# Notes On Matt's Article Charging Evangelicals With Modern Ne



## Guest (Mar 8, 2004)

Here is my counter-argument.




From your article:

[quote:311c3fb9c9]
For some reason people believe they can look at the humanity of Christ while separating the divinity of Christ's personality from him - an impossibility. 
[/quote:311c3fb9c9]

For the record I believe the actor is acting both the divine and human natures of Christ.

Without the divine element the whole passion and crucifixion means nothing.

During His lifetime no one could look at His human form without &quot;seeing&quot; the Father. He said this Himself.

When we read the words of Scripture printed on paper, those little phonetic icons reveal to us through neotic processes and sensory impressions, based on our physical world and the empyrical knowledge of it, and reveal to us both natures of Christ.

When reading the Bible we encounter both the human and divine natures of Christ.

Letters and words are icons used to reveal those truths.

So [b:311c3fb9c9]images[/b:311c3fb9c9] are used to reveal truth about God by God Himself.

We can and sometimes do make an idol of the scriptures themselves. Placing the Bible on the same level as the incarnate WORD.

This idolatry is the prohibition of the 2nd commandment.

It is not the images themselves then, but the service and worship of them that is sinful.

To take the interpretation put forth inconsistently by the reformers and puritans is to also deny the Bible as an image of God.



[Edited on 3-8-2004 by Visigoth]


----------



## turmeric (Mar 8, 2004)

Where can I find the article?


----------



## Guest (Mar 8, 2004)

http://www.apuritansmind.com/ChristianWalk/McMahonPassionMovieNestorius.htm


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 8, 2004)

[quote:8f5d0e3b6f][i:8f5d0e3b6f]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:8f5d0e3b6f]
[quote:8f5d0e3b6f]
For some reason people believe they can look at the humanity of Christ while separating the divinity of Christ's personality from him - an impossibility. 
[/quote:8f5d0e3b6f]

for some reason people think they can look at Christ and CONFUSE the natures...this is also a theological error.

&quot;Who touched me?&quot; guess God is not omnipotent.&quot;

&quot;Before Abraham was I AM&quot; guess the BODY existed eternaly.

This discussion takes us to the depths of the hypostatic union...and both sides should shun dogmatisim.

-Paul [/quote:8f5d0e3b6f]

Paul,

Respectfully, you keep missing the point here. You keep referring to the natures of Christ as if they were His Person. Please re-read the Formula of Calcedon. When the incidents you quote occurred, it was the Person of Christ expressing something that was particular to one of His natures. This is aptly described by the Confession thus:

[quote:8f5d0e3b6f]WCF 8.7 Christ, in the work of mediation, acteth according to both natures, by each nature doing that which is proper to itself: yet, by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in Scripture attributed to the person denominated by the other nature.[/quote:8f5d0e3b6f]

But when we speak of a [i:8f5d0e3b6f]depiction[/i:8f5d0e3b6f] or[i:8f5d0e3b6f]representation[/i:8f5d0e3b6f] of Christ, we must of necessity speak not of a nature or natures, but of a person. When we are not speaking of [b:8f5d0e3b6f]actions that are proper to one nature or the other[/b:8f5d0e3b6f] (e.g. omniscience, hunger) we can only depict the entire person. This is how the divines understood this (and why [i:8f5d0e3b6f]hint, hint[/i:8f5d0e3b6f], they took the position they did in WLC 109):

[quote:8f5d0e3b6f] WCF 8.2 So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.[/quote:8f5d0e3b6f]

You simply are not espousing the typical orthodox understanding of the Reformers (and before). Hence:

