# Images of Christ



## ReformationArt (Dec 7, 2007)

I am sure this topic has been discussed before, but it's on my mind. I was recently struck by the marketing surrounding a forthcoming Crossway title the Vintage Jesus. Please note that I did not link to the official site, because it contains multiple various so-called images of Jesus. Although I never felt strongly on this issue growing up, I became firmly convinced in my studies during my seminary years that Scripture does forbid the making and using of such images. However, when I mention that to other Christians they look at me like I'm some crazy backwoods snakehandler! The look in their eyes is like I had taken away their childhood security blanket. They can't seem to fathom that such pictures would offend God. After all, look at the "success" of the Jesus Film, the Passion of the Christ (touted as the greatest evangelism opportunity since the time of the apostles), and the pages of children's Bibles and pictures books.

Through my work on Reformation Art, I have likely seen more pictures of Jesus than most Roman Catholics! Part of my work is digging through all of the garbage to find the gems. Apart from plucking at your eyes, it is nearly impossible to avoid seeing these images. Normally I have to search through thousands of images in a dealer's online catalog to find images to use for the site, and normally, at least half of their "religious images" contain some sort of proposed grotesque likeness of the Christ. And if you haven't already figured it out, I have a strict policy against carrying such images on my site.

I have written a brief 2 page paper, setting forth this important doctrine from Scripture. You can download it here. It is followed by a 13 page appendix of some great quotes from church history on the matter.

I appreciate your interaction and feedback!

Soli Deo Gloria,


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 7, 2007)

Welcome to the crazy-pictures-of-Jesus-so-called-hating-club Andrew. I will try to grab you paper as it looks like at long last a hopefully significant dealing of this issue will appear in a forthcoming Confessional Presbyterian, probably the 2009 looks like. I need to compile material for it; any suggestions. I have my short list but maybe you know some I don't have.


----------



## dannyhyde (Dec 7, 2007)

Andrew,

Good to see another iconoclast join the fray! We certainly are the select of the elect, as Derke Bergsma used to say in seminary. I just wrote a brief dialog with a colleague on this issue for the Christmas issue of _Christian Renewal_, a Dutch Reformed periodical. I'm very curious to hear the response to that!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 7, 2007)

I really cannot understand why this issue is a debate in Reformed circles; surely even a brief glance at the second commandment should be enough to tell us that pictures of Christ are forbidden?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 7, 2007)

Speaking of which; are the contrary views of Bahnsen and Gentry, who I think follows him, online or are these only on tape or something? I know Bahnsen's was on tape many moons ago.


----------



## Coram Deo (Dec 7, 2007)

As of late I have studied this topic since it is almost that time of year again... It seems like aleast one year around this time I study it... 

Anyway, here are my conclusions in my own mind regarding the topic of Images of Christ...

1. The second commandment ONLY bars images of Christ in worship. Anything we make or bring to worship is forbidden. The second commandment does not speak outside of worship unless you are worshipping an image in your home, your business, your car, etc....

But....

Does this allow for images of Christ outside of worship if you do not worship them? I still believe it is forbidden but not because of the second commandment..... After studying the historical and theological arguments regarding images outside of worship here are my conclusions...

1. We have no idea what Christ looked like, so any image is a false image of him.
2. During the 6th and 7th Century during the Iconoclastic Controversy the decision made by the Iconoclast was that we cannot make an image of Christ because of his Divine Nature. Even if we knew what Christ looked like and was able to paint a picture of him we would be dividing his nature.. Christ is fully God and fully Man. If we paint him we are painting only the man for we can not paint his divine nature thus dividing his nature.

At the very least it is nestorianism and it could also be monophysite...

So it is still forbidden....

That is my  for what it is worth....


----------



## etexas (Dec 7, 2007)

I am coming into more of an "iconoclast camp here", funny, as a former Anglican, I was surrounded by stained glass images of Christ, the Nativity, the Cross, the Resurrection you name it! It was and is hard for me, the transition was not easy, frankly I would like to thank the PB members for being patient!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 7, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Speaking of which; are the contrary views of Bahnsen and Gentry, who I think follows him, online or are these only on tape or something? I know Bahnsen's was on tape many moons ago.



What is the relevance of this point Chris? It is also contrary to the views of many other people in American Presbyterianism, so why just pick on Greg Bahnsen and Ken Gentry?


