# A false claim: That it is sinful to say actors impersonating Christ is sin.



## Matthew Willard Lankford (Dec 8, 2013)

There are numerous discussions on the PuritanBoard about the Second Commandment and its prohibition of making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons of the Trinity (see WLC 109. Larger Catechism). This is the historic Christian and Biblical understanding of the Second Commandment, that I'm in agreement with and which sadly has been rejected by many professing Christians. My question today springs from a claim made by a Baptist Pastor, but who identifies with Calvinism and Reformed Theology, who responded to a tweet I made last month (not directed at him in particular). 

My original message was regarding a movie being advertised: "If you "Like" @D_Morgado being called "Son of God" repent of that blasphemy. #falsechrist #anotherjesus Turn to the Christ of the Bible." To which he responded that I was "flirting with blasphemy" and "handing down judgment" that is not mine to give and that I can't condemn others of it. He also claimed that making a movie about Christ isn't idol worship. His main argument was that "you cannot show me in scripture that a movie portrayal of Christ is idol worship. That is why you cannot judge someone" and "we must remain silent where scripture does not speak" and therefore he said I was being very sinful and that I need to repent. He also tweeted my pastor and said he should talk to me about this. As a friend of mine observed, Protestantism has come a long way. Now it tends to see images of the Lord as truly representing the Lord; and those who oppose them as opposing the Lord.

My response to the Pastor was that believers have a duty to judge based on God's Word, but that I never said I can damn others. And though he denies it, an actor impersonating Christ breaks the Lord's Law and God commands all men everywhere to repent of idolatry and to keep ourselves from idols. I asked the Pastor a question that was aptly raised by Dr. Alan Cairns in one of his sermons: "Should a Christian ever be invited to think of Christ apart from any context of worship?" The Pastor never answered the question. I also made the point to him Puritan Thomas Vincent made concerning purported images of Christ, if it does not stir up devotion, it is in vain; if it does, it is a worshipping by an image. I also told the Pastor that Scripture speaks, but that he was unable/unwilling to hear. God will not give His glorious name to idols. Isa. 42:8; 48:11; Ex. 20:7 (there are other Scriptures that speak to this matter e.g. "whose name alone is the LORD" (Ps 83:18) Creatures shouldn't arrogate Jehovah's incommunicable name. And Heb 1:4-5 says that Jesus' name "the Son of God" is His excellent and peculiar name)

But my response to the Pastor's main argument that we should "remain silent where scripture does not speak" was that there is no Bible warrant to play Christ and that it adds to the Biblical revelation of Christ. And this comes to my question (I'm interested in hearing the PuritanBoard member responses): *In what ways do movies with actors who impersonate Christ go beyond Scripture (speaking where Scripture does not speak) and add or subtract from the Biblical revelation of Christ and what God has commanded? *

A dear friend observed, "Pictures "de-present" Christ—much more than they "re-present" him."


----------



## nick (Dec 8, 2013)

It goes beyond it by providing details that God, in his infinite wisdom, chose to leave out.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 8, 2013)

They are purported images of the Image of God. This Image is ministered to us by the Word of God and the Spirit of God. These images/"images" are bound to obscure that Image, especially if believed in or taken seriously. See e.g. II Corinthians 3:18.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## lynnie (Dec 8, 2013)

I once asked a (confessional, conservative) PCA pastor where he was at about this subject, in regards to kiddie books and materials with pictures of Jesus in the bible stories. He was in a Presbytery with one pastor extending a warm welcome to Pete Enns, and one guy in his church (going to Reformed Seminary) being drawn to the Federal Vision, and the closest church in the Presbytery harping on politics all the time. His response to me was that he had so many battles to fight that this subject wasn't even on his radar.

We have friends working with tribal people in Africa, and showing them the Jesus movie somebody translated into the native language. The people can't read or write, but they will glue themselves to a little screen watching this, and it is the first exposure to scripture of any sort they have ever had. Our friends are working hard to learn the language and parts of the bible are translated phonetically already ( their language is not written) but right now the Jesus movie is the main outreach. You want to call that blasphemy go ahead. I see it more as us living in a very fallen and imperfect world with imperfect churches and imperfect evangelism and imperfect people, with multitudes lost and on their way to hell. 

America? No, movies are not necessary. More prayer for the lost and a lot less media is what America needs.


----------



## Tim (Dec 8, 2013)

lynnie said:


> right now the Jesus movie is the main outreach. You want to call that blasphemy go ahead



Lynnie, it is indeed blasphemy, according to the confessional standards of the Puritan Board. Please tell me that you are not supportive of the Jesus Movie for any culture.


