# Is a wooden cross hanging prominently in a sanctuary a violation of the 2nd



## raydixon9 (Oct 11, 2013)

Commandment?

It seems like it would be in that when you see the cross you envision Christ's atonement for your sin which would lead you to worshipful thoughts of Christ.

I've read through some of the older posts on here but couldn't draw a definitive conclusion. Please help.

Thanks


----------



## Edward (Oct 11, 2013)

Some discussion here:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f34/roman-catholic-crucifix-simple-protestant-cross-69342/

I would say that it depends on how it is used. The Larger Catechism teaches (109):

"...the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever; all worshipping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them, all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretence whatsoever;"


----------



## raydixon9 (Oct 12, 2013)

Let me narrow it down a bit: I'm not talking about a cross on a letterhead, in someone's house, on an outside church sign, on a website, etc. I'm specifically talking about a cross inside the place of worship during the worship service. So, maybe whilst singing hymns the congregant looks at the cross which leads to worshipping the true God. Is that a violation of the 2nd commandment by being led to worship by an image? I realize I'm splitting hairs and I'm looking at an issue that is one of the least of the concerns of the church today, but that doesn't mean we need to neglect the issue altogether.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 12, 2013)

It is not in the nature of the thing, but I think it has been and can be used idolatrously, which is why I think it unwise to place a cross prominently in a sanctuary.


----------



## Jack K (Oct 12, 2013)

You could use it wrongly, of course, as you could anything. But there's nothing inherently wrong with putting up a visual reminder that we must always be looking to Christ and his atonement. When I see a cross in a sanctuary, that's what I think.




raydixon9 said:


> It seems like it would be in that when you see the cross you envision Christ's atonement for your sin which would lead you to worshipful thoughts of Christ.



Ray, if I read you right it seems you're not so much concerned about "worshipful thoughts of Christ" (which, of course, are a good thing) but about envisioning an image of Christ on the cross and using that mental image to drive worship. I don't think it necessarily follows that seeing a cross leads to such envisioning. In fact, if one is trying to avoid pictures of Jesus, I submit that using a cross as a symbol makes a good alternative.


----------



## Tim (Oct 12, 2013)

Jack K said:


> But there's nothing inherently wrong with putting up a visual reminder that we must always be looking to Christ and his atonement.



I think there will be disagreement on this statement. From what Biblical principle do you make this claim? We have already been given two visual (and other sense) reminders in the Lord's Supper: bread and wine. I would say that "the cross" as mentioned in scripture is an event that should be reminded us using the words of scripture alone, rather than with a wooden icon. 

I would suggest that using a cross, wooden or otherwise, in this way is so ubiquitous these days that we fail to see the danger in it.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 12, 2013)

We don't have one in our place of worship. But we do have a Covenanter Blue Banner.


----------



## Tyrese (Oct 12, 2013)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> We don't have one in our place of worship. But we do have a Covenanter Blue Banner.



A Covenanter Blue Banner? How come?


----------



## irresistible_grace (Oct 12, 2013)

I absolutely LOVE the "Blue Banner" myself but don't believe it has a place in worship anymore than a cross. 
I vote neither ...


----------



## Tyrese (Oct 12, 2013)

I was thinking the same thing. I would actually have a cross before I would have a Blue Banner. But I also vote neither.


----------



## irresistible_grace (Oct 12, 2013)

Baptism & the LORD's Supper are the only two visual aids we are commanded to have in worship.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 12, 2013)

irresistible_grace said:


> Baptism & the LORD's Supper are the only two visual aids we are commanded to have in worship.



Though both of these point to the Lord Jesus who was human (and divine) and everyone ought to "envision" such.


----------



## Edward (Oct 12, 2013)

To add more detail to my response, 

1) Is it a superstitious device? Generally not in Protestant churches. (If it is, you probably need to look for a different church not because of what is hanging on the wall, but because of what is being taught from the pulpit). 

