name it introduces but rather fixes its reference.”[^2]

Therefore, simply calling a deity “God” or even “God of Abraham” (more on this later) does not make a shared reference unless that term is tied to the same revelation.

Why Revelation Matters

God is not a spatiotemporal thing that can be pointed to or identified empirically. So, reference to God cannot come from perceptual ostension but must be fixed through divine revelation (self-revelation). Theologically (or in Bible language), God’s disclosure of self to Abraham, to Moses, and ultimately in/through Christ makes the referential grounding for the name “God”.

Without revelation, human reference to God is just arbitrary and or speculative. The “initial baptism” is fixed and grounded by revelation, supporting Kipke’s contention that even if later speakers don’t know all the properties of that referent, it still holds because it was fixed by that original act of naming. [^3]

In Christianity, we hold that the name of God is tied to the Trinity, which was fully revealed in Christ, and preserved through apostolic teaching and succession. A system that rejects that revelation (initial baptism) breaks the causal chain and makes a new referent.

Mutually Exclusivity and Causal Replacements

Both Islam and Christianity make contradicting claims not only about the essential nature of God but also the history and tradition that make up the Causal Chain. These contradictions are about the essential properties of God, not just accidental features. Essential properties are those that a being cannot lack and still be that same being. If two referents have incompatible essential properties, then they can not be the same being. But it is often argued that since both Christians and Muslims claim that their theological descent from Abraham and both worship the “God of Abraham,” then they must be referring to the same being.

But historical or generic genealogical claims do not fix reference; consider this analogy:

Person A: “Aristotle was born in Macedonia and taught Substance Theory.”

Person B: “Aristotle was born in Athens and taught the Theory of Forms.”

Both individuals use the name “Aristotle”, describe an ancient Greek philosopher, and both use generally correct descriptors like “human”(his nature) and “teacher”(His role). But only one of them is actually referring to the historical individual named Aristotle. The difference is not in the label or nature, but in the individuating acts that Aristotle actually did, taught, and revealed during his life. These historical features, his teachings, relationships, and actions are what individualize him, what makes Aristotle that Aristotle, and the content carried along the causal historical chain of reference. Person B, even though they are using the correct name and some similar/overlapping traits, has just attached the label or name “Aristotle” to a different individual.

Likewise, Muslims and Christians may both use the term “God” or even “The God of Abraham,” and affirm similar and overlapping attributes like Creator or “One true God”. However, in Christianity, God’s self-revelation in Abraham, Moses, and finally Jesus Christ—whose teachings, life to death, and eventual resurrection—are the final acts that individuate the divine referent. The historical Judeo-Christian chain is rejected by Islam, which substitutes a new framework derived from a different revelation. Therefore, despite the shared labels and name, Islam introduces a new baptism, a new causal chain, and therefore a different referent. It is not simply a misdescription of the same God, but a theological redescription of a different one.

In naming, as in theology, the name would only stay the same if the referent remains anchored to the same individual by their historical actions and the preserved and consistent chain of reference. Break that chain, or change those individuating acts, and you’ve changed the referent.

Islam actively attempts to correct and replace the Judeo-Christian causal chain of reference. claiming that the Christian understanding of God exists as a result of early and later corruption and distortion of earlier “pure” monotheism. Islam initiates a new revelation with a new history going as far back as Adam, and thereby creating a new referent (A new baptism began in that cave). This is not just some kind of ignorance or innocent confusion about the same God; it is a deliberate replacement of the traditional Causal Chain and therefore the Trinitarian referent with a unitarian one.

Scriptural backing

In Exodus 32, Theological misreferencing can be found,

“...‘Come, make us gods that shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.’” (Exodus 32:1)

Then Aaron crafts a golden calf, made from the gold that the people gave and the people then declared,

“‘This is your god, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt!’” (v. 4)

And this part is important,

“‘Now when Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made a proclamation and said, “Tomorrow shall be a feast to the LORD.’” (v. 5, NKJV)

In the above, we can see that they did not intend to reject and replace YHWH. Instead, it was an attempt to direct his name onto a false image. The calf was intended to represent YHWH. The very same one who had delivered them from Egypt, but in a form God had explicitly forbidden. The people used the correct name, attributed actions correctly, but attached it to creation, thus violating the second commandment (Exodus 20:4–5) and severing the theological and historical chain of God’s self-disclosure. Despite using the correct Name and predicates, the Israelites engaged in idolatry (worship towards anyone other than the one true God). The name “YHWH” remained, but the referent had still changed. God Himself calls this act a corruption and worship of another:

“‘They have quickly turned aside from the way which I commanded them. They have made for themselves a molten calf, and have worshiped it and have sacrificed to it and said, ‘This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt!’” (Exodus 32:8)

This whole paper is echoed in the above verse. Naming, by itself, does not ensure that the historical chain and therefore, the reference, continues. Even if the same name or word is used, the referent changes when the self-revealed identity of God is replaced with new ideas or revelation.

[^1]: Naming and Necessity (Harvard University Press), p. 96

[^2]: Ibid. p. 97

[^3]: Ibid. p. 94

[^4]: Ibid. p. 115–116