Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 7 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Question 7
Bercot highlights the argument, “We don’t worship the object; we honor the person represented,” and then quotes pagans making essentially the same defense (Athenagoras, Arnobius, Lactantius); what does this parallel imply about how easily humans rationalize religious practices, and how can a group discern when a “pious-sounding argument” is actually self-deception?
Another way to ask: Bercot says people defend images by saying, “We honor the person, not the object,” and pagans said the same thing. What does that tell us about how easy it is to fool ourselves in religion, and how can a church tell the difference between a good reason and self-deception?

Direct Answer The parallel implies people can sincerely justify almost any practice with religious language, even when it mirrors pagan reasoning; discernment requires testing the rationale against Scripture, the earliest Christian practice, and whether the practice trains people to direct devotion toward material objects.

Support from Transcript:

  • Bercot says educated Catholics/Orthodox claim they don’t honor the icon itself, but “showing devotion to the person that that picture represents.”
  • He says “that is the exact same argument that educated pagans made” and cites Athenagoras: prayers to images are “referred to the gods.”
  • Arnobius reports pagans saying they don’t treat materials as gods; rather, they “worship and venerate” beings believed to dwell in the statues once dedicated.
  • Lactantius notes pagans say, “We do not fear the images themselves, but those beings…to whose names they are dedicated,” then challenges them to “raise your eyes to heaven.”
  • Bercot calls Revelation/incense arguments “human rationalization” and “pious-sounding arguments” used “instead of searching for truth.”
Discussion Follow-ups What tests help reveal self-deception: fruit in behavior, clarity of Scripture, or historical continuity? How do we keep from defending a practice simply because it comforts us?