[quote:8f5d0e3b6f][b:8f5d0e3b6f]Synod of Constantinople (Hieria, 753 AD):[/b:8f5d0e3b6f]
&quot;When, however, they are blamed for undertaking to depict the divine nature of Christ, which should not be depicted, [b:8f5d0e3b6f]they take refuge in the excuse: We represent only the flesh of Christ which we have seen and handled. But that is a Nestorian error.[/b:8f5d0e3b6f] For it should be considered that that flesh was also the flesh of God the Word, without any separation, perfectly assumed by the divine nature and made wholly divine. How could it now be separated and represented apart? So is it with the human soul of Christ which mediates between the Godhead of the Son and the dullness of the flesh. As the human flesh is at the same time flesh of God the Word, so is the human soul also soul of God the Word, and both at the same time, the soul being deified as well as the body, and the Godhead remained undivided even in the separation of the soul from the body in his voluntary passion. For where the soul of Christ is, there is also his Godhead; and where the body of Christ is, there too is his Godhead. If then in his passion the divinity remained inseparable from these, how do the fools venture to separate the flesh from the Godhead, and represent it by itself as the image of a mere man? They fall into the abyss of impiety, since they separate the flesh from the Godhead, and represent it by itself as the image of a mere man? They fall into the abyss of impiety, since they separate the flesh from the Godhead, ascribe to it a subsistence of its own, a personality of its own, which they depict, and thus introduce a fourth person into the Trinity. Moreover, they represent as not being made divine, that which has been made divine by being assumed into the Godhead. 
[b:8f5d0e3b6f]Whoever, then, makes an image of Christ either depicts the Godhead which cannot be depicted, and mingles in with the manhood (like the Monophysites), or he represents the body of Christ as not made divine and separate and as a person apart, like the Nestorians[/b:8f5d0e3b6f].[/quote:8f5d0e3b6f]

[quote:8f5d0e3b6f][b:8f5d0e3b6f]Fisher's Catechism[/b:8f5d0e3b6f]
Q. 9. May we not have a picture of Christ, who has a true body?
A. By no means; because, though he has a true body and a reasonable soul (John 1:14), yet his human nature subsists in his divine person, which no picture can represent (Psa. 45:2).[/quote:8f5d0e3b6f]

[quote:8f5d0e3b6f][b:8f5d0e3b6f]James Durham:[/b:8f5d0e3b6f]
And if it be said man's soul cannot be painted, but his body may, and yet that picture representeth a man; I answer, it doth so, because he has but one nature, and what representeth that representeth the person; but it is not so with Christ: his Godhead is not a distinct part of the human nature, as the soul of man is (which is necessarily supposed in every living man), but a distinct nature, only united with the manhood in that one person, Christ, who has no fellow; therefore what representeth him must not represent a man only, but must represent Christ, Immanuel, God-man, otherwise it is not his image[/quote:8f5d0e3b6f]

You may argue that the 2nd commandment does not forbid pictures of God, but to argue that pictures of Christ are somehow different qualitatively than pictures of the Spirit or Father is indeed Nestorianism.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 8, 2004)

[quote:1e1e0a784f][i:1e1e0a784f]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:1e1e0a784f]
[quote:1e1e0a784f]
You simply are not espousing the typical orthodox understanding of the Reformers (and before). 
[/quote:1e1e0a784f]

No, I am saying what the MAJORITY of systematics say: the BODY is an attribute of the HUMAN nature.

Answer me this. Was Deity not omniscient when he said, &quot;Who touched me?&quot;

-Paul [/quote:1e1e0a784f]

But Paul, you are not depiciting a BODY, you are depiciting a PERSON. A person is different than a rock. You cannot show a body without a person.

Your question is a non-sequitor. I have already cited the Confession to you, inc which the unanimous witness of theologians (including Romanists) states that an action which is particular to one of the natures is expressed in Scripture to the Person of Christ, and can even be attributed to the person denominated by the other nature. This is standard systematics. You are confusing clear categories of Christology (and that have been held by all Christendom, not just Reformed theology) in an effort to make headway on a particular issue. Stop it. I am willing to accept your difference of interpretation on the 2nd commandment, but not a revision of Christology. Everyone from Calvin to Bellarmine disagrees with you here.


----------



## Guest (Mar 8, 2004)

Fred what do you think of my statement regarding the written icon(alphabet) being used by God to communicate truth about Himself ? ?

Scripture as Icon.
Christ as Word.

Is is naive ? ?


----------



## BrianLanier (Mar 8, 2004)

Matt,

I just wanted to say good job on the article. It is helpful!


----------



## Guest (Mar 8, 2004)

[quote:931ddfe5cc]
You cannot show a body without a person. 
[/quote:931ddfe5cc]

I have often seen bodies without persons at funerals.