----------



## Jack K (Dec 8, 2013)

Even believers who don't think the Second Commandment applies directly to pictures of Christ ought to be able to see that no actor's portrayal could ever do him justice. That's the argument I would use with most believers I know. They can readily understand that one.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 9, 2013)

lynnie said:


> I once asked a (confessional, conservative) PCA pastor where he was at about this subject, in regards to kiddie books and materials with pictures of Jesus in the bible stories. He was in a Presbytery with one pastor extending a warm welcome to Pete Enns, and one guy in his church (going to Reformed Seminary) being drawn to the Federal Vision, and the closest church in the Presbytery harping on politics all the time. His response to me was that he had so many battles to fight that this subject wasn't even on his radar.
> 
> We have friends working with tribal people in Africa, and showing them the Jesus movie somebody translated into the native language. The people can't read or write, but they will glue themselves to a little screen watching this, and it is the first exposure to scripture of any sort they have ever had. Our friends are working hard to learn the language and parts of the bible are translated phonetically already ( their language is not written) but right now the Jesus movie is the main outreach. You want to call that blasphemy go ahead. I see it more as us living in a very fallen and imperfect world with imperfect churches and imperfect evangelism and imperfect people, with multitudes lost and on their way to hell.
> 
> America? No, movies are not necessary. More prayer for the lost and a lot less media is what America needs.



I'm sure the Lord can and does use films like this in the salvation of souls; they are full of God's Word. That doesn't mean that from the perspective of God's Word and the Second Commandment they are less than what they should be I.e. it is wrong to have someone portraying Jesus in the film thus putting an image - and undoubtedly an inaccurate one - in front of the Image of God.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Cymro (Dec 9, 2013)

Listening to the BBC news programme which interviewed President Carter, I was impressed by his
forthright answer to a question about the life of Mandela, being a friend of his. They were likening
Mandela to a modern day Moses, or even to Jesus Christ. He replied., I am a Christian, and no man however
good and great a man is, no one is to be compared to Him, because He is God incarnate." Then how much less
an actor can portray the " Mystery of godliness, God manifest in the flesh." I think it is blasphemy


----------



## JimmyH (Dec 9, 2013)

Jack K said:


> Even believers who don't think the Second Commandment applies directly to pictures of Christ ought to be able to see that no actor's portrayal could ever do him justice. That's the argument I would use with most believers I know. They can readily understand that one.



Before I became acquainted with reformed theology, and the WCF, I was used to seeing those prints of famous, and not so famous, paintings of our Lord. They invariably portrayed him as being very handsome while I read in Isaiah 53:2 He hath no form nor comeliness: and when we shall see Him, _there is_ no beauty that we should desire Him.

When Mel Gibson's "The Passion" came out in theaters, and later on DVD, many believers encouraged me to see the movie but I never would. TBH I'd like to say it was because I was obeying the second commandment, but at that time I didn't associate 'images' with the prohibition unless they were confirmed idols. I've always been uncomfortable with the way Hollywood portrayed religious themes and certainly wasn't going to expose myself to that film. Many evangelicals seem to have thought it was de rigueur to see it though.


----------



## Frosty (Dec 9, 2013)

Cymro said:


> Listening to the BBC news programme which interviewed President Carter, I was impressed by his
> forthright answer to a question about the life of Mandela, being a friend of his. They were likening
> Mandela to a modern day Moses, or even to Jesus Christ. He replied., I am a Christian, and no man however
> good and great a man is, no one is to be compared to Him, because He is God incarnate." Then how much less
> an actor can portray the " Mystery of godliness, God manifest in the flesh." I think it is blasphemy



Wow. That really was a great answer.

Good Christian men don't necessarily make good presidents, eh?


----------



## Andres (Dec 9, 2013)

Matthew Willard Lankford said:


> In what ways do movies with actors who impersonate Christ go beyond Scripture (speaking where Scripture does not speak) and add or subtract from the Biblical revelation of Christ and what God has commanded?



Someone on the board shared this in a previous thread discussing the 2nd commandment. My apologies as I don't recall who originally shared it, but the best argument I've heard against images of God is, if an image stirs to worship God, it is a violation of God's second commandment; if it doesn't stir to devotion, it is a violation of the third. There is simply no way to justify a purported image of God.



lynnie said:


> We have friends working with tribal people in Africa, and showing them the Jesus movie somebody translated into the native language. The people can't read or write, but they will glue themselves to a little screen watching this, and it is the first exposure to scripture of any sort they have ever had. Our friends are working hard to learn the language and parts of the bible are translated phonetically already ( their language is not written) but right now the Jesus movie is the main outreach. You want to call that blasphemy go ahead.



Pastor Ruddell once remarked: "It is very clear in Scripture that outcomes belong to God and means belong to us". Your line of thinking, dear sister, is completely pragmatic and cannot be justified for those reasons.


----------



## Matthew Willard Lankford (Dec 9, 2013)

Andrew, this is the quote by Thomas Vincent (I think John Murray carried the same thought here: Pictures of Christ and the Second Commandment - John Murray - Reformed Literature):



> It is not lawful to have pictures of Jesus Christ, because his divine nature cannot be pictured at all; and because his body, as it is now glorified, cannot be pictured as it is; and because, if it do not stir up devotion, it is in vain; if it stir up devotion, it is a worshipping by an image or picture, and so a palpable breach of the second commandment.



In regards to the discussion about images being used to teach, it is important to understand that, Biblically, images are teachers of lies cf. Romans 1:23-25; Jeremiah 2:11; 10:8, 14; 51:17; Habbakuk 2:18. Also, I like Andreas Karlstadt's advice:



> If someone should come along and say that images teach and instruct lay persons, just as books do scholars, you must answer, "God prohibited images, therefore I intend to learn nothing from them."



And Stephen Charnock:



> Suppose we could make such an image of God as might perfectly represent him; yet since God hath prohibited it, shall we be wiser than God?