2) Does it cause folks to stumble because it causes them to form in their own mind an image of Christ on the cross? If so, while the sin is in the viewer, not the person who put up the device, it probably ought to be removed to prevent such stumbling.

I do think you'll find some division on the issue between those who are BR and those who are TR on this board.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Oct 12, 2013)

earl40 said:


> irresistible_grace said:
> 
> 
> > Baptism & the LORD's Supper are the only two visual aids we are commanded to have in worship.
> ...



To "envision" Christ in one's mind is sin and WLC 109 speaks as such. (Regardless if men trained in some confessionally Reformed seminaries seem to have been taught differently)


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 12, 2013)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > irresistible_grace said:
> ...


Actually, to form an image in one's mind inwardly ("making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind") is what is forbidden in the Second Commandment. Having a visual reminder of the _work _of Christ is no more sinful than having a visual reminder of the work of the Lord in the Lord's Supper (the table being present) or the work of the Lord in baptism (the font being present).

Of course, it would be different if the cross actually contained a representation of Christ (_e.g_ a crucifix) or if it was used as an aid in worship (_e.g._ "look at the cross and pray"). Otherwise, it is simply an item in the meeting room that is subject to abuse (even the pulpit itself could be that) - _abusus__ non tollit__ usus_. If anything, a banner, especially a banner that celebrates the work of men, is a greater violation. But this is clearly a matter of judgment. It is impossible to say that it is inherently and always sinful, or that it is inherently and never sinful (as Chris points out above).


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Oct 12, 2013)

And I wasn't saying otherwise. To think of two pieces of wood stacked across one another is obviously not sin. To think of two pieces of wood stacked across one another and then envisioning Christ and his work (as Earl was saying) however is. Ralph Erskine (and more directly James Fisher's appendix starting at page 449) in his work "Faith No Fancy" has a good discussion on this.

It is an equivocation to mix the font, pulpit, and the representation of the cross of calvary. They are different things. 

I also agree that the "blue banner" should not have a prominent place in a house of worship.


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 12, 2013)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> It is an equivocation to mix the font, pulpit, and the representation of the cross of calvary. They are different things.


Ben,
I don't understand this at all. The only way in which they differ is when the font and table are actually used. At every other time (which is the vast majority of the time) the matter is identical. In fact, it is commonplace in Reformed churches to draw attention to the font and table when they are not being used (with banners, inscriptions, etc.)


----------



## earl40 (Oct 12, 2013)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > irresistible_grace said:
> ...



How can you not "envision" in your mind The Man Jesus hanging on a cross? Do you think, or envision, a bunny rabbit hang there? I am not trying to be vulgar but am only attempting to say crudely how it is impossible not to envision The Man Jesus hanging there.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Oct 12, 2013)

To Fred:

Exactly. 

A wooden (or of another material) cross is functionally different from a table or a font. In other words whereas a pulpit fulfills a function (to hold the pulpit bible or a preacher's notes) likewise does a table and a font. A cross featured prominently has no other function other than to draw one's mind away from the signs given (Baptism, the Word, and the Lord's Supper) to a sign not commanded by Christ or His apostles. 

One needs a font to hold water to give the sign and seal of Baptism to an infant or an adult, you need to have a table upon which to lay the elements of the Lord's Supper, and a pulpit is a great help (though certainly not necessary) to the minister expounding the Word.

A cross is not only unnecessary, but unwarranted.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Oct 12, 2013)

earl40 said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > earl40 said:
> ...



The same way you can look at a woman and not commit adultery in your mind and look at a person and not envision murdering them.


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 12, 2013)

Ben,

Then why have a font when it is not being used? And why have a font at all, since it is not necessary, nor described in Scripture?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Oct 12, 2013)

I am evidently being extremely unclear. 

This is the question I am asking.

_What does having a Cross in a prominent place in the worship space accomplish and what is its purpose?_

vs.