:grin:


----------



## Radar (Mar 8, 2004)

*Pink tastes like...*

...grapefruit! :tongue:


----------



## pastorway (Mar 8, 2004)

Paul,

It would seem that Philippians 2 answers your objections. Jesus is God, He humbled Himself and became a Man. He did not cease to be God, but in becoming a Man, He did limit His divinty!

Phillip


----------



## pastorway (Mar 8, 2004)

Then I either misread your questions or I misread Philippians 2! Maybe you should go back and read the text again......

And by the Way - great article Matt!!

Phillip


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 8, 2004)

[quote:f2162f0713][i:f2162f0713]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:f2162f0713]
[quote:f2162f0713][i:f2162f0713]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:f2162f0713]
Paul,

It would seem that Philippians 2 answers your objections. Jesus is God, He humbled Himself and became a Man. He did not cease to be God, but in becoming a Man, He did limit His divinty!

Phillip [/quote:f2162f0713]

no, it doesn't answer my questions [/quote:f2162f0713]

Paul,

Respectfully, you don't want an answer to your questions. You are proving presuppositionalism!  (and I like that part  )

That is because you are insisting on an interpretative distinction between the nature and Person of Christ that no reformed theologian of import has ever made. Can you please show me a quote from a systematic theology where ANY reformed divine makes your distinction??

I'll even help. Don't look at Calvin, Owen, Watson, Hodge, Dabney, Thornwell, Warfield, Cunningham, Shedd, Berkhof, Wistius, Turretin, or Bavinck. They all disagree with you.

But if you want to find something different than that which I have already given (now 3 times) that the properties particular to one nature are attributed to the Person:

[quote:f2162f0713]WCF 8:7 Christ, in the work of mediation, acteth according to both natures, by each nature doing that which is proper to itself: yet, by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in Scripture attributed to the person denominated by the other nature[/quote:f2162f0713]

The Belgic Confession says the same thing:

[quote:f2162f0713]We believe that by this conception the person of the Son is inseparably united and connected with the human nature; so that there are not two Sons of God, nor two persons, but two natures united in one single person; yet each nature retains its own distinct properties. As, then, the divine nature has always remained uncreated, without beginning of days or end of life, filling heaven and earth, so also has the human nature not lost its properties but remained a creature, having beginning of days, being a finite nature, and retaining all the properties of a real body. And though He has by His resurrection given immortality to the same, nevertheless He has not changed the reality of His human nature; forasmuch as our salvation and resurrection also depend on the reality of His body. But these two natures are so closely united in one person that they were not separated even by His death. Therefore that which He, when dying, commended into the hands of His Father, was a real human spirit, departing from His body. But in the meantime the divine nature always remained united with the human, even when He lay in the grave; and the Godhead did not cease to be in Him, any more than it did when He was an infant, though it did not so clearly manifest itself for a while. Wherefore we confess that He is very God and very man: very God by His power to conquer death; and very man that He might die for us according to the infirmity of His flesh.[/quote:f2162f0713]

and the Second Helvetic:

[quote:f2162f0713]Impartation of Properties. We piously and reverently accept and use the impartation of properties which is derived from Scripture and which has been used by all antiquity in explaining and reconciling apparently contradictory passages[/quote:f2162f0713]

and the Larger Catechism:
[quote:f2162f0713]Q40: Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be God and man in one person ?
A40: It was requisite that the Mediator, who was to reconcile God and man, should himself be both God and man, and this in one person, that the proper works of each nature might be accepted of God for us, and relied on by us, as the works of the whole person.[/quote:f2162f0713]

and of course Calcedon:
[quote:f2162f0713]the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ[/quote:f2162f0713]

Happy searching!!


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 8, 2004)

[quote:f1ee743dc0][i:f1ee743dc0]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:f1ee743dc0]
Jesus DIED, therefore DEITY died!!?!?!?! [/quote:f1ee743dc0]

Yes. That is exactly the point. We are obviously talking past each other. The natures are not confused. But you want to bifurcate the Person. Do me a favor. Please [i:f1ee743dc0]accurately[/i:f1ee743dc0] describe Jesus Christ in words that completely leave His Deity out of the equation. So for example, you cannot describe Him in moral terms, since His sinlessness is directly linked to His Deity. You cannot describe Him as Messiah, since that too is impossible to describe outside the context of His Deity. In fact, you can't even accurately describe His incarnation (the very central fact of His [b:f1ee743dc0]humanity[/b:f1ee743dc0]) since that too is inextricably linked to His Deity.