With that said, while I think it is a very important topic, it would be better to discuss more fully on a different post sometime, as I'm not asking my question to debate whether it is lawful or unlawful to have actors impersonate Christ. The question is primarily asked to those who already understand the such a thing is prohibited. I'd appreciate refocusing on the question: *In what ways do movies with actors who impersonate Christ go beyond Scripture (speaking where Scripture does not speak) and add or subtract from the Biblical revelation of Christ and what God has commanded? *

I appreciate the contributions already made! Thanks!


----------



## Cymro (Dec 10, 2013)

What saith Isaiah, 40:18 & 25?
"To whom then will ye liken God?
or what likeness will ye compare unto Him?"


----------



## stephen2 (Dec 11, 2013)

lynnie said:


> I once asked a (confessional, conservative) PCA pastor where he was at about this subject, in regards to kiddie books and materials with pictures of Jesus in the bible stories. He was in a Presbytery with one pastor extending a warm welcome to Pete Enns, and one guy in his church (going to Reformed Seminary) being drawn to the Federal Vision, and the closest church in the Presbytery harping on politics all the time. His response to me was that he had so many battles to fight that this subject wasn't even on his radar.
> 
> We have friends working with tribal people in Africa, and showing them the Jesus movie somebody translated into the native language. The people can't read or write, but they will glue themselves to a little screen watching this, and it is the first exposure to scripture of any sort they have ever had. Our friends are working hard to learn the language and parts of the bible are translated phonetically already ( their language is not written) but right now the Jesus movie is the main outreach. You want to call that blasphemy go ahead. I see it more as us living in a very fallen and imperfect world with imperfect churches and imperfect evangelism and imperfect people, with multitudes lost and on their way to hell.
> 
> America? No, movies are not necessary. More prayer for the lost and a lot less media is what America needs.



Others have already responded to this but I wanted to add something. I have often heard statements/comments like those of the pastor you mentioned who said


> he had so many battles to fight that this subject wasn't even on his radar.


 The truth is, it is the very nature of our sinfulness that there are many things off our 'radar' that are yet very much on God's 'radar'. Take the widespread enthusiasm for Nelson Mandela. Part of it is sheer ignorance, but some of the explanation has to do with the way that man (with some consistency) lived out his secular humanism. He was fighting the battles and speaking out on the issues that are on the radar of your average North American secular humanist (which is most everybody). The trouble with humanism, of course, is that at its very best it never goes beyond _man_ and his concerns. As Malachi put it, "A son honors his father, And a servant his master. If then I am the Father, Where is My honor? And if I am a Master, Where is my reverence? Says the LORD of hosts." The question of images may be off this minister's radar because of a host of issues that seem (to him) more pressing and even more important, but notice that we are talking about the 2nd commandment. How (and under what circumstances) can we ever say that that a commandment issue should _not_ have priority? 

Sadly, the Church seems to have fallen in step with the world. We are far more concerned with the last 6 commandments than we are with the first 4. I often hear things like, "So long as there are starving children in the world, I'm not going to worry my head about details of Sabbath keeping." While quoting the minister who said there are more important matters, you also mentioned the value of a Jesus movie for those who cannot read the Bible. The argument in this case is for expediency. Get the message out however you can and never mind the medium. But you notice at the back of both concerns is a preoccupation with human concerns. There's a concern for the lost (for example) but where's the concern for the honour and glory of God?

I wonder if you have ever noticed that Mormons and JWs love pictures of Jesus. They are actually quite consistent. They have pictures of Jesus because they do not believe He is God. We believe He is God, so why do we draw Him, paint Him and portray Him on screen? Are we merely inconsistent or unbelieving, or is it that having come under the influence of a humanistic agenda we have given such priority to the last 6 commandments that we have all but forgotten the first 4? 

Lynnie, I do believe this is a subject that deserves careful thought, attention and time just because it _is_ a 2nd commandment issue. You wouldn't think of dismissing the debate over same-sex marriage as less important or less pressing nor for the sake of expediency would you allow it. For the same reasons I would urge you to treat the question of images with the same care and prayerfulness. 

Matthew, I agree with Nick:


> It goes beyond it by providing details that God, in his infinite wisdom, chose to leave out.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 11, 2013)

Faith is only swallowed up by sight at the end. In this age of faith in the Image of God, such images at best obscure the Image rather clarify it. 

Even if we really knew what Jesus looked like, which we don't, we would need authority from the Image of God to make images of Him.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## jandrusk (Dec 11, 2013)

In addition to what has already been stated, I usually mention that outside the Transfiguration, there is reason no physical attributes are provided in the Bible about Christ. The authors knew that doing so would violate God's word and law.


----------



## BobVigneault (Dec 13, 2013)

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. *DO THIS* *IN REMEMBRANCE* of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. *DO THIS*, as often as you drink it, *IN REMEMBRANCE* of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

(1 Corinthians 11:23-26 ESV)


----------



## earl40 (Dec 13, 2013)

BobVigneault said:


> For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. *DO THIS* *IN REMEMBRANCE* of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. *DO THIS*, as often as you drink it, *IN REMEMBRANCE* of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
> 
> (1 Corinthians 11:23-26 ESV)



Is it a sin to remember that it was a body that died and it was blood that was shed and the bread and wine are symbols of those realities? In other words, is it a sin to have a picture in ones mind of the tangible aspects of the incarnation?