_What does having a baptismal font in the front of the worship space accomplish and what is its purpose?_

What I am saying is that a Cross not only has no biblical warrant, but that it is unwise to have one present, and to "envision" Christ is sin. 

This simple difference is that you cannot administer the sacrament of Baptism without a font being present and a Cross serves no purpose other than to draw men's minds away from the visible elements given by Christ to the Church.

To the point of it being present we do not keep the trays, cups, and plates out all the time and only bring them out on Lord's Days in which we serve the Lord's Supper. On other days the table is used to hold the offering plates.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 12, 2013)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> The same way you can look at a woman and not commit adultery in your mind and look at a person and not envision murdering them.



So when you "envision" a woman what do you see in your mind? I take it would be a female and not a male which in of itself is not sin. The same goes for Our Lord. We do not envision a lady on the cross but a man and I am saying it is impossible not to think any other way. Do you suppose the people who were present at the Crucifixion were sinning when they remembered Jesus on the cross? If they did you are saying they are sinning.


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 12, 2013)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I am evidently being extremely unclear.
> 
> This is the question I am asking.
> 
> ...


Ben,

You are being clear, but I believe you are making a logical fallacy. It is a leap to go from "that is unwise" to "that is a sin." The latter is always wrong, in every instance, at every time. I am asserting that one cannot state that the mere presence of a cross in a church is sin. There is no Biblical warrant for such. That does not mean it is always wise. But we should not call that sin, which God does not.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Oct 12, 2013)

I went back and re-read all of my posts in this thread. I think we are talking past one another. I never said using a cross was sin, the only time I used the word "sin" was in reference to Earl's promotion in his #12 (as is clear in his #23) of mental images of Christ. I apologize if I didn't make that clear in my #16.


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 12, 2013)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I went back and re-read all of my posts in this thread. I think we are talking past one another. I never said using a cross was sin, the only time I used the word "sin" was in reference to Earl's promotion in his #12 (as is clear in his #23) of mental images of Christ. I apologize if I didn't make that clear in my #16.


The fault then is likely mine. I had assumed you were advocating the position that a cross was a violation of the 2nd commandment (the OP's question).

Sorry!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Oct 12, 2013)

Gotcha. 

Yes, I was saying having a cross behind the pulpit (as an example) is both unwise and unwarranted, but I wouldn't necessarily call it sin.


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 12, 2013)

Thanks.

And I was not trying to argue for a cross (we don't have one in our building), I was trying to point out what is far too often a PB fallacy that says, "I don't like this/this is not wise" therefore, it "must be a sin."

I realize you are not trying to make that point; we were really talking past each other. Thanks!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Oct 12, 2013)




----------



## Kevin (Oct 12, 2013)

We do have a cross in our worship space. We meet in a rented room in a hockey rink and we hang coverings over bulletin boards, put up banners, and put a hand carved cross on a table. These things are all done to make it clear that what happens on Sunday morning in this space is different from the Zumba classes and lions club meetings that take place there at other times. 

And I can honestly say that it the two years I have set up and removed that cross I never once imagined anyone hanging on it. It is just a way that we communicate to those that walk by and look in what is goin on in this romm is different from what normally happens there.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 12, 2013)

Kevin said:


> And I can honestly say that it the two years I have set up and removed that cross I never once imagined anyone hanging on it. It is just a way that we communicate to those that walk by and look in what is goin on in this romm is different from what normally happens there.



Though it was The Man, Christ Jesus, who was hung on a cross. No matter how much we "try" to not have that image in our mind (A man hanging on a cross) it is there and it In my most humble opinion not sin.


----------



## Tim (Oct 12, 2013)

earl40 said:


> Though it was The Man, Christ Jesus, who was hung on a cross. No matter how much we "try" to not have that image in our mind (A man hanging on a cross) it is there and it In my most humble opinion not sin.