----------



## ReformationArt (Dec 7, 2007)

To further the discussion, for me it is no longer just images of Jesus as a man, it extends to all visible representations of the divine being (ala WLC 109). So even paintings that depict Christ as a lamb, the Holy Spirit as a dove, or even the symbol of the trinity depicted as three interlocking circles sometimes with a triangle tying them together. These are all visible representations of God. I am convinced that this is what Scripture teaches, and have become quite convicted of it this past year in my studies. I have also written a paper on the use of images and symbols in the life of the church but I will save that for another thread at another time.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 7, 2007)

ReformationArt said:


> To further the discussion, for me it is no longer just images of Jesus as a man, it extends to all visible representations of the divine being (ala WLC 109). So even paintings that depict Christ as a lamb, the Holy Spirit as a dove, or even the symbol of the trinity depicted as three interlocking circles sometimes with a triangle tying them together. These are all visible representations of God. I am convinced that this is what Scripture teaches, and have become quite convicted of it this past year in my studies. I have also written a paper on the use of images and symbols in the life of the church but I will save that for another thread at another time.




That is an excellent point; I think it is due to widespread declension in Presbyterian circles that many of these things have got in, and so you find even some of the most articulate defenders of the Reformed faith apologizing for their usage.


----------



## Coram Deo (Dec 7, 2007)

Would this also include a bare naked cross? 




ReformationArt said:


> To further the discussion, for me it is no longer just images of Jesus as a man, it extends to all visible representations of the divine being (ala WLC 109). So even paintings that depict Christ as a lamb, the Holy Spirit as a dove, or even the symbol of the trinity depicted as three interlocking circles sometimes with a triangle tying them together. These are all visible representations of God. I am convinced that this is what Scripture teaches, and have become quite convicted of it this past year in my studies. I have also written a paper on the use of images and symbols in the life of the church but I will save that for another thread at another time.


----------



## SEAGOON (Dec 7, 2007)

Thanks your work Andrew!

Unfortunately although Question 109 in the LC and LD 35 in the HC make it quite clear that as Presbyterian and Reformed believers we confess that images of any member of the Godhead are forbidden (as well as being essentially _lies_) most Presbyterian elders have little or no problem with images and many have even signed on to the yearly Christmas time struggle with the secular state to erect nativity scenes hither and yon.

A while back I put together a round-up of Reformed Confessions that make it clear that until quite recently, the orthodox Reformed consensus was united on this issue. But then again, 100 years ago not working on the Lord's day was a no-brainer for protestants as well. Anyone notice that as biblical illiteracy increases we are gradually sliding back into medieval Roman Catholicism? Its not a surprise that as we abandon God's word, idolatry increases.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 7, 2007)

Relevant to my wanting to obtain them, and that they are also some of the key folks noted by those who take exception to LC 109 in Presbytery exams in the OPC and PCA and other conservative denoms in this country. A bit thin skinned today are we not? 


Daniel Ritchie said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking of which; are the contrary views of Bahnsen and Gentry, who I think follows him, online or are these only on tape or something? I know Bahnsen's was on tape many moons ago.
> ...


----------



## ReformationArt (Dec 7, 2007)

What do you mean by bare naked??? 

If you mean a plain cross, I do believe decor in the auditorium is a matter of circumstance, however, I argued against displaying a cross on the wall in our auditorium, and the session agreed. My reasons are that God has given us two visible signs/symbols to use in our worship, and those are the sacraments. If we want our eyes to be drawn to symbols, then let them be drawn to those ordained by Christ for worship! So I think it is appropriate to have a prominent pulpit, featuring the primary means of grace, and also a table for the Lord's Supper and a baptismal font featured off to the sides, or even beneath the pulpit if appropriate. I do believe this is in the realm of the commendable, not the commendable. 

The cross is a symbol adopted by the church for her own use. God did not give us this symbol. It has become an icon viewed by many to have some mystical superstitious power (wards off vampires, etc). To put it plainly, the cross that Christ bore is not the cross that bore Christ (I don't remember who said that originally, but it stuck with me)! This is a cross that isn't visible, but spiritual. This is hell, the unhindered wrath of God poured out upon Jesus for my sin. That can't be worn around my neck or tacked to a wall. However, it can be preached with the full power and authority of Christ through the powerful working of the Spirit!


----------



## Coram Deo (Dec 7, 2007)

*Chuckling* about the bare naked.....


No, I totally agree with you with regards to the Sanctuary... I was not espousing a cross in worship... All I want is a bare *naked*  room with a pulpit, seating, the sacraments of baptism and the eucharist and maybe the ten commandments displayed on the wall to remind us of God's holy law...

But outside of worship? a cross? some take that the cross represents the trinity, etc... so would that be wrong? granted worship of a cross is wrong. bowing, adoring, venerating, etc of a cross is worship and is wrong inside or outside of the church....