----------



## Tim (Dec 13, 2013)

earl40 said:


> Is it a sin to remember that it was a body that died and it was blood that was shed and the bread and wine are symbols of those realities?



No. Doing this using the God-ordained symbols is not a sin. 



earl40 said:


> In other words, is it a sin to have a picture in ones mind of the tangible aspects of the incarnation?



Yes. It is a sin to make a picture of the incarnated Second Person of the Trinity. A picture in one's mind is still a picture. See here:



> 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.


----------



## kodos (Dec 13, 2013)

One would think that God never saved a single tribal person before the advent (no pun intended) of televisions. He has given us His Word, and given us the means by which we are to communicate God's Grace. If we are not faithful in doing what He has said, then perhaps we are the problem and not the means being used.

Anything else is falling to temptation to sin, and is not trusting in God's Sovereignty to save His People. See 1 Corinthians 10. 



lynnie said:


> I once asked a (confessional, conservative) PCA pastor where he was at about this subject, in regards to kiddie books and materials with pictures of Jesus in the bible stories. He was in a Presbytery with one pastor extending a warm welcome to Pete Enns, and one guy in his church (going to Reformed Seminary) being drawn to the Federal Vision, and the closest church in the Presbytery harping on politics all the time. His response to me was that he had so many battles to fight that this subject wasn't even on his radar.
> 
> We have friends working with tribal people in Africa, and showing them the Jesus movie somebody translated into the native language. The people can't read or write, but they will glue themselves to a little screen watching this, and it is the first exposure to scripture of any sort they have ever had. Our friends are working hard to learn the language and parts of the bible are translated phonetically already ( their language is not written) but right now the Jesus movie is the main outreach. You want to call that blasphemy go ahead. I see it more as us living in a very fallen and imperfect world with imperfect churches and imperfect evangelism and imperfect people, with multitudes lost and on their way to hell.
> 
> America? No, movies are not necessary. More prayer for the lost and a lot less media is what America needs.


----------



## sevenzedek (Dec 13, 2013)

earl40 said:


> BobVigneault said:
> 
> 
> > For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. *DO THIS* *IN REMEMBRANCE* of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. *DO THIS*, as often as you drink it, *IN REMEMBRANCE* of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
> ...



Perhaps there is some room for interpretation regarding the Scriptures and the confession on this matter of images. If the word of God says it, we can imagine in it, however, we should not go beyond what the word explicitly describes. For instance, the Scripture reads of Jesus hanging on a cross. It would be right the have a generic image of a body on the cross, but nowhere in the Scriptures is there any precise description of his face or body. Some will disagree; forcing upon their minds blank thoughts as they read through passages describing Jesus walking, weeping, and glowing. That is their business because of their conscience. Jerusalem blade had a post suggesting something similar to this in a thread not too long ago, but I can't remember the name of that thread.


----------



## earl40 (Dec 13, 2013)

sevenzedek said:


> Perhaps there is some room for interpretation regarding the Scriptures and the confession on this matter of images. If the word of God says it, we can imagine in it, however, we should not go beyond what the word explicitly describes. For instance, the Scripture reads of Jesus hanging on a cross. It would be right the have a generic image of a body on the cross, but nowhere in the Scriptures is there any precise description of his face or body. Some will disagree; forcing upon their minds blank thoughts as they read through passages describing Jesus walking, weeping, and glowing. That is their business because of their conscience. Jerusalem blade had a post suggesting something similar to this in a thread not too long ago, but I can't remember the name of that thread.



I agree and find it interesting that Our Lord Jesus gave us physical signs to not only see, but also taste and smell. Also The Holy Spirit gave us images in scripture of Jesus that In my most humble opinion can only cause our minds eye to imagine contrary to what brother Steve says. Now in stating this I in no way advocate attempting to paint, in my minds eye or on canvas, an image which I think looks like The Lord as we can see on a picture.


----------



## sevenzedek (Dec 13, 2013)

Earl,

I should clarify what I was saying about Jerusalem Blade's "lost" post. He seemed to be on the same page as me when I was explaining what Scripture seems to allow. His name _is_ Steve, right?

I think I agree with you concerning this issue, but I want to double-underscore that I do not see it allowable to go beyond what Scripture gives us concerning Jesus. At best, these imaginations are vague; as vague as the descriptions we are given in the word. Can it be truly said that we form the image in the first place when it is the Scriptures themselves that describe and provoke such literary imagery? I believe we are to respond intelligently to such literary imagery so that we may understand the context. I don't gloss over such descriptions of Jesus in the reading of my Bible. I use them. But beyond that, I must go no further. To go further is to invent what God has not given us in his word.


----------



## Tim (Dec 13, 2013)

sevenzedek said:


> literary imagery



Jon, what do you mean by _literary imagery_? Can you give an example?


----------



## sevenzedek (Dec 13, 2013)

Tim said:


> sevenzedek said:
> 
> 
> > literary imagery
> ...



Matthew 8:3 (KJV)
And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 13, 2013)

sevenzedek said:


> Tim said:
> 
> 
> > sevenzedek said:
> ...