Earl, I acknowledge the difficulty in refraining from making images in one's mind, but what you have suggested is contrary to our standards:



> Q. 109. What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?
> 
> A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counselling, commanding, using, and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; tolerating a false religion; the making any representation of God, of all or *of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind*, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever; all worshipping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them, all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretence whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 12, 2013)

Tim said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Though it was The Man, Christ Jesus, who was hung on a cross. No matter how much we "try" to not have that image in our mind (A man hanging on a cross) it is there and it In my most humble opinion not sin.
> ...



Just asking. Do these standards also include the humanity of Jesus?


----------



## Jack K (Oct 12, 2013)

I remain surprised by the assertion that seeing a cross naturally causes people to fashion an image of Jesus in their minds. I just don't see that this naturally follows, any more than seeing the communion table naturally causes one to fashion an image of Jesus reclining at the Last Supper, or seeing a fish naturally causes one to fashion an image of Jesus at the Sea of Galilee.

Also, there has to be a point where we acknowledge a difference between (1) a worship service where one is instructed, say, to look at a cross and actively imagine Jesus and what he looked like there and use that mental image as an aid to worship and (2) the fuzzier, non-specific images that naturally dance around in our brains when we hear or think about _anyone_, real or fictional, just because that's how brains work. The latter sort of fuzzy image doesn't naturally and necessarily pop into my head when I see a cross... but if it does happen (when I see a cross, or a communion table, or a fish, or whenever), it still doesn't feel like the same thing as "making" an image.


----------



## Tim (Oct 12, 2013)

earl40 said:


> Just asking. Do these standards also include the humanity of Jesus?



Yes, I believe it does include a prohibition of making images of Jesus as Man. Consider this explanation from Thomas Ridgley's exposition of the Larger Catechism, Question 109 in _A Body of Divinity_



> It is farther enquired, whether we may not describe our Saviour...in those things that respect his human nature? ... To this we answer, that whatever of Christ comes within the reach of the art of man to delineate or describe, is only his human nature...and therefore this rather tends to debase than give us raised and becoming conceptions of him as such (Vol. 4, p 463).


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 12, 2013)

I was actually talking to some friends about how, on a Candidates & Credentialing committee, I can usually tell what Seminary a person went to when they offer that the 2nd Commandment cannot prohibit mental images of Christ due to the "impossibility" of avoiding it.

I usually offer two things to such candidates:

1. I don't find it impossible. It could be due to my lack of imagination. I grew up Roman Catholic and got a full dose of seeing images of Christ but I really don't picture a man every time I think of Christ. Nor do I form such mental images every time I see a cross.

2. Let's assume that it is not possible for some to avoid forming a mental image of Christ. Let's even assume none can. Is that really an argument? In other words, if, in my flesh, I find it impossible to fulfill the Law does that set the norm for the Law itself? I offer that we never question whether the other Commandments set impossibly high bars but, for some reason, find the notion that we could possibly break the 2nd Commandment an intolerable notion.

In other words, the argument for the impossibility of one of the Commandments is not, in itself, an argument for its validity. If, after careful exegesis and theological study, we come to the conviction that the Lord requires of us something we cannot perform in our flesh then the solution is not to discard it but to go to the fount of grace.


----------



## Andres (Oct 12, 2013)

Jack K said:


> I remain surprised by the assertion that seeing a cross naturally causes people to fashion an image of Jesus in their minds. I just don't see that this naturally follows, any more than seeing the communion table naturally causes one to fashion an image of Jesus reclining at the Last Supper, or seeing a fish naturally causes one to fashion an image of Jesus at the Sea of Galilee.



Jack, a big difference in your examples is that God has commanded us to include one of them in our worship, but not the others.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 12, 2013)

As already has been said, far as I can tell, the majority are not saying there is an inherent problem with a bare cross; but it has been subject to abuse as much as anything has been and it is not wise to make it a focal point in the sanctuary. My church has as part of the architecture a 20 foot cross dead front and center; you can't ignore it, you can't miss it, and it is there to stay. One wishes more prudence had been shown 54 years ago in the design.


