Explaining the absence of images in Christian worship was a staple of early church apologists, including Marcus Minucius Felix (d. c. 210), Anthengoras (c. 133–190), and Origen (184–254). Romans frequently considered the lack of religious images among Christians as prima facie evidence of atheism. These apologists were at pains to explain that was not so.34 The pagan philosopher and critic of Christianity Celsus (in “The True Word,” second century) made the lack of Christian images a point of criticism as did Marcus Minucius Felix’s fictional polytheist, Caecilius Natalis.35 The fictional Caecilius Natalis asks, “Why do [Christians] have no altars, no temples, no public images?”36 Origen replied to Celsus by admitting that Christians did not use images. He states that Christians “being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues.”37 Jews and Christians are among “those who cannot allow in the worship of the Divine Being altars, or temples, or images.” He mocked the contention that images were helpful in worship. Citing the second commandment he wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.”38 For both Marcus Minucius Felix and Origen, it would likely have been in their apologetic interests to counter their critics with the claim that Christians did, in fact, use images, like their pagan persecutors, if they could do that honestly. However, they could not, thus demonstrating that the church of the third century was aniconic. However, it is unclear whether it was rigorously so, prohibiting even Christian themed art in homes and Christian burial sites, or more moderate. Origen’s insistence that Christians “have rejected all images and statues” is in the context of worship and may still represent a moderate aniconism that allowed art outside the church.
Why not actually read the book and write and publish a scholarly critique that engages the author's argument instead of commenting a quote-mine on a Substack announcement?
If that is the case then other scholars and apologists will demonstrate it. I see no harm in at least considering what he has to say or looking at the research he provides.
That is a serious accusation to be making, especially accusing another Christian of lying and considering that two published authors have endorsed the work. Have you read the book yourself and can show what parts are "fiction"?
"Self published therefore he's an unqualified fraud and no legitimate publisher would publish his book" is a non-sequitur; if you disagree with the arguments that's fine but cut out the baseless ad hominin its childish.
1. Appeal to authority is formal logical fallacy - engage his arguments don't deflect.
2. You've provided no evidence of this.
3. Asserting something isn't an argument.
Whether or not you agree with him, Garten makes an actual argument in the book, if you aren't going to engage with the substance of his work you stop commenting on it.
EOAs claim archeology shows the early church using icons. One ancient church discovered by archaeologists in Dura-Europas, Syria has some images on the walls. But, tellingly, there are no images in the main room where the church actually met. More importantly, there is no evidence that the images that have been found are anything more than decorations, never becoming icons used in worship. They bait people with claims of archeology that actually hide the reality that the early church had no icons.
EOAs bait you with the claim that the “early church” theologian John of Damascus espoused icons. That’s true, except that he wasn’t from the early church. He lived around 675 to 749. The early church ends with either the Council of Chalcedon, in 451, or rounded up to AD 500. John of Damascus was a medieval theologian, as close to Christ as we are to the beginning of the 100 Years’ War in 1338. He’s bait.
A genuine theologian of the early church was Epiphanius (c. 310–320 – 403). He was bishop of Salamis, Cyprus, and is considered a saint by both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches. As he was traveling through Palestine, he found a church that had a curtain on it with an image, of Christ or some saint. It may have only been a decoration. He tore it down and ripped it into shreds. He wrote to the local bishop, John, that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the elder of the church that they are “an occasion of offense.” While EOAs boast of having preserved the practices of the early church, they don’t want their prospects finding out about “Saint” Epiphanius and, if they do, will insist, without evidence, that the story was made up centuries later. The reality is that Epiphanius shows that the early church was so strict in opposing icons that they wouldn’t even allow images as decorations. Epiphanius’ action was in perfect harmony with the council of Elvira (c. 305), meeting at the other end of the Roman Empire, in Spain, earlier in the century. It concluded, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.”
The bait that the early church shows the Christians using icons is switched to containing fiction, later pagan practices smuggled in, and the errors of a medieval theologian.
The second piece of bait the EOAs dangle in front of unsuspecting evangelicals is the claim that any image, like a decoration, is an “icon.” The Eastern Orthodox speak in two voices about icons, depending on who they are talking to. If they’re instructing their own people, they’ll insist an icon is “a sacred image.” It’s not any art. It doesn’t belong in a gallery. It’s a special image for a special purpose. The primary purpose of the icon is to aid in worship.” (That’s the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America teaching their own.) But, if they’re talking to people outside their sect who are questioning about their icons, whether they are idols, how it could possibly be acceptable in light of the second commandment (https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/answering-eastern-orthodox-apologists-regarding-icons/) prohibiting images in worship, they will claim that all images are icons; that the Greek word “eikon” means any image (technically true) and so respecting images is no more idolatrous than cherishing family photos. That’s the bait: all images (like the decoration in the Old Testament temple) are icons and since you have images, like the pictures on your wall or in your wallet, then icons can’t be bad. But if you bite, you’ll get hooked on the definition of an idol.