ReformationArt said:


> What do you mean by bare naked???
> 
> If you mean a plain cross, I do believe decor in the auditorium is a matter of circumstance, however, I argued against displaying a cross on the wall in our auditorium, and the session agreed. My reasons are that God has given us two visible signs/symbols to use in our worship, and those are the sacraments. If we want our eyes to be drawn to symbols, then let them be drawn to those ordained by Christ for worship! So I think it is appropriate to have a prominent pulpit, featuring the primary means of grace, and also a table for the Lord's Supper and a baptismal font featured off to the sides, or even beneath the pulpit if appropriate. I do believe this is in the realm of the commendable, not the commendable.
> 
> The cross is a symbol adopted by the church for her own use. God did not give us this symbol. It has become an icon viewed by many to have some mystical superstitious power (wards off vampires, etc). To put it plainly, the cross that Christ bore is not the cross that bore Christ (I don't remember who said that originally, but it stuck with me)! This is a cross that isn't visible, but spiritual. This is hell, the unhindered wrath of God poured out upon Jesus for my sin. That can't be worn around my neck or tacked to a wall. However, it can be breached with the full power and authority of Christ through the powerful working of the Spirit!


----------



## ReformationArt (Dec 7, 2007)

To my knowledge, the plain cross has no trinitarian symbolism involved, but is meant to point to Christ's work accomplished on the cross. So unless there is some other symbol added to it to make it more explicitly a symbol of the trinity, I would say it isn't forbidden as such.


----------



## ReformationArt (Dec 7, 2007)

I am intending on presenting the paper to the congregation in an adult Sunday school class soon, so I really would appreciate feedback and interaction with the paper, if you would be so kind.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 7, 2007)

Andrew,
I"m interested in the other paper too if you would like to forward that to me sometime. The 'pictures of Jesus' article slatted for the 2009 CPJ will survey the recent literature. I realize your papers are unpublished but if you plan to post them on the web that counts.


ReformationArt said:


> To further the discussion, for me it is no longer just images of Jesus as a man, it extends to all visible representations of the divine being (ala WLC 109). So even paintings that depict Christ as a lamb, the Holy Spirit as a dove, or even the symbol of the trinity depicted as three interlocking circles sometimes with a triangle tying them together. These are all visible representations of God. I am convinced that this is what Scripture teaches, and have become quite convicted of it this past year in my studies. I have also written a paper on the use of images and symbols in the life of the church but I will save that for another thread at another time.


----------



## Simply_Nikki (Dec 7, 2007)

I wear a necklace of a cross that has the star of david behind it. Is that ok? =\


----------



## Davidius (Dec 7, 2007)

Simply_Nikki said:


> I wear a necklace of a cross that has the star of david behind it. Is that ok? =



I used to have a fish with a star of david in it on the back of my car, but I decided to take it off because the Star of David is not even in the OT and because we are members of the new covenant.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Dec 7, 2007)

Simply_Nikki said:


> I wear a necklace of a cross that has the star of david behind it. Is that ok? =



I have friends that do this, and I've often wondered by Christians would wear a Star of David.


----------



## Casey (Dec 7, 2007)

You might want to see if you can dig up any pre-Reformation quotes to add to your appendix.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 7, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Relevant to my wanting to obtain them, and that they are also some of the key folks noted by those who take exception to LC 109 in Presbytery exams in the OPC and PCA and other conservative denoms in this country. A bit thin skinned today are we not?
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...



But why only highlight two men when this is a problem much deeper in American Reformed circles???


----------



## Romans922 (Dec 7, 2007)

What is the purpose in the cross being a symbol of Christ's death? Are we to celebrate the death of Christ alone, maybe we should get a rock to put around our neck too so that we can celebrate the resurrection. Or if we really want to celebrate the death of Christ with the symbol of the cross, we can put Christ on the cross (not naked cross) but then this would be a violation of the 2nd commandment. 

Now you can also ask what the purpose of having the cross is? What is it for? To remind you of Christ's death? I remember it all the time (every Sunday) and any time I read Scripture, and just in common affairs. Do you really need a cross to remind you of the Gospel or is the Holy Spirit indwelled in you not enough? Just trying to think of reasons why there is a need for it. Is it the most righteous thing you can do? Does it really help you worship God? Or do you end up worshipping the physical cross more than God himself?


----------



## ReformationArt (Dec 7, 2007)

According to Wikipedia , which of course is subject to error, the Star of David came into use during the Middle Ages. So, it is not a biblical symbol, just as the cross is not given to us by God.

It is used to represent national Israel and is the symbol displayed on their flag. When used by Christian it normally symbolizes that the person is a Christian Zionist. This is a Christian political movement that because of their eschatology supports the building up of national Israel in hopes of helping to bring about the second coming of Christ. Many of these churches will display a Jewish flag in their auditorium, and are mostly dispensational. John Hagee, pastor of Cornerstone church in San Antonio is a prominent supporter of this view.