We're also told in the book of Isaiah that our Lord had a beard, but I agree that these descriptions are not specific or complete enough that we could construct a mental image of what our Lord looked like in distinction to other men. Unless we're going to invent things, like the religious artists, we're left with a "blank" in this area of "visualising" Christ, and that is the way the Holy Spirit intended it to be.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## earl40 (Dec 13, 2013)

Peairtach said:


> sevenzedek said:
> 
> 
> > Tim said:
> ...



What I have seen is a depiction of a man on a cross that looks like the liquid metal man from The Terminator just before he takes shape into person he comes in contact with. That is about as far as I have "imagined" Jesus in a sense, which of course looks nothing like Him other than He is _a man_ who died for our sin.


----------



## lynnie (Dec 13, 2013)

I appreciate all the concern for me, but I am in the minority of people who believe that the 2nd commandment forbids images that are used for worship:

_So watch yourselves carefully, since you did not see any form on the day Yahweh spoke to you at Horeb [i.e., Mt. Sinai] from the midst of the fire; lest you act corruptly and make a graven image for yourselves in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the sky, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water below the earth.
_

If I was going to get away from any picture anywhere of any person, any animal, any bird, etc, I would have to gouge my eyes out. Seriously. You have no photos at all, of anything? No wedding pictures? I can't have my field guide to identify birds? 

My PCA experience is that exceptions are allowed for this position. That does not make the PCA right, but it does mean that at least in some confessional circles it is an allowed exception. We reject any images used to worship God or to try and present the Lord as He currently is ( John describes him in Revelation in His glory). Those paintings hanging in front of a church of the sweet long haired shepherd are not OK. 


The people I know using the Jesus movie must certainly try in whatever limited form they can to explain that he rose from the dead and went to heaven and now is this way:_ His eyes were like a flame of fire; and His feet were like burnished bronze, when it had been caused to glow in a furnace, and His voice was like the sound of many waters. And in His right hand He held seven stars, and out of His mouth came a sharp two-edged sword; and His face was like the sun shining in its strength. And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as a dead man. _

Instead of jumping all over me I wonder how many of you prayed for our missionaries to get help from the Holy Spirit with language study and in translation. It is tough when people cannot read or write and their language is only oral, not written. I took a course in sign language last year and it reminded me just how complicated it is to learn the basic words and grammar structure in a language enough even to talk about Jesus Christ a little bit. 

I understand that this is a confessional board and I don't want to get a time out or whatever you call it. I certainly respect all of you who are against any pictures of Jesus as a man during his earthly ministry. I understand that many of the PCA people are not 100% confessional but this board is or is supposed to be ( I asked out of curiosity a short while back if anybody was 100%. I actually appreciate those who are....at this point I feel like it is wrong to say you are confessional and start taking all kinds of exceptions, so I now say I am quasi confessional if somebody asks. My former PCA experience started driving me nuts, especially in my presbytery with a church where Pete Enns was fine, and others with women deacons and evolution. I mean what is the point of saying you hold to the WCF and then have all kinds of exceptions.) 

Again, I deeply appreciate the concern, but this debate is not new to me and I've heard it argued plenty of times and I am in the minority who think the command refers to worship. I freely admit that my position is non confessional and I hope I don't get kicked out  I also hope this is helpful to new people who don't get it that the PCA is NOT in many cases confessional about things held dear here. I also hope you pray for unreached tribal people. Our friends say that the ones they work with have no electric and no plumbing but some of them managed to get satellites and solar panels to hook up and watch p0rn. Its pretty bad out there. 

Thanks again for all the concern.


----------



## Matthew Willard Lankford (Dec 14, 2013)

lynnie said:


> I also hope you pray for unreached tribal people. Our friends say that the ones they work with have no electric and no plumbing but some of them managed to get satellites and solar panels to hook up and watch p0rn. Its pretty bad out there.
> 
> Thanks again for all the concern.



Yes, let's pray for the tribal people and the missionaries, but let's also make sure we are praying aright. Romans 1:23-32 shows that when people exchange the glory of God for images, God gives them over to corrupt themselves sexually and ethically. The church seems unaware of a cause and effect relationship between exchanging the glory of God for images and the moral chaos that follows. Sadly, it seems like the majority of modern American Christianity exports the false images to the rest of the world! I don't think there should be much of a surprise that the tribal people taught by false images morally corrupt themselves. May God send a revival of righteousness and grant the church repentance! 

Here is an exposition of Romans 1:24-27 by Dr. François Turretini (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 653-655) that may be useful:



> Whether sin can be the punishment of sin. We affirm.



[...]



> Proof that sin is the punishment of sin, [...] from Rom. 1:24-27 where God, as a punishment of the idolatry of the Gentiles, is said to have given them up to foul lusts and to a reprobate mind (dia touto paredōken autous ho Theos): "for this cause" (viz., on account of idolatry spoken of in v. 25) "God gave them up unto vile affections . . . receiving in themselves that recompense (antimisthian) of their error which was meet." Thus I infer: this change of the natural use of their bodies into vile lust against nature is a just recompense (antimisthia) for the idolatrous change of the glory of God into the glory of the creature and of the truth of God into a lie; this is sin and at the same time the punishment of their sin. Now this "impurity" (akatharsia) and "shamelessness" (aschēmosynē) (foul sin) is called the "recompense" (antimisthia) of the preceding wickedness. Similar to this is the other passage where God is said "to have sent them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie; that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness" (2 Thess. 2:11, 12*). For what God inflicts upon men because they have not received the love of the truth (that not believing the truth they might be condemned) must be penal. Nor can it be said that such sins are called punishment by a metonymy of the cause because they are deserving of greater punishment (as Arminius wishes). It is one thing to deserve a new punishment; quite another to be itself punishment and the just recompense of crime (which is here said of the crimes of the Gentiles).