----------



## JimmyH (Oct 12, 2013)

I'm sure many of us are old enough to familiar with those paintings of our Lord that used to be hanging in church offices, and sometimes in schools. How times have changed. He is portrayed as very handsome and when I first read Isaiah 53:2 I was surprised at the description being so far removed from popular culture's depiction. Even now it requires an effort for me not to visualize some of those paintings in my mind's eye. Not in a sense of worshipping a graven image but just conditioning from childhood on. I don't think I've ever been to a church that did not have a cross behind the pulpit if not on the front of it. I'm not advocating that, just commenting on my own experience.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 12, 2013)

I've never seen one as big or as inescapable as in my church; it's just too much. It's unfortunate. 


JimmyH said:


> I don't think I've ever been to a church that did not have a cross behind the pulpit if not on the front of it. I'm not advocating that, just commenting on my own experience.


----------



## Miss Marple (Oct 12, 2013)

I see it as a symbolic written thing that means "Christian."

Human language expresses itself naturally in symbols. The dot above a dress = women's. The circle with the slash = "no." The star and the crescent = "Islam." The Star of David = "Jewish." The arrow to the right = "right turn." Etc. We communicate using symbols instead of words all the time.

So I see the cross as a symbol substitute for the word "Christian," and have no more objection than I would to seeing the word "Christian" spelled out in letters.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 12, 2013)

JimmyH said:


> I'm sure many of us are old enough to familiar with those paintings of our Lord that used to be hanging in church offices, and sometimes in schools. How times have changed. He is portrayed as very handsome and when I first read Isaiah 53:2 I was surprised at the description being so far removed from popular culture's depiction. Even now it requires an effort for me not to visualize some of those paintings in my mind's eye. Not in a sense of worshipping a graven image but just conditioning from childhood on. I don't think I've ever been to a church that did not have a cross behind the pulpit if not on the front of it. I'm not advocating that, just commenting on my own experience.



I totally agree the handsome Christ is so far removed from the reality of the image painted in scripture that I also have many times quipped to people as we look at a painting of the supposed Jesus. "Won't we all be surprised how different He looks when we see Him face to face in heaven". Now of course when I do this I imagine some image of a person that had "no beauty or majesty to attract us to him". In other words, a regular type of Joe that we could not identify in a police lineup. Here we have scripture "painting a portrait" of Jesus that pops in our mind by using words.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 12, 2013)

Jack K said:


> I remain surprised by the assertion that seeing a cross naturally causes people to fashion an image of Jesus in their minds. I just don't see that this naturally follows, any more than seeing the communion table naturally causes one to fashion an image of Jesus reclining at the Last Supper, or seeing a fish naturally causes one to fashion an image of Jesus at the Sea of Galilee.



I can't imagine someone not thinking of Jesus as a man without having at least the image of a generic image of male vs. female. Albeit I am not saying directly as to be able to identify him in a police line up, for no doubt many more would worship the image if it was such.

PS. I agree I do not draw the image in my mind every time I see a cross though no doubt I do when I read physical descriptions of Him....and if so is this sin?


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 12, 2013)

Earl, are you picturing in your mind the humanity and divinity of Jesus? You keep focusing on the humanity, but Jesus has never been without His divine nature.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 12, 2013)

Romans922 said:


> Earl, are you picturing in your mind the humanity and divinity of Jesus? You keep focusing on the humanity, but Jesus has never been without His divine nature.



Humanity. Now in stating this In my most humble opinion this is the only way we will ever see God with physical eyes. Below is a topic that discusses how we ought to get used to this.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/beatific-vision-80410/


----------



## sevenzedek (Oct 13, 2013)

Matthew 19:13
13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his *hands* on them, and pray...