----------



## Davidius (Dec 7, 2007)

ReformationArt said:


> According to Wikipedia , which of course is subject to error, the Star of David came into use during the Middle Ages. So, it is not a biblical symbol, just as the cross is not given to us by God.
> 
> It is used to represent national Israel and is the symbol displayed on their flag. When used by Christian it normally symbolizes that the person is a Christian Zionist. This is a Christian political movement that because of their eschatology supports the building up of national Israel in hopes of helping to bring about the second coming of Christ. Many of these churches will display a Jewish flag in their auditorium, and are mostly dispensational. John Hagee, pastor of Cornerstone church in San Antonio is a prominent supporter of this view.



And he's an arch-heretic.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 7, 2007)

Daniel, 
Highlighting? I can't imagine why you claim that as you can't have any idea what the structure of the paper will be or what other authors will be covered. I mentioned them, and I believe this is the second or third time I've said this, because I need the material from them. I have leads or think I do for much of the rest that I have on my list to date.



Daniel Ritchie said:


> But why only highlight two men when this is a problem much deeper in American Reformed circles???


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 7, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Daniel,
> Highlighting? I can't imagine why you claim that as you can't have any idea what the structure of the paper will be or what other authors will be covered. I mentioned them, and I believe this is the second or third time I've said this, because I need the material from them. I have leads or think I do for much of the rest that I have on my list to date.
> 
> 
> ...



Oh right, your doing a paper on the issue...I see. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 7, 2007)

joshua said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > NaphtaliPress said:
> ...



Basically, I find that those from a Scottish Presbyterian background don't like what these men have to say on other issues, and so instead of dealing with their arguments, they resort to relevance fallacies in order to prejudice people against them. They don't seem to realize that a man can be right on one thing, but wrong on another. Hence, I try to discourage things like that. Its a bit like someone saying because RCs are infant-baptist, therefore infant baptism is wrong. I hope this makes some sense.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 7, 2007)

Also, just in case anyone thinks I am an apologist for everything that has been said or done in the Christian Reconstructionist movement please read this post

Though I would now be more clear in distancing CR from the FV.

And thanks for your thanks Joshua.


----------



## Simply_Nikki (Dec 7, 2007)

Well.. I am by no means a zionist.. I do not hop on on the bandwagon of wantonly "supporting" the state of Israel. But.. I suppose there are multipal purposes I wear it. I have a lot of Jewish friends, who believe Jesus was/is not the Messiah, I wear it as a declaration that Jesus was/is King of the Jews as apart of my witness. Also, because i'm not on the rally around the Jews flag, sometimes I and other Christians will get accused of being anti-semetic, which of course doesn't make sense, since my savior is semetic, so I wear the symbol to show that. I also believe in, what I guess i've heard it called the "grafted in" theology and what Paul talks about what being a true Jew or Israelite entails (being children of the promise, not just of the flesh), so that's another reason I wear it. I also wear it to kind of set myself apart and keep myself accountable. If I'm wearing a cross which people almost automatically tie to being "christian" it's but another way to guard me in what i say and how I behave. Of course the Holy Spirit convicts me with or without wearing the symbol, but as a declaration in letting others know i'm a christian without me having to speak (which i guess is the reason for symbols, expressing words without saying them) is another reason I wear it. 

In a nutshell, my motives are all based on the underlying desire to bring honor and glory to God, in acknowledging his grace, proclaiming his truth, and in procuring another way to be kept accountable for sin. I dunno.. perhaps i'm in error, which as anyone here can testify to.. I have no problem in admitting. I always appreciate loving admonishment with patience and scriptural references to show my error and/or sin.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 7, 2007)

I understand the explanation but lest this be brushed off too lightly, this concern you have obviously got in the way of giving a charitable reading to my words yourself and yet you persisted even after a sufficient explanation was given in my first reply. So please take a bit more care.



Daniel Ritchie said:


> joshua said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 7, 2007)

I missed the apology the first time; it is accepted.


Daniel Ritchie said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel,
> ...


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 7, 2007)

> Relevant to my wanting to obtain them, and that they are also some of the key folks noted by those who take exception to LC 109 in Presbytery exams in the OPC and PCA and other conservative denoms in this country. A bit thin skinned today are we not?



Chris, I would be quite happy to have left it there but as the ninth commandment requires us to maintain our _own_ and our neighbours good name, you did not actually state you were writing a report in that reply. You just said you were wanting to obtain them, not being in the PCA I did not know why. Moreover, surely the best way to avoid confusion and to clear up matters which _might_ be misunderstood it to ask questions?


----------



## ReformationArt (Dec 7, 2007)

Chris,

I found the following in an article by Brian Godawa,

"As Greg Bahnsen warned us, we dare not allow our interpretation of the second commandment to lead us into a docetic diminution of the human reality of the incarnation.2 The Passion is a narrative depiction of Christ�s humanity and His fulfillment of His mission as �the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world� (John 1:29), not an iconic representation of His divinity to worship."

There are no sources cited, unfortunately. 

