Critiquing: #050 — Icons, Praying to Saints & Dividing over Sexuality

January 7, 2021 | Ask NT Wright Anything – Premier

Theological Differences — Church Unity — Icons & Saints — Infant Baptism — Sexuality Debates

---

Episode Assessment:

		Commentary
Degree of Accuracy	C+	The episode presents generally accurate information, but there are gaps in historical and theological accuracy. Specific references to primary sources and scholarly works are needed to substantiate the claims made about church practices and doctrinal history.
Degree of Coherence	B	The discussion is logically structured with clear thematic transitions. However, certain arguments lack depth, and some statements require further elaboration to fully understand the connections between different theological concepts presented.
Absence of Fallacies	B	While logical fallacies are minimal, there are instances where assertions are made without sufficient evidence, leading to potential logical gaps. Some arguments rely on anecdotal evidence, which can weaken their overall logical rigor.
Degree of Evidence	C-	The episode provides limited empirical or textual evidence to support the theological claims. Assertions regarding the historical and scriptural basis for practices like praying through icons and infant baptism are presented without adequate citation of primary sources or detailed exegesis of relevant biblical passages.
Degree of Testability	D+	Many theological claims are abstract and not easily testable. The arguments presented, particularly those about spiritual practices and doctrinal interpretations, lack clear criteria for verification, making it challenging to assess their validity empirically.
Rational Confidence	C	The confidence in the arguments is moderate, with several assertions made without robust supporting evidence. This affects the overall persuasiveness of the episode, as listeners may find it difficult to fully trust the conclusions drawn without more substantial backing.

Potential/Apparent Weaknesses:

1. Lack of Evidence for Historical Claims

“My question has to do with Greek Orthodox traditions of placing icons, so images of Jesus Mary and the saints, as things to pray to in church and at home. I’ve not seen any reference in the Bible to having such shrines, neither in the old nor in the New Testament.”

The podcast fails to provide historical evidence or scriptural references to support or refute the tradition of praying through icons. This lack of evidence weakens the argument’s credibility. Without citations from historical documents or theological texts, the claim remains unsubstantiated and open to challenge.

2. Coherence in Theological Justifications

“For me, this is very practical as a pastor. I remember vividly when I was in pastoral ministry and there was a couple in the congregation who I got to know very well…”

While the personal anecdotes add a human touch, they sometimes detract from the logical flow of the theological justifications. This affects the overall coherence of the arguments presented. The discussion would benefit from more systematic exploration of theological principles rather than relying heavily on anecdotal evidence.

---

Formulations of Major Arguments

Argument 1: Icons and Praying to Saints

Premises:

1. Icons are intended as conduits for prayer rather than objects of worship.
2. The use of icons is justified by the concept of the new creation inaugurated by the resurrection of Jesus.
3. Icons reflect God’s beauty and serve as spiritual aids.

Conclusion:
Therefore, the use of icons in prayer is a legitimate practice aimed at enhancing spiritual connection and reflection.

Counter-Argument:
The Bible explicitly forbids the creation and worship of graven images (Exodus 20:4-5). The distinction between praying “to” and “through” icons is not clearly supported by scripture and can easily lead to practices indistinguishable from idolatry. Additionally, the New Testament does not provide a precedent for this practice, raising questions about its theological legitimacy. The early church fathers, such as Origen and Tertullian, emphasized the avoidance of any form of image worship, suggesting that the current practice of using icons may deviate from early Christian teachings.

---

Argument 2: Infant Baptism and Confirmation

Premises:

1. The tradition of infant baptism has roots in early church practices.
2. Confirmation allows individuals to affirm their faith at an age of understanding.
3. Paul’s letters suggest a communal and inclusive approach to baptism, aligning it with the practice of circumcision.

Conclusion:
Therefore, infant baptism followed by confirmation is a theologically valid practice within the Christian tradition.

Counter-Argument:
The New Testament emphasizes personal belief and repentance as prerequisites for baptism (Acts 2:38). The practice of infant baptism lacks direct biblical endorsement and may undermine the significance of individual faith commitments. The concept of confirmation as a separate rite is not explicitly mentioned in the New Testament, suggesting that these practices may be more influenced by tradition than by scriptural directives. Early Christian writings, such as those by Hippolytus and Tertullian, indicate a preference for adult baptism, further questioning the practice’s early church legitimacy.

---

Argument 3: Unity Despite Theological Differences

Premises:

1. Christians should strive for unity despite theological differences.
2. Differences in interpretation, particularly on non-essential matters, should not divide the church.
3. Historical examples, such as the issue of eating meat offered to idols, demonstrate the importance of accommodating differing consciences.

Conclusion:
Therefore, unity in the church can be maintained by focusing on essential beliefs and allowing freedom in non-essential matters.

Counter-Argument:
The delineation between essential and non-essential matters can be highly subjective and context-dependent. Some issues, such as views on human sexuality, significantly impact community dynamics and individual lives, making it difficult to categorize them as non-essential. Additionally, without clear boundaries, the call for unity can sometimes suppress important doctrinal discussions and ethical considerations that need to be addressed for the health and integrity of the church community. Historical instances, such as the Arian controversy, highlight how differing interpretations on what might initially seem non-essential can have profound impacts on the church’s doctrine and unity.

◉ Addressing Argument #3:

Unity among Christians is impossible without robust definitions of what constitutes central doctrines, what those central doctrines are, and what degree of deviance from a particular take on a central doctrine constitutes heresy.

Unity among Christians has long been an elusive goal. Theological diversity is a hallmark of Christianity, yet it often leads to fragmentation rather than unity. To achieve true unity, it is imperative to have robust definitions of what constitutes central doctrines, a clear understanding of what those doctrines are, and consensus on what degree of deviance from a particular interpretation constitutes heresy.

Central doctrines are the foundational beliefs that define Christianity. These include the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the resurrection, and the authority of Scripture. However, different denominations often have varying interpretations of these doctrines. For instance, the nature of the Trinity is understood differently in Eastern Orthodoxy compared to Western Christianity. Without a unified definition, it is challenging to maintain doctrinal harmony.

Determining what degree of deviance from these doctrines constitutes heresy is another complex issue. Heresy has historically been viewed as a deviation from accepted beliefs, but what qualifies as heresy can vary significantly. In early Christianity, heresies like Arianism and Nestorianism were condemned because they challenged the established understanding of Christ’s nature. Today, disagreements over doctrines such as baptism, communion, and salvation can still cause significant rifts.

The question of whether heresy is worthy of hellfire or merely diminishes one’s rewards in Heaven adds another layer of complexity. Traditionally, heresy has been seen as a serious offense, potentially leading to eternal damnation. However, some modern theologians argue that heresy, while serious, does not necessarily condemn one to hell but may result in a loss of heavenly rewards. This shift in understanding reflects a more nuanced view of salvation and divine judgment.

Given the current state of Christianity and its history over the past 2,000 years, it seems unlikely that these conditions for unity will be met anytime soon. The denominational divides and theological disagreements are deeply entrenched. Christianity appears to be in doctrinal shambles, with no clear path to achieving uniformity in belief and practice.

The only saving grace in this situation is the unifying tendency of Christians to join forces against the threat of non-belief. Despite their differences, Christians often come together to defend their faith against secularism and other religions. This common adversary can foster a sense of unity that transcends doctrinal differences, at least temporarily.

In conclusion, true unity among Christians is a noble but challenging goal. Without clear definitions of central doctrines, agreement on what constitutes heresy, and a unified stance on the consequences of heresy, achieving lasting unity remains a distant dream. The diversity within Christianity, while enriching, also poses significant barriers to unity. However, the shared commitment to defending the faith provides a glimmer of hope for a more united Christian front, that front’s dubious veracity notwithstanding.

---

Feel free to share your thoughts and engage in a lively discussion in the comments section below. Your insights and perspectives are valuable as we continue to explore these profound theological questions.