We're not supposed to visualize his hands? I imagine he had five fingers with callouses.

Matthew 17:2
2 And was transfigured before them: and his *face* did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.

We're not supposed to visualize his face? Granted, we have no idea what his face actually looked like. Can you visualize his raiment without imagining his body that wore it?

Matthew 14:25
25 And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, *walking* on the sea.

We're not supposed to visualize him walking on the water?

John 20:27
Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold *my hands*; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into *my side*: and be not faithless, but believing.

Am I to imagine his wounds without imagining his body? Jesus himself gives warrant for us to visualize his bodily wounds; thereby making it necessary for us to imagine a body like his and ours. He was a man Can there be be any doubt that a stereotype of a man just entered your thoughts just now? These visualizations we form should also incite devotion because of what he did for us; which comes very close to worship, but visualizing the person of Christ and worshipping those visualizations are, in my mind, two different things.

I don't put forth these images of him and worship those images no more than I worship bread and wine. Forming an image of him in our thoughts when we read the Scriptures is no more sinful than when we conceptualize his presence during the Lord's Supper. At the table, the bread becomes his body. To say that we have been given two visual aids for the Lord that makes unnecessary any other image of Christ really creates a problem. Would God institute idolatry in the first place? No. This is conundrum appears more nuanced than some would appear to allow in this thread. Therefore, not all visualizations of the Lord are sinful, as the communion table and the anthropomorphic language of the Scriptures bear witness.

The argument of the _impossibility_ of not forming an image does not bear any weight on the matter. Rather, I see the _necessity_ of visualizations bearing on the matter. It is necessary to visualize our Lord in order for us to have any concept of him at all; otherwise, the verses mentioned above make no sense. Is anyone going to tell me that I should not imagine the Lord's body as indicating the Lord's body in the verses mentioned above? Is his body, as described in the foregoing verses to be divorced from who represents himself to be in his own words? Can we imagine his person doing anything at all without forming a visualization of him? Am I not to imagine Jesus kneeling down to the children of shorter stature to pray for them? Don't be cray-cray already!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Oct 13, 2013)

Any attempt to disunite the body from the soul, the humanity from the divinity, of Christ is inherently Nestorian. 

To imagine our Savior and not be drawn to worship makes no sense.


----------



## ZackF (Oct 13, 2013)

A thought experiment. I suppose it would be sinful for brother B, who has yet to see the Lord, imagine Christ when brother B hears brother A's vivid account of seeing Christ preach the Sermon on the Plain. In other words, in NT times, I imagine (no pun intended), that it wouldn't have been sinful to picture Jesus in the mind's eye if one had already seen him. 

It's amazing since repenting and leaving Rome how the "hard copy" images of Christ have just disappeared from my life automatically without a deliberate Karlstadtian crusade. Almost a month after embracing the Christ of history years ago there was hardly a trace of statues or images in my personal life. I kept one picture of Jesus and a Rosary, that were gifts years before, in a closet until about a year ago when my conscience wouldn't allow it. We don't have a cross hanging in our house nor fish on our cars. It's not been deliberate, just sort of automatic. 

I find this tread most convicting. I've never really considered my thought life and images of Our Lord the way describe in this thread though I've read the Commandment and the Confessions on this matter I don't know how many times. There are pastor/teachers such as R.C. Sproul and Jerram Barrs whom I respect and God has used so much to train and edify the saints but on this matter I think they are wrong.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 13, 2013)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> To imagine our Savior and not be drawn to worship makes no sense.