Also, here are other previous threads
http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/movies-about-Jesus-violate-2nd-commandment-25698/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/pictures-Jesus-9922/
And a major thread from 2002: http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/images-2nd-commandment-3707/
According to the following thread, an Eastern Orthodox view of images was presented at the 2006 SCCS conference: http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/06-scccs-conference-15180/#post195368

Here's the Gentry Quote in a previous thread (although no citation, except that maybe it was transcribed from a tape) http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/2nd-commandment-224/


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 7, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I missed the apology the first time; it is accepted.
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...



Sorry I missed this post when I made my last one...time like this you feel like asking


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 7, 2007)

I explained fully in my first post (cited below for your reading). I had no need to do so again. I'm sorry you missed it and construed this as something it was clearly not in context.


NaphtaliPress said:


> Welcome to the crazy-pictures-of-Jesus-so-called-hating-club Andrew. I will try to grab you paper as it looks like at long last a hopefully significant dealing of this issue will appear in a forthcoming Confessional Presbyterian, probably the 2009 looks like. I need to compile material for it; any suggestions. I have my short list but maybe you know some I don't have.





Daniel Ritchie said:


> > Relevant to my wanting to obtain them, and that they are also some of the key folks noted by those who take exception to LC 109 in Presbytery exams in the OPC and PCA and other conservative denoms in this country. A bit thin skinned today are we not?
> 
> 
> Chris, I would be quite happy to have left it there but as the ninth commandment requires us to maintain our _own_ and our neighbours good name, you did not actually state you were writing a report in that reply. You just said you were wanting to obtain them, not being in the PCA I did not know why. Moreover, surely the best way to avoid confusion and to clear up matters which _might_ be misunderstood it to ask questions?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 7, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I explained fully in my first post (cited below for your reading). I had no need to do so again. I'm sorry you missed it and construed this as something it was clearly not in context.
> 
> 
> NaphtaliPress said:
> ...



Sorry I am confusing the CPJ and PCA...apologies again.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 8, 2007)

This may be slightly  but I remember reading something in one of R.J. Rushdoony's books where he said that the iconoclast controversy in the eastern church was due to political reasons; can anyone shed any light on this?

Whatever the civil authorities motives, I believe they were right to destroy them (if that is what they did).


----------



## tdowns (Dec 8, 2007)

*Does the Ark?*

Does this passage, give any support to the argument, that images, that represent, but are obviously not the exact replica, of a heavenly object, are allowed, because God actually used them.

“You shall make a mercy seat [3] of pure gold. Two cubits and a half shall be its length, and a cubit and a half its breadth. 18 And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. 19 Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end. Of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. 20 The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be. 21 And you shall put the mercy seat on the top of the ark, and in the ark you shall put the testimony that I shall give you. 22 There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are on the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you about all that I will give you in commandment for the people of Israel."

Obviously, the Cherubim, would be false images, because I can't imagine that something made of earthly substances will be an exact image of something in heaven. But they are not a lie, because they just represent that something, in this case Cherubim. So, pictures of Christ, simply, represent, the Man who walked this earth as God. 

I think I've heard this argument somewhere. Just wondering, how the argument, that the images of Christ are a lie, because they are not exactly like him, hold up, based on passage above?

And, despite the fact that it is already overused, since I have yet to use it...


----------



## tcalbrecht (Dec 8, 2007)

tdowns007 said:


> Does this passage, give any support to the argument, that images, that represent, but are obviously not the exact replica, of a heavenly object, are allowed, because God actually used them.
> 
> “You shall make a mercy seat [3] of pure gold. Two cubits and a half shall be its length, and a cubit and a half its breadth. 18 And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. 19 Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end. Of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. 20 The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be. 21 And you shall put the mercy seat on the top of the ark, and in the ark you shall put the testimony that I shall give you. 22 There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are on the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you about all that I will give you in commandment for the people of Israel."
> 
> ...



I believe the answer is that God commanded the making of the images wrt the ark. Moses created the ark after the pattern shown to him on the mountain (Heb. 8:5). The ark and the images were part of the old covenant worship of God.

In contrast, no one has been authorized to make a representation of Christ. No one was shown a comparable "pattern on the mountain" and told to go and make an images after what they saw.

So the lie comes in pretending that something is what it is not.


----------



## kvanlaan (Dec 8, 2007)

OK, sorry, gotta ask - why then are photos OK? 

We are making images, and in some cases we respect the images themselves to a degree (the only surviving photo of a loved one, for example, may be the object of overmuch admiration/attention.) Does the action related to the photo make it wrong, or is photo itself? Or do I just have to get out my Big Book o' Ordnung and see what it says there?


----------



## Bygracealone (Dec 8, 2007)

A sad element to this whole matter is how far the Church has gone astray in her evangelism today. Not only do we have no confidence in the God-ordained means of evangelism via the pulpit, but we've even gone so far as to break the second commandment in order to fulfill the command to evangelize by producing things like the Jesus film or the RCC version of the Passion. For many, the only Jesus they will ever come across is some actor on the big screen. Sad...