But then, you already knew that.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 8, 2004)

[quote:8e5c5ec9bc][i:8e5c5ec9bc]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:8e5c5ec9bc]
[quote:8e5c5ec9bc][i:8e5c5ec9bc]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:8e5c5ec9bc]
[quote:8e5c5ec9bc][i:8e5c5ec9bc]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:8e5c5ec9bc]
Jesus DIED, therefore DEITY died!!?!?!?! [/quote:8e5c5ec9bc]

Yes. That is exactly the point. We are obviously talking past each other. The natures are not confused. But you want to bifurcate the Person. Do me a favor. Please [i:8e5c5ec9bc]accurately[/i:8e5c5ec9bc] describe Jesus Christ in words that completely leave His Deity out of the equation. So for example, you cannot describe Him in moral terms, since His sinlessness is directly linked to His Deity. You cannot describe Him as Messiah, since that too is impossible to describe outside the context of His Deity. In fact, you can't even accurately describe His incarnation (the very central fact of His [b:8e5c5ec9bc]humanity[/b:8e5c5ec9bc]) since that too is inextricably linked to His Deity.

But then, you already knew that. [/quote:8e5c5ec9bc]

so God can die, not know things, cry, get hungry, change, etc etc etc...whew, this is not what i have learned, I've been bamboozled.

-Paul [/quote:8e5c5ec9bc]

Read Calcedon.

Or have you been atoned for by the blood of a man? Is Acts 20:28 a lie? Can a mere man offer up a sacrifice of the worth of the sins of the elect?

Could Adam have atoned for the sins of others if he had not sinned?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 8, 2004)

For further help on the topic:

Seeing Jesus, the Misplaced Faith of Idolaters, and - 
What some orthodox Councils, Confessions, Ministers and Theologians Have said About the Second Commandment in Relation to humanity and person of Jesus Christ
Compiled by C. Matthew McMahon

http://www.apuritansmind.com/ChristianWalk/McMahonSeeingJesusMisplacedFaith.htm


----------



## pastorway (Mar 8, 2004)

The Bible tells us Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. So, Paul, you obviously need a new definition of &quot;change.&quot; Jesus did all that you say He did, but He never changed in His essence, natures, or person. Jesus, the Second Person of the Trinity, grew, learned, suffered, died, and was rejected by the Father for our sin. But He did not change.

And people try to picture things all the time that are immaterial. The children of Israel got into big trouble right after coming out of Egypt when they made a golden calf of GOD. That's right. Read the text. The people made an image of &quot;the God who brought them out of Egypt&quot;, and then worshipped God with a feast...a feast to the LORD, represented for them by the calf. They violated the 2nd Command before the &quot;ink was dry&quot; on the Tablet so to speak. 

The fact is NOT that we cannot depict the immaterial. It is rather that we cannot [i:24871a24ba]accurately[/i:24871a24ba] depict it....hence the command not to even try.

Phillip


----------



## Guest (Mar 9, 2004)

Reconcile these few verses for me. Both Paul and those opposed to his statements.

John 5:37 

And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen [b:827a1fd7a7]horao[/b:827a1fd7a7] his shape. 

Joh 6:46 

Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. [b:827a1fd7a7]horao[/b:827a1fd7a7]

John 14:7 

If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. [b:827a1fd7a7]horao[/b:827a1fd7a7]

John 14:9

Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen [b:827a1fd7a7]horao[/b:827a1fd7a7] the Father; and how sayest thou [then], Shew us the Father? 


Joh 15:24 

If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. 


1Ti 6:16 

Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom [be] honour and power everlasting. Amen.

[Edited on 3-9-2004 by Visigoth]


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 9, 2004)

[quote:55d3833ccf][i:55d3833ccf]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:55d3833ccf]
Reconcile these few verses for me. Both Paul and those opposed to his statements.

John 5:37 

And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen [b:55d3833ccf]horao[/b:55d3833ccf] his shape. 