Watch for the bait and switch. Some will bait you with fake history. Some EOAs throw the names of early church fathers around that are foreign to most of us evangelicals. It can sound impressive, like they’ve preserved the worship of the early church, especially if we’re discontent with some shallow evangelical practices. But use your common sense. Since the Word of God says not to bow before images, then when someone says it’s fine because, supposedly, his church inherited it, he says, from the early church, realize you’re being baited. They will switch to a hook of icons, incense, and rituals that are, in reality, the concoction of superficially converted pagans flooding into the church in the Middle Ages, bringing their pagan practices with them. Don’t bite on the bait. Stay with the Bible.
The Eastern Orthodox Church promises that their worship, including their icons, goes back to the early church. But the early church strictly opposed icons. Still, the Eastern Orthodox and others have been baiting people with the promise of original Christian worship. What it really gives them is very different.
“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or 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 or serve them, ….” (Exodus 20:4f)
They promise that their practice of using images is derived from the early church. But the truth is that the Early Church strictly prohibited icons.
Congratulations! I will definitely be purchasing a paper copy once it's available. May God bless your work!
Thanks, and I will make sure to announce the physical version too!
Explaining the absence of images in Christian worship was a staple of early church apologists, including Marcus Minucius Felix (d. c. 210), Anthengoras (c. 133–190), and Origen (184–254). Romans frequently considered the lack of religious images among Christians as prima facie evidence of atheism. These apologists were at pains to explain that was not so.34 The pagan philosopher and critic of Christianity Celsus (in “The True Word,” second century) made the lack of Christian images a point of criticism as did Marcus Minucius Felix’s fictional polytheist, Caecilius Natalis.35 The fictional Caecilius Natalis asks, “Why do [Christians] have no altars, no temples, no public images?”36 Origen replied to Celsus by admitting that Christians did not use images. He states that Christians “being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues.”37 Jews and Christians are among “those who cannot allow in the worship of the Divine Being altars, or temples, or images.” He mocked the contention that images were helpful in worship. Citing the second commandment he wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.”38 For both Marcus Minucius Felix and Origen, it would likely have been in their apologetic interests to counter their critics with the claim that Christians did, in fact, use images, like their pagan persecutors, if they could do that honestly. However, they could not, thus demonstrating that the church of the third century was aniconic. However, it is unclear whether it was rigorously so, prohibiting even Christian themed art in homes and Christian burial sites, or more moderate. Origen’s insistence that Christians “have rejected all images and statues” is in the context of worship and may still represent a moderate aniconism that allowed art outside the church.
Why not actually read the book and write and publish a scholarly critique that engages the author's argument instead of commenting a quote-mine on a Substack announcement?
Because he’s a fraud lying about history to try to cover for his idolatry.
Stating that doesn't make it true; you have to demonstrate it, actually reading the book first might be a good place to start
Interesting, I guess I will have to read the book and see the arguments presented!
Garten is an unqualified fraud who had to self-publish this book because no legitimate publisher would put out such dishonest propaganda.
If that is the case then other scholars and apologists will demonstrate it. I see no harm in at least considering what he has to say or looking at the research he provides.
Garten is not a scholar. He’s a fraud writing fiction and claiming it’s history so he can dupe people.
That is a serious accusation to be making, especially accusing another Christian of lying and considering that two published authors have endorsed the work. Have you read the book yourself and can show what parts are "fiction"?
Provide one substantive citation from the book and demonstrate how it is purely fictitious
"Self published therefore he's an unqualified fraud and no legitimate publisher would publish his book" is a non-sequitur; if you disagree with the arguments that's fine but cut out the baseless ad hominin its childish.
It’s not baseless. Garten is unqualified. He has no historical or theological advanced degrees. Indeed, he has no advanced degrees of any kind.
His book is self-published because no legitimate publisher would publish such nonsense.
The claim that there were icons in the early church is baseless.
1. Appeal to authority is formal logical fallacy - engage his arguments don't deflect.
2. You've provided no evidence of this.
3. Asserting something isn't an argument.
Whether or not you agree with him, Garten makes an actual argument in the book, if you aren't going to engage with the substance of his work you stop commenting on it.
Congratulations Michael - Glory to God, I know a lot of work has gone into this.
Thank you, by the help of God and the prayers of many it’s finally here!
It’s lies.