----------



## matthew11v25 (Dec 8, 2007)

tdowns007 said:


> I think I've heard this argument somewhere. Just wondering, how the argument, that the images of Christ are a lie, because they are not exactly like him, hold up, based on passage above?
> 
> And, despite the fact that it is already overused, since I have yet to use it...



Not sure I follow (think because I am rushing)...

Heres a stab at pictures of Christ being a "lie". 

I have always thought (I believe Paul Manata used this argument too) that pictures of Christ are Nestorianism (early church heresy involving Christ's nature of God and man). Since Christ is 100% God and 100% man any dividing of the two natures = a false Christ. Since a picture can only attempt to depict the humanity of Christ (I dont know anyone claiming to depict his deity, because NO ONE CAN accurately do so) it divides the nature of Christ. Any depiction therefore is a false depiction of Christ since we would be dividing the union of his two natures. When people in the NT times saw Christ they saw the God/Man, where as people who see "Jesus" in modern pictures (apart from the fact that they most likely do not even look like him) see someone trying to take a stab at what his physically body looked like. I think there are also issues with fallen men trying to depict true beauty, holiness, righteousness, etc.

I personally dont see why we even try to make pictures of Christ (given that we do live in a very visual culture) since we have physical representations in the Lord's Supper and reading the word.

thats my


----------



## ReformationArt (Dec 8, 2007)

Daniel, 

I'm guessing you didn't read my paper, b/c I addressed that question specifically as follows:

In his speech on Mars Hill in Acts 17:29, the apostle Paul says, “Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man.” All so-called images of Jesus that exist today are formed by the art and imagination of man. Because God has chosen to not give us a visible image of the Son by way of a portrait, those who undertake to create one must draw upon art and imagination to do so. 

Such creative activity with regards to all or any of the three persons of the Godhead is forbidden by God in His Word. The result of such activity is that man who is created in God's image seeks now to create God in his (man's) image. So then, Jesus is pictured most often as anything but a first century Jew. To create God in man's image is a form of idolatry, which is addressed by Paul in Romans 1:22-23, “Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.”


----------



## javajedi (Dec 9, 2007)

Thanks Andrew, I downloaded your article, if I have comments I'll pass them on.



ReformationArt said:


> ... or even the symbol of the trinity depicted as three interlocking circles sometimes with a triangle tying them together. ...



What is the problem with this symbol? It is not intended to physically represent the Trinity. [Isn't it on the cover of our Red Trinity hymnals?  ] 

Wouldn't this be like the 'fish' symbol - a Christian symbol not physically representing a person of the Godhead?


----------



## dannyhyde (Dec 9, 2007)

kvanlaan said:


> OK, sorry, gotta ask - why then are photos OK?
> 
> We are making images, and in some cases we respect the images themselves to a degree (the only surviving photo of a loved one, for example, may be the object of overmuch admiration/attention.) Does the action related to the photo make it wrong, or is photo itself? Or do I just have to get out my Big Book o' Ordnung and see what it says there?



The Heidelberg Catechism answers this question, making a distinction between images of God and images of anything else:

97. May we not make any image at all?
God may not and cannot be imaged in any way; as for creatures, though they may indeed be imaged, yet God forbids the making or keeping of any likeness of them, either to worship them or to serve God by them.​


----------



## etexas (Dec 9, 2007)

Is there a difference between a symbol and an image? Megan gave me a small silver cross, I do not worship it, nor do I view it as an image of God. My PB Brethren, I wish for no war on such an issue, but what if any distinction do you make between symbol/Image?


----------



## ReformationArt (Dec 10, 2007)

Wikipedia says, A sign is an entity which signifies another entity. Wikipedia also says that symbols are objects, characters, or other concrete representations of ideas, concepts, or other abstractions. There are other articles on line dealing with the differences, however, for the most part the two words are used interchangabley. 

Dave, the difference between the Trinity symbol and the fish is that one is a visible representation of the godhead, and the other is not. Anytime you point at something (no matter what it is) as a visible representation of God, I believe it is a violation of Scripture. So, the symbol on the cover of the Trinity hymnal bugs me, but I'm not calling for them to be burned either ;-).


----------



## etexas (Dec 10, 2007)

ReformationArt said:


> Wikipedia says, A sign is an entity which signifies another entity. Wikipedia also says that symbols are objects, characters, or other concrete representations of ideas, concepts, or other abstractions. There are other articles on line dealing with the differences, however, for the most part the two words are used interchangabley.
> 
> Dave, the difference between the Trinity symbol and the fish is that one is a visible representation of the godhead, and the other is not. Anytime you point at something (no matter what it is) as a visible representation of God, I believe it is a violation of Scripture. So, the symbol on the cover of the Trinity hymnal bugs me, but I'm not calling for them to be burned either ;-).