[...]



> It is not absurd that of one and the same thing there should be contrary differences, if they are contrary and diverse relations according to which both can be predicated of it in different relations (kat' allo kai allo) (as man can be called mortal and immortal in different respects). The same action can be called both praiseworthy and just on the part of God decreeing it for punishment and so be blamed and unjust on the part of man committing it as sin. The horrible lusts of the Gentiles were just with respect God inasmuch as he gave over the nations to them as a just recompense (antimisthian) of preceding sins. Hence it is added that it "behooved them" to suffer it. Yet they were unjust with respect to the Gentiles. Hence they are said to have done "those things which are not convenient" (ta mē kathēkonta).



Again, I'm not asking my question to debate whether it is lawful or unlawful to have actors impersonate Christ. The question is primarily asked to those who already understand the such a thing is prohibited. I'd appreciate refocusing on the question: *In what ways do movies with actors who impersonate Christ go beyond Scripture (speaking where Scripture does not speak) and add or subtract from the Biblical revelation of Christ and what God has commanded?*

I appreciate the contributions!


----------



## Cymro (Dec 15, 2013)

Coming to the end of Richard Daniels book on the
Christology of John Owen, I read this :- Owen believed, 
"that any man-made form, no matter how beautiful, no
matter what its reputation for illustrating the glory of Christ,
dishonoured Christ by inevitably obscuring His true glory. This glory could not be represented with man's arts, but could only be known through the word of the Gospel.
By the way its an excellent read.


----------



## Matthew Willard Lankford (Dec 15, 2013)

Cymro said:


> Coming to the end of Richard Daniels book on the
> Christology of John Owen, I read this :- Owen believed,
> "that any man-made form, no matter how beautiful, no
> matter what its reputation for illustrating the glory of Christ,
> ...



Thanks for sharing, Jeff! Here are some relevant selections from John Owen's work:

"He who lives in the exercise of Faith and Love in the Lord Jesus Christ, as revealed in the Gospel, as evidently crucified, and evidently exalted therein, and finds the fruit of his so doing in his own Soul; will be preserved in the time of Trial. Without this, men will at last begin to think that it is better to have a false Christ than none at all; they will suppose that something is to be found in an Image, when they can find nothing in the Gospel."~John Owen

"The glory that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the real actual possession of in heaven can be no otherwise seen or apprehended in this world, but in the light of faith fixing itself on divine revelation. To behold this glory of Christ is not an act of fancy or imagination. It does not consist in framing unto ourselves the shape of a glorious person in heaven. But the steady exercise of faith on the revelation and description made of this glory of Christ in the Scripture, is the ground, rule, and measure, of all divine meditations thereon."~John Owen

"It is no work of fancy or imagination; it is not the feigning images in our minds, of such things as are meet to satisfy our carnal affection, to excite and act them; but it is a due adherence unto that object which is represented unto faith in the proposal of the gospel. Therein, as in a glass, do we behold the glory of Christ, who is the image of the invisible God, and have our souls filled with transforming affections unto him."~John Owen

"But the ancient Christians told those men the truth; namely, that as they had feigned unto themselves an imaginary Christ, so they should have an imaginary salvation only."~John Owen

"But that which is produced by an image, is but an image; an imaginary Christ will effect nothing in the minds of men, but imaginary grace."~John Owen

"The shadow or image of this glory of Christ is drawn in the gospel, and therein we behold it as the likeness of a man represented unto us in a glass; and although it be obscure and imperfect in comparison of his own real, substantial glory, which is the object of vision in heaven ; yet is it the only image and representation of himself, which he hath left, and given unto us in this world. That woeful cursed invention of framing images of him out of stocks and stones, however adorned, or representations of him by the art of painting, are so far from presenting unto the minds of men any thing of his real glory, that nothing can be more effectual to divert their thoughts and apprehensions from it. But by this figurative expression of seeing in a glass, the Apostle declares the comparative imperfection of our present view of the glory of Christ."~John Owen

"And therefore those who dream of his personal reign on the earth before the day of judgment, unless they suppose that all the saints shall be perfectly glorified also, (which is only to bring down heaven to the earth for a while, to no purpose), provide not at all for the edification or consolation of the church ; for no present grace advanced unto the highest degree whereof in this world it is capable, can make us meet for an immediate converse with Christ in his unvailed glory.

How much more abominable is the folly of men, who would represent the Lord Christ in his present glory by pictures and images of him? When they have done their utmost with their burnished glass and gildings, an eye of flesh can not only behold it, but if it be guided by reason, see if contemptible and foolish. But the true glory of Christ neither inward nor outward sight can bear the rays of in this life.