To paraphrase Thomas Vincent, if an image stirs to worship God, it is a violation of God's second command, if it doesn't stir up to devotion, it is a violation of the third.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 13, 2013)

Several important pages are missing from the IA copy of Erskine's book. See this GB version (a bit in the gutter, but can interpolate). Erskine cites LC109, WCF and SC.
Faith No Fancy: Or, A Treatise of Mental Images, Discovering the Vain ... - Ralph Erskine, James Fisher - Google Books



Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> And I wasn't saying otherwise. To think of two pieces of wood stacked across one another is obviously not sin. To think of two pieces of wood stacked across one another and then envisioning Christ and his work (as Earl was saying) however is. Ralph Erskine (and more directly James Fisher's appendix starting at page 449) in his work "Faith No Fancy" has a good discussion on this.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Oct 13, 2013)

Thanks Chris!


----------



## earl40 (Oct 13, 2013)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Any attempt to disunite the body from the soul, the humanity from the divinity, of Christ is inherently Nestorian.
> 
> To imagine our Savior and not be drawn to worship makes no sense.



I am not disuniting the body from the soul or the humanity from the divinity, any more than when Jesus said "If you have seen Me you have seen The Father."


----------



## earl40 (Oct 13, 2013)

And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a *garment down to the foot*, and *girt about the paps with a golden girdle.**His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;And his feet like unto fine brass,* as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.And *he had in his right hand seven stars*: and *out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword:* and *his countenance was as the sun shineth* in his strength.

OK did I just cause many to sin by highlighting the above? Tell me the truth can you read any of the above an not imagine an image of Jesus as portrayed in His Word?


----------



## earl40 (Oct 13, 2013)

So from John Murray and his thoughts on the subject.

"Without doubt the disciples in the days of his flesh had a *vivid mental image of Jesus' appearance* and they could not but have retained that recollection to the end of their days. *They could never have entertained the thought of him as he had sojourned with them without something of that mental image *and they could not have entertained it without adoration and worship. The very features which they remembered would have been part and parcel of their conception of him and reminiscent of what he had been to them in his humiliation and in the glory of his resurrection appearance. Much more might be said regarding the significance for the disciples of Jesus' physical features."

Why not expand on what those that walked with The Lord and how they were indeed sinning if they did what Murray says they did?


----------



## sevenzedek (Oct 13, 2013)

earl40 said:


> And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a *garment down to the foot*, and *girt about the paps with a golden girdle.**His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;And his feet like unto fine brass,* as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.And *he had in his right hand seven stars*: and *out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword:* and *his countenance was as the sun shineth* in his strength.
> 
> OK did I just cause many to sin by highlighting the above? Tell me the truth can you read any of the above an not imagine an image of Jesus?



You're not supposed to be imagining what Jesus looks like when you read those verses, Earl. Where it says, "his hairs were white like wool," you may only imagine white, wool, hairs, and him, but not Jesus. Okay? Besides, only those who are more gifted than you and I are able to not form an image of Jesus in their minds when reading those verses.

DISCLAIMER: A tongue and cheek response was given to the foregoing post in order to prove a legitimate point not adequately addressed in this thread and should be regarded as friendly; even happy and smirky too. It should neither be quoted out of context nor without regard to the spirit of the intent without hazardous repercussions for the well being of the church and it's poster non-extraordinaire.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 13, 2013)

sevenzedek said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a *garment down to the foot*, and *girt about the paps with a golden girdle.**His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;And his feet like unto fine brass,* as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.And *he had in his right hand seven stars*: and *out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword:* and *his countenance was as the sun shineth* in his strength.
> ...



I hope you point is as well received as I took it. Of course I in no way want to disrespect any here who have a more scrupulous view of God's law than myself. I mean that in all sincerity and with no rancor at all for those that disagree with moi.


----------



## sevenzedek (Oct 13, 2013)

earl40 said:


> sevenzedek said:
> 
> 
> > earl40 said:
> ...



Sometimes, to get the hornets to sting the intended subject, one has to stir up the nest. While I am not trying be stung in the fray, I am certainly asserting my untested thoughts to the scrutiny of the PB nest. I may not find an adequate answer on this forum. I may need to come across the answer by a careful inquiry in another context.