So would the silver cross which I view as a symbol of my faith (not an image of the Godhead I do not think God looks like a bit o' silver with four spokes,)so in that light would my cross be an idol, I am not "picking a fight" I truly want a consensus


----------



## SRoper (Dec 10, 2007)

I don't think I agree that the triangle is an image of God. It is merely a symbol of the concept of the Trinity. No one looks at a triangle and says "this is God."


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 10, 2007)

SRoper said:


> I don't think I agree that the triangle is an image of God. It is merely a symbol of the concept of the Trinity. No one looks at a triangle and says "this is God."



While triangles are legitimate in their place, surely when we attach a theological meaning to them - which God does not - we are violating the regulative principle.


----------



## etexas (Dec 10, 2007)

SRoper said:


> I don't think I agree that the triangle is an image of God. It is merely a symbol of the concept of the Trinity. No one looks at a triangle and says "this is God."


I TOTALLY agree! I do seperate a symbol from an image! If I am cruising down the road and I see some 125 yeat old Presbyterian Church with a cross on the steeple I don't stop the SLK and bow to the cross and say "wow man! God!."


----------



## ReformationArt (Dec 10, 2007)

SRoper said:


> I don't think I agree that the triangle is an image of God. It is merely a symbol of the concept of the Trinity. No one looks at a triangle and says "this is God."



This is true, for your average geometric shapes. However, no one looks at a golden calf and says "this is God", that is unless, someone fashions a calf out of gold and says "This IS God." Taking three shapes and constructing them into one joined shape w/ separate parts, as a symbol of the godhead is making an image of the triune God. Again, let's rehearse WLC 109

Q. 109. What sins are forbidden in the second commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself;* 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 pretense whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.

This seems to word things in a very clear and direct way.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Dec 10, 2007)

ReformationArt said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think I agree that the triangle is an image of God. It is merely a symbol of the concept of the Trinity. No one looks at a triangle and says "this is God."
> ...




You did not highlight the entirety of the relevant clause:

* 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; *

The external representation forbidden is any likeness _of any creature whatsoever_. The likeness of a man for Christ or a dove for the Holy Spirit are both forbidden. It says nothing of symbols, e.g., geometric shapes.


----------



## SRoper (Dec 10, 2007)

ReformationArt said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think I agree that the triangle is an image of God. It is merely a symbol of the concept of the Trinity. No one looks at a triangle and says "this is God."
> ...



It seems that there is a difference between the person who made the golden calf and says "this is God" and the person who draws a triangle and says "this represents the concept of the Trinity." The latter is an illustration of a theological concept and not a purported image of God in any or all of his persons.

I wonder, would you be opposed to a teacher in a classroom writing the names "Father," "Son," and "Holy Spirit" on the board in a triangular arrangement? What if he drew a triangle connecting the three names together?


----------



## ReformationArt (Dec 11, 2007)

I do see the gray area, however here are some thoughts. God has chosen to reveal himself to us using words, spoken and written. The Spirit works according to the power of the Word he inspired. 

As to the pedagogical use of drawing connecting lines on the chalk board, that is still something different than creating a symbol/image and calling it God.

Given the very real danger of idolatry, what value do you see in creating and using such images? I suppose it comes down ultimately to a question of the sufficiency of Scripture.


----------



## ReformationArt (Dec 11, 2007)

tcalbrecht said:


> You did not highlight the entirety of the relevant clause:
> 
> * 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; *
> 
> The external representation forbidden is any likeness _of any creature whatsoever_. The likeness of a man for Christ or a dove for the Holy Spirit are both forbidden. It says nothing of symbols, e.g., geometric shapes.



You are correct regarding the wording of the WLC. However, I'm reading that in light of Acts 17:29, which is not limited to simply images of creatures, and is a fuller outworking of the second commandment,



> Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man.



Here, the apostle speaks very broadly of using various media to create images of God, including all things formed by the art and imagination of man. Can we not say that the symbol found on the cover of the Trinity Hymnal was created by a graphic _artist_, from his art an imagination?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 11, 2007)

While he doesn't address the triangle (and is this often presented with rays around it?), James Durham says the following from his lecture on the 2nd commandment:Therefore, upon these grounds, (1) We simply condemn any delineating of God, or the Godhead or Trinity, such as some have upon their buildings, or books, like a sun shining with beams, and the Lord’s name, Jehovah, in it, or any other way. This is most abominable to see, and a heinous wronging of God’s majesty. ​


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 11, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> While he doesn't address the triangle (and is this often presented with rays around it?), James Durham says the following from his lecture on the 2nd commandment:Therefore, upon these grounds, (1) We simply condemn any delineating of God, or the Godhead or Trinity, such as some have upon their buildings, or books, like a sun shining with beams, and the Lord’s name, Jehovah, in it, or any other way. This is most abominable to see, and a heinous wronging of God’s majesty. ​




Yes, to me that is making a visible representation of God which is not authorised in Scripture, hence it is a breach of the regulative principle.