As soon as Eastern Orthodox Apologists unveil their claim that they are the early church, then they uncover icons. Yet the early church strictly prohibited icons. I proved that in the 2018 Themelios article above and in a 2021 Westminster Theological Journal article, strictly on the early church: “https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/answering-eastern-orthodox-apologists-regarding-icons/ Recently, Gavin Ortland has been doing a spectacular job describing how icons arose after the early church on his “https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/answering-eastern-orthodox-apologists-regarding-icons/ YouTube channel.
EOAs claim archeology shows the early church using icons. One ancient church discovered by archaeologists in Dura-Europas, Syria has some images on the walls. But, tellingly, there are no images in the main room where the church actually met. More importantly, there is no evidence that the images that have been found are anything more than decorations, never becoming icons used in worship. They bait people with claims of archeology that actually hide the reality that the early church had no icons.
EOAs bait you with the claim that the “early church” theologian John of Damascus espoused icons. That’s true, except that he wasn’t from the early church. He lived around 675 to 749. The early church ends with either the Council of Chalcedon, in 451, or rounded up to AD 500. John of Damascus was a medieval theologian, as close to Christ as we are to the beginning of the 100 Years’ War in 1338. He’s bait.
A genuine theologian of the early church was Epiphanius (c. 310–320 – 403). He was bishop of Salamis, Cyprus, and is considered a saint by both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches. As he was traveling through Palestine, he found a church that had a curtain on it with an image, of Christ or some saint. It may have only been a decoration. He tore it down and ripped it into shreds. He wrote to the local bishop, John, that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the elder of the church that they are “an occasion of offense.” While EOAs boast of having preserved the practices of the early church, they don’t want their prospects finding out about “Saint” Epiphanius and, if they do, will insist, without evidence, that the story was made up centuries later. The reality is that Epiphanius shows that the early church was so strict in opposing icons that they wouldn’t even allow images as decorations. Epiphanius’ action was in perfect harmony with the council of Elvira (c. 305), meeting at the other end of the Roman Empire, in Spain, earlier in the century. It concluded, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.”
The bait that the early church shows the Christians using icons is switched to containing fiction, later pagan practices smuggled in, and the errors of a medieval theologian.
The second piece of bait the EOAs dangle in front of unsuspecting evangelicals is the claim that any image, like a decoration, is an “icon.” The Eastern Orthodox speak in two voices about icons, depending on who they are talking to. If they’re instructing their own people, they’ll insist an icon is “a sacred image.” It’s not any art. It doesn’t belong in a gallery. It’s a special image for a special purpose. The primary purpose of the icon is to aid in worship.” (That’s the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America teaching their own.) But, if they’re talking to people outside their sect who are questioning about their icons, whether they are idols, how it could possibly be acceptable in light of the second commandment (https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/answering-eastern-orthodox-apologists-regarding-icons/) prohibiting images in worship, they will claim that all images are icons; that the Greek word “eikon” means any image (technically true) and so respecting images is no more idolatrous than cherishing family photos. That’s the bait: all images (like the decoration in the Old Testament temple) are icons and since you have images, like the pictures on your wall or in your wallet, then icons can’t be bad. But if you bite, you’ll get hooked on the definition of an idol.
Watch for the bait and switch. Some will bait you with fake history. Some EOAs throw the names of early church fathers around that are foreign to most of us evangelicals. It can sound impressive, like they’ve preserved the worship of the early church, especially if we’re discontent with some shallow evangelical practices. But use your common sense. Since the Word of God says not to bow before images, then when someone says it’s fine because, supposedly, his church inherited it, he says, from the early church, realize you’re being baited. They will switch to a hook of icons, incense, and rituals that are, in reality, the concoction of superficially converted pagans flooding into the church in the Middle Ages, bringing their pagan practices with them. Don’t bite on the bait. Stay with the Bible.
The Eastern Orthodox Church promises that their worship, including their icons, goes back to the early church. But the early church strictly opposed icons. Still, the Eastern Orthodox and others have been baiting people with the promise of original Christian worship. What it really gives them is very different.
Read the brief, new article, https://warhornmedia.com/2023/04/19/eastern-orthodox-apologists-bait-and-switch/ (<click link)
“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or 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 or serve them, ….” (Exodus 20:4f)
They promise that their practice of using images is derived from the early church. But the truth is that the Early Church strictly prohibited icons.
For more scholarly depth, with each claim for icons answered point by point, see the peer-reviewed academic article in Themelios, “https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/answering-eastern-orthodox-apologists-regarding-icons/” (< click link.)
For an academic, peer-reviewed article, published in the Westminster Theological Journal, on icons in the early church, see “https://covenantcaswell.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/The-Early-Church-on-the-Aniconic-Spectrum.pdf.”