I realize that sorting the dross from the gold reveals a razor's edge between truth and blasphemy. Israel's worship of God through the golden calf and the worship of Christ through the institutions of his word and sacraments is proof of that, and I don't suppose for one second that God sanctioned idolatry in the Lord's supper or the descriptions of Jesus in his word. Like I said in an earlier post on this thread, the subject appears more nuanced than some would appear to make it. To put it simply, I cannot imagine how descriptions of Jesus in the Scriptures are there only for God to forbid the use of them for the purpose of relating to our Savior. If we are to conceptualize the Scriptures for our use, visualizations of Jesus becomes a necessity; otherwise, descriptions of him are mute point in the word meant for us to gloss over with non-thoughts of what we read concerning his physical appearance. Hands, face, tears, feet, and hair all become subjects of inquiry that are forbidden. Hair white as wool becomes an unavoidable incitation to sin; and that from God himself with no clear mandate otherwise. To say that Jesus is a man necessarily forces one to form a stereotypical image of what a man is. To exclude base thoughts of Jesus' manhood from our thoughts reduces him to a concept to which no one can relate. We don't suppose him to be, God forbid, a squirrel. Well, then, what is he? He is a man. What does a man look like? Does such a man look like a couch? No. A man looks like us. Now, as you noted above, did I make anyone sin? I cannot figure how some on this board can read of Jesus in the Scriptures and avoid forming an image of him in their minds. Proof of that is the fact that all would readily confess that he must have had two eyes, a mouth, and hands like ours; all of similar shape and number. How does one come to this conclusion without forming some sort of stereotypical image? Have I caused anyone to sin just now?

Someone, please! If I need to be corrected, then be a brother a sanctity me with somethings cuts through the dross.


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 13, 2013)

We know that our Lord was a man - is a man - but we have no description of distinguishing features.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Miss Marple (Oct 13, 2013)

Actually, we do in the Revelation description, which is quite descriptive.

Why are there details about his eyes, hair, feet if we aren't to mentally visualize those details? I get a rather blurry idea, no detail as to shape of nose, mouth, skin type, height. . .I am not defending setting ink to paper to draw it out, but to pretend there is no image in your mind when reading this description strikes me as just that, pretend. Presuming that all details in Scripture have purpose, what is the purpose of these details? It seems to me to give us a reasonable mental visual.


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 13, 2013)

Miss Marple said:


> Actually, we do in the Revelation description, which is quite descriptive.
> 
> Why are there details about his eyes, hair, feet if we aren't to mentally visualize those details? I get a rather blurry idea, no detail as to shape of nose, mouth, skin type, height. . .I am not defending setting ink to paper to draw it out, but to pretend there is no image in your mind when reading this description strikes me as just that, pretend. Presuming that all details in Scripture have purpose, what is the purpose of these details? It seems to me to give us a reasonable mental visual.



Yes. But it doesn't describe what Christ looks like, or looked like in His time on Earth, in comparison to any other man. So e.g. His facial features, stature, etc, are complete unknowns. Besides, the description in Revelation is somewhat symbolic of His glorified and exalted state, and not to be taken literally, like the rest of the book e.g. a sword proceeding from His mouth, etc.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 13, 2013)

I believe that the original topic has been successfully hijacked but I will call it done nevertheless. If anyone wants to ask questions about the teaching of Larger Catechism 109 and the unlawfulness of picturing Christ or any person of the Trinity in thought or in art, perhaps it would be best to open a distinct thread. LC 109 is not about how humans think; there's no evidence that was a concern let alone a perceived difficulty to the doctrine on the part of the Westminster divines. It is about what we put our imagining toward. We are not to picture physically through craft or craft in our mind's eye the God we worship. That is the doctrine of this board. If you want to ask questions about it, express doubts, fine. But there will be no advocacy against it on PB. As far as the difficulty of this for this modern image inundated age, Rich's post is on point.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/woo...ly-sanctuary-violation-2nd-80745/#post1017688


----------