----------



## SRoper (Dec 11, 2007)

ReformationArt said:


> I do see the gray area, however here are some thoughts. God has chosen to reveal himself to us using words, spoken and written. The Spirit works according to the power of the Word he inspired.
> 
> As to the pedagogical use of drawing connecting lines on the chalk board, that is still something different than creating a symbol/image and calling it God.
> 
> Given the very real danger of idolatry, what value do you see in creating and using such images? I suppose it comes down ultimately to a question of the sufficiency of Scripture.



I agree that there is a difference between the teacher's pedagogical use and the creation of an image and calling it God. I just think that the example of the covers of the Trinity Hymnal and Psalter is closer to the former rather than the latter.

I'm not really interested in using symbols to represent the concept of the Trinity; I'm just not ready to condemn the practice of those who do.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Dec 11, 2007)

I was merely trying to point out that the wording of the larger catechism faithfully tracks with the second commandment in identifying the relationship between idolatry and creating images in that form of creatures ("anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth", Exo 5:4; cf. Gen. 1:20-22). 

It's not clear to me that if a person denied the extension to geometric forms and shapes they should be deemed unconfessional in this area.


----------



## ReformationArt (Dec 11, 2007)

Yes, for me it's not a hill to die on. I'm not preparing charges against anybody ;-).

I think the bigger (and clearer) issue is of images of Jesus. I'm surprised at the number of PCA websites I've seen with multiple images of Christ on them.


----------



## ReformationArt (Dec 11, 2007)

Here's one example:
http://www.trinitychurch.cc/

This site is filled with images and symbols
-several images of Jesus (in the site header that shows on every page)
- the "trinity" symbol that we've been discussing
- a dove (not sure if this would be the Holy Spirit image or the Noah's ark one, however it is not clutching the branch which makes me think the former)
- a stick figure nativity (no Jesus picture, but the manger has a halo??)

All of this is on the home page. It seems odd, considering it is a confessional church. Even if one is not convinced that such images are a violation of Scripture, still to post them on an official church website of a denomination that subscribes to WLC 109 seems a bit odd???


----------



## tcalbrecht (Dec 11, 2007)

ReformationArt said:


> Here's one example:
> http://www.trinitychurch.cc/



Your example is an interesting choice. It could be argued whether this congregation fairly represents a truly confessional congregation. E.g., in addition to the pictures of Jesus liberally scattered about the web site, you will also note they are affiliated with the so-called "Redeemer Network," a niche sub-group within the PCA made up of churches connected to Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan. They have a somewhat egalitarian view of women in office, with a "diaconate" made up of both men and women.


----------



## etexas (Dec 11, 2007)

ReformationArt said:


> Yes, for me it's not a hill to die on. I'm not preparing charges against anybody ;-).
> 
> I think the bigger (and clearer) issue is of images of Jesus. I'm surprised at the number of PCA websites I've seen with multiple images of Christ on them.


Unfair "picking on" the PCA, I am rather sure if I did some digging I could find some OPC stuff in violation of RPW.


----------



## etexas (Dec 11, 2007)

ReformationArt said:


> It is a bit of a caricaturization, however, that's my experience. The OPC isn't perfect, however, on this issue I think the PCA has a greater struggle. For instance, I spoke w/ a number of PCA pastors when the movie the Passion of the Christ came out, and asked them about second commandment issues w/ regards to the movie. Several of them had never even thought the two were connected, and had never even given images of Jesus a second thought. I was very surprised (to say the least). Not to mention that a PCA congregation would pay to bus people by the droves to see the film!!!


Thats cool, I am sure there are some PCA congregations that may have made mistakes in this regard, nontheless we should be careful about making sweeping statements, not trying to sound uber-defensive Brother, but as a PCA man myself, you will not find Jesus images on our site nor do we bus people to Jesus films.


----------



## javajedi (Dec 11, 2007)

ReformationArt said:


> Yes, for me it's not a hill to die on. I'm not preparing charges against anybody ;-).
> 
> I think the bigger (and clearer) issue is of images of Jesus...



Andrew, I am still not convinced on the symbol. No one (that I know) is saying that the symbol IS the Trinity or should be worshiped. Un-like the Golden Calf where Aaron said 'this is your god'. You can say 'God' is a symbol for God and have the same problem.

BTW, I looked at the symbol this Sunday and the one on the Trinity Hymnal is different from the Trinity symbol you mentioned, but same applies.

Thanks, though, for the food for thought, it is good to challenge conventional thinking as I do think Christians violate the 2nd commandment too often today, mainly because they have never been taught what the commandment means.


----------