The dispensation which we are meet for, is only that of his 'presence with us by the Spirit. We know him now no more after the flesh,' 2 Cor. v. 16. We are advanced above that way and means "of the knowledge of him by the fleshly carnal ordinances of the Old Testament. And we know him not according unto that bodily presence of his, which his disciples enjoyed in the days of his flesh. We have attained somewhat above that also : for such was the nature of his ministry here on earth, that there could not be the promised dispensation of the Spirit until that was finished. Therefore he tells his disciples, that 'it was expedient for him that he should go away and send the Spirit to them,' John xvi. 7. Hereon they had a clearer view of the glory of Christ, than they could have by beholding him in the flesh. This is our spiritual posture and condition. We are past the knowledge of him according to the flesh; we cannot attain nor receive the sight of him in glory; but 'the lite which we now lead, is by the faith of the Son of God.'"~John Owen

“So do the Papists delude themselves. Their carnal affections are excited by their outward senses to delight in images of Christ,—in his sufferings, his resurrection, and glory above. Hereon they satisfy themselves that they behold the glory of Christ himself and that with love and great delight. But whereas there is not the least true representation made of the Lord Christ or his glory in these things,—that being confined absolutely unto the gospel alone, and this way of attempting it being laid under a severe interdict,—they do but sport themselves with their own deceivings.”~John Owen

“This, therefore, is evident, that the introduction of this abomination, in principle and practice destructive unto the souls of men, took its rise from the loss of an experience of the representation of Christ in the gospel, and the transforming power in the minds of men which it is accompanied with, in them that believe. We may have seen hence the vanity as well as the idolatry of them who would represent Christ in glory as the object of our adoration in pictures and images. They fashion wood or stone into a likeness of a man. They adorn it with colors and flourishes of art, to set it forth unto the senses and fancies of superstitious person as having a resemblance of glory. And when they have done, the lavish gold out of the bag, as the prophets speaks, and so propose it as an image or resemblance of Christ in glory. But what is there in it that hath the least respect thereunto,—the least likeness of it?, nay, is it not the most effectual means that can be derived to divert the mind of men from true and real apprehensions of it? Doth it teach anything of the subsistence of the human nature of Christ in the person of the Son of God? Nay, it doth it obliterate all thought of it! What is represented thereby of the union of it unto God, and the immediate communications of God unto it? Doth it declare the manifestation of all the glorious properties of the divine nature in him? Persons who know not what it is to live by faith may be pleased for a time, and ruined for ever, by these delusions. Those who have real faith in Christ, and love unto him, have a more glorious object for their exercise.”~John Owen

"It is the eye of faith alone that can see this King in his beauty."~John Owen


----------



## thatbrian (Dec 15, 2013)

"Why are traditional Reformed churches struggling?" That was the title of a thread here back in October. One excellent response was:

"1. Some traditional Reformed churches are smug. Not only do they insist on practices that even other traditional Reformed folks sometimes disagree about, but they take their superior practices as a source of pride. They may say outwardly that they're patient with those who don't get it, but inwardly they're smug... and visitors can tell. Smugness is not only a turn off; it reveals spiritual immaturity.

2. Some traditional Reformed churches are insular. They wait for outsiders to come to them (and are critical when no one just shows up out of the blue), but they seldom go out into their communities to be a church engaged with the world. Their first instinct is to protect themselves from evil, outside influences... and only as a secondary thought do they consider going out to engage others—and then always warily, defensively, or even combatively. In addition, not only do their services befuddle visitors, the insular tone of the gathering makes those visitors feel like it'd take forever to fit in. These churches are so wary of being "seeker friendly" that they do little to avoid being confusing or cold to seekers.

3. Some traditional Reformed churches put theological correctness so far ahead of loving kindness that love is all but lost. Though they rightly see the great importance of correct theology, they forget that Jesus said his disciples would be known to the world by their love for each other. They think their correct theology and proper worship should be enough to commend them to men—forgetting that isn't what Jesus said. Although there may be deep love within the church's inner circle, any newcomers who happen to arrive are treated with a measure of suspicion until they prove they're kosher Reformed.

4. Some traditional Reformed churches (not so many anymore, I think, but still some) have forgotten to be captivated by Jesus. They easily get cerebral. They defiantly continue to preach the law. They harp on the doctrines of grace. But they're so determined think better and act better and confess better that they end up viewing the Savior aloofly, from a thoughtful distance; seldom being simply delighted in the marvelous Person they know. Where Jesus the person (not just the doctrine) is seldom preached, other churches must resort to bells and whistles. Traditional Reformed churches rightly eschew such showiness, but some fail to actually delight in the better alternative. They're more about being anti-showy than they are about being pro-Jesus.

Now, if I were to move to a new town and search for a church to join, I'd surely look at some traditional Reformed churches if there were any. I'd look for correct theology and proper worship. But I'd also look for humility, sense of mission, love, and delight in Jesus—and I should look for such things. Some traditional Reformed churches would not get me as a member because they would fail the second half of that test."
_______________________________________________________________________________________

After reading this thread, I can certainly say AMEN to the above. If the majority of folks here think that portraying Christ in a movie is blasphemy, I'm just about ready to turn in my Reformed membership card. . . And, it certainly goes a long way in explaining why many reformed churches are dying. The persnickety nature of most of us (yes, me too) can really detract from Christ, His glory, His gospel, and His church.

