"I watched the video but was not overly impressed. The one constant I see when the Eastern apologists discuss icons is that they almost never use Scripture to justify their position. They almost always resort to philosophy and Greek metaphysics. An occasional nod to a Scripture verse may be made but only to stretch it way beyond what it is saying, such as trying to justify the bowing and reverencing of images with the fact that God ordered certain images made in the Temple and on the Ark.

It always goes back to authority and "What says the LORD"? There is absolutely nothing in Scripture that would justify what the Eastern "orthodox" have developed in terms of iconographic theology. But they simply don't care. Mind you I have no problem with icons per se nor even showing them respect. But the "orthodox" have gone to such extremes as to pretend that they are necessary for salvation and for safeguarding the doctrine of the Incarnation. There is even an akathist service TO the Kursk Root icon. Are these extremes Apostolic in nature? Are they Biblical? I doubt it."

My answer:

The argument for the making and veneration of icons is a theological argument, yes, but so is the argument on which the Nicene Creed is based. Neither the word "trinity" nor "homousios" is to be found in the New Testament, yet we use these theological terms to summarize what we believe to be the biblical teaching about the relation between the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Fr. Stephen DeYoung drives this point home compellingly near the end of his debate with Gavin Ortlund, who essentially argues as you do.