Joh 6:46 

Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. [b:55d3833ccf]horao[/b:55d3833ccf]

John 14:7 

If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. [b:55d3833ccf]horao[/b:55d3833ccf]

John 14:9

Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen [b:55d3833ccf]horao[/b:55d3833ccf] the Father; and how sayest thou [then], Shew us the Father? 


Joh 15:24 

If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. 


1Ti 6:16 

Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom [be] honour and power everlasting. Amen.

[Edited on 3-9-2004 by Visigoth] [/quote:55d3833ccf]

This is simpler than it seems. The only way that one can &quot;see&quot; the Father is through the means He has provided - His express image is seen in His Son. That is the reason for the incarnation of the Word. But remember that the representation of the Son was not in any way preserved for us. We have no express image of the Son. There is a reason for that - the written Word is the expression of the Son. That is why Peter can say:

[quote:55d3833ccf]In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, you have been grieved by various trials, that the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ, whom having not seen you love. Though now you do not see Him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, receiving the end of your faith-the salvation of your souls. (1 Peter 1:6-9)[/quote:55d3833ccf]

And Paul can say:
[quote:55d3833ccf]O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? (Galatians 3:1) {literally, Christ was set before their eyes by means of Paul's preaching; we know that they never actually saw Christ}[/quote:55d3833ccf]



and why the very purpose of the Word is to reveal the Son:

[quote:55d3833ccf]But &amp;#65279;the &amp;#65279;Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will &amp;#65279;send in My name, &amp;#65279;He will teach you all things, and bring to your &amp;#65279;remembrance all things that I said to you (John 14:26; cf. John 12:16; 1 John 2:20)

God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. (Hebrews 1:1-4)
[/quote:55d3833ccf]


----------



## Guest (Mar 9, 2004)

I suppose we will never see God in His full eternal glory. Not even in the eternal state ? ? Looking upon the glorified Christ will be seeing as much as we possibly can.


So in Christ the glory and vision of God is certainly not diminished, but at the same time not the whole of His eternal splendor, because that is an impossibility for the creature.


----------



## Guest (Mar 9, 2004)

Since he stands accused here, which of the following heresies would Paul then be embracing ? ?

[quote:fb329817e3]

[b:fb329817e3]Ebionism[/b:fb329817e3] - teaches that Jesus was not God, but that the Spirit and Power of God came upon the man Jesus at His baptism. The same infilling departed and left Jesus at the cross, for God cannot die. (Human Nature under God's influence. No Divine Nature.) 

[b:fb329817e3]Arianism[/b:fb329817e3] - teaches that Jesus was not fully God. In fact, Arianism denies the Trinity and says that Jesus was created by God since God cannot share His nature or be divided among "persons". (Modern day Jehovah's Witness theology). (One indivisible God created Jesus as a perfect man, human nature with no divine nature) 

[b:fb329817e3]Docetism[/b:fb329817e3] - teaches that Jesus was not a physical man, but only appeared to be - he looked human but was in fact a phantom without substance. (No Human nature, only Divine Nature. No body of flesh.) 

[b:fb329817e3]Apollinarianism[/b:fb329817e3] - teaches that Jesus took on flesh as a man but did not have a human nature. (Divine Nature without a Human Nature) 

[b:fb329817e3]Nestoriansim[/b:fb329817e3] - teaches that Jesus was two persons in one body. He was as God, the Word, and as Jesus, the Man. Jesus was born a man and later became God. Two natures in Two Persons in one Body). 

[b:fb329817e3]Eutychianism[/b:fb329817e3] - teaches that Jesus had one nature composed of both the divine and human. (A Fused Divine-Human Nature). 

[/quote:fb329817e3]

Boethius :
[i:fb329817e3] persona est rationalis naturae individua substantia[/i:fb329817e3]

&quot;a person is the individual substance of rational nature&quot;. 


St. Victor:

[i:fb329817e3]persona est divinae incommunicabilis existentia[/i:fb329817e3]

&quot;a person is incommunicable existence of divine nature&quot; 

Person, therefore, inherently includes relationship to other persons. In God (in whose image we have been made), there has always been relationship (hence the Trinity). That would mean that Christ could not have more than one person, since he does not relate to Himself, but rather to the other members of the Trinity (to say otherwise is to invