The second hour is spent watching a video. Instead of Kay Arthur, her son, David, spoke on 1 Samuel 13:1-15. He is an ordained PCA minister.

Rev. Arthur began his sermon with a mention of the iconoclastic controversy. As soon as he put up the dates, I knew what his topic was and I muttered, "Icons, images" but no one else had an idea.

In the 8th century, someone noticed that images were replacing the word of God in churches! In the 8th century, someone noticed that the second commandment was being violated! In the 8th century, someone noticed that the illiterate were still ignorant of the Gospel!

Rev. Arthur did not share how the controversy was resolved. On this side of the Reformation, the earlier resolution brokered by Nicaea II isn't important to him. He might say, "Well, it had to be tried again until we got it right."

My perspective is different. You might group me with Luther on this: freedom to use religious images properly.

Just a caveat, as I quote from the Wiki article on Iconoclasm: it's my understanding, contrary to conventional reason, that the rise of Islam had nothing to do with this controversy.

Here are some quotes --

much of what exists as accounts and arguments of the time comes to us through the filter of the writings of the ultimate victors in the controversy, the iconodules.

the banning of images would only prove that the Church had been in error for a long time and so play into the hands of Jews and Muslims

One Syrian monk, John of Damascus, was the major opponent of iconoclasm through his theological writings

For iconoclasts, the only real religious image must be an exact likeness of the prototype--of the same substance--which they considered impossible, seeing wood and paint as empty of spirit and life. Thus for iconoclasts the only true (and permitted) "icon" of Jesus was the Eucharist, which was believed to be his actual body and blood.

But by making an icon of Jesus, one is separating his human and divine natures, since only the human can be depicted (separating the natures was considered nestorianism), or else confusing the human and divine natures, considering them one (union of the human and divine natures was considered monophysitism)

Iconodules argued that decisions such as whether icons ought to be venerated were properly made by the church assembled in council, not imposed on the church by an emperor. Thus the argument also involved the issue of the proper relationship between church and state.

tags technorati : iconoclastic controversy John of Damascus Rev. David Arthur Nicea II