Can folks not see the difference between creating an idol for the purpose of worshipping it and the retelling the story of Christ's birth, death, and resurrection using film???


----------



## thatbrian (Dec 15, 2013)

Lynnie,

I live in/near the area of at least one the PCA churches in question. They brought in Peter Enns as a "visiting scholar". Firstly, that made me ill, and secondly it meant that I (a PCA guy) had one less option for church, in an area with too few (good) reformed options.


----------



## py3ak (Dec 15, 2013)

thatbrian said:


> Can folks not see the difference between creating an idol for the purpose of worshipping it and the retelling the story of Christ's birth, death, and resurrection using film?



[Moderator]
It is not a question of being blind to a difference in intent. The fact is that good intentions don't justify actions that are merely imprudent, and much less actions that are positively wrong.



> 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 is part of the confessional standard that we uphold on the Board. Perhaps this post will help explain the rationale for it. But in any case, advocacy of positions against the confessional standards we have adopted is not permitted. This thread may help explain our approach.
[/Moderator]


----------



## Matthew Willard Lankford (Dec 15, 2013)

I appreciate the moderation, Ruben. 

For those who may not subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith, it is important to note that historically Particular Baptists also believed that making purported images of the Lord Jesus Christ is unlawful. See Baptist minister Hercules Collins' An Orthodox Catechism (a Baptist adaption of the Heidelberg Catechism Orthodox Catechism - Hercules Collins):



> Q. 105 What is idolatry?
> A. Idolatry is having or inventing something in which one trusts in place of or alongside of the only true God, who has revealed himself in his Word.1
> 
> 1
> ...



cf. Benjamin Beddome's A Scriptural Exposition of the Baptist Catechism (http://books.google.com/books?id=16c9AAAAYAAJ):



> § Is it a sin to worship the true God by images? Yes. Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves, for ye saw no manner of similitude, Deut. iv. 15, 16. Can we form any image of God in our minds? No. To whom will ye liken God? Isa. xl. 18. Is it impossible then to form it with our hands? Yes. For we must not think that the Godhead is like unto gold or silver, or stone graven by art or man's device, Acts xvii. 29. Do those therefore that attempt it put a great affront upon him? Yes. They change the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like unto corruptible man, Rom. i. 23.



cf. this selection from Benjamin Keach's The Progress of SIN, OR THE TRAVELS OF Ungodliness (p. 39 http://books.google.com/books?id=WtkCAAAAQAAJ):



> This Seth begat Enos, so he is called in Greek; in Hebrew, Ænosh; that is by Interpretation, sorrowful, sick, miserable; so named 'tis thought, from the Consideration of the woeful State of those Days. For, it seems, that Sin prevailed wonderfully (as worthy Annotationers make report) by profane calling on the Almighty, and by calling Idols by the Name of the Lord, and by making Images and Representations of Him.



cf. this observation from Charles Spurgeon's sermon Iconoclast Sermon #960 Volume 16 (http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols16-18/chs960.pdf):



> THE First Commandment instructs us that there is but one God, who alone is to be worshipped. And the Second Commandment teaches that no attempt is to be made to represent the Lord, neither are we to bow down before any form of sacred similitude.



I also appreciated the way Albert Martin treated the subject of the Mel Gibson's idolatrous Passion movie, though I would caution a warning when referring people to John Piper, since Piper said "God broke the Second Commandment when he became incarnate" and endorses the use of forbidden images (source: http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/john-piper-2nd-commandment-36910/; note the link to the audio is broken on the original discussion, but can still be found here: http://media.desiringgod.org/audio/conferences/bcp2004/20040204_panel.mp3): The Passion Movie: To See or Not To See - SermonAudio.com


----------



## jwithnell (Dec 15, 2013)

> He has given us His Word, and given us the means by which we are to communicate God's Grace


This point cannot be over-emphasized. By giving us his word, people throughout all ages have been able to know God's mind. A movie can never replace the glory of Christ or the glory of his preached word.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 16, 2013)

thatbrian said:


> "Why are traditional Reformed churches struggling?" That was the title of a thread here back in October. One excellent response was:
> 
> "1. Some traditional Reformed churches are smug. Not only do they insist on practices that even other traditional Reformed folks sometimes disagree about, but they take their superior practices as a source of pride. They may say outwardly that they're patient with those who don't get it, but inwardly they're smug... and visitors can tell. Smugness is not only a turn off; it reveals spiritual immaturity.
> 
> ...



Brian,
It would be very unwise, nay sinful, to turn away from the truth of Reformed theology because of a thread on one aspect of the Reformed teaching on the Second Commandment. Some Reformed people will feel or see the need to emphasise the subject of this thread more than others, while for other Reformed people it will be enough to hold to this and teach it, without making it a central concern of their lives. Remember all the positive aspects of the richness of Reformed theology, which is the truth of God, as well as the "negative" aspect of clearing away and pointing out error, which is also necessary in its appropriate place.

Some may find their brothers' emphasis on certain aspects of the truth to be OTT or unwarranted; but this is often a disagreement about emphasis between brothers who see eye-to-eye, rather than a disagreement about substance, although it can sometimes lead to a disagreement about substance in reaction.





Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 16, 2013)

FYI. Brian asked his membership to PB be suspended, so is unable to respond to replies to the few posts he made while here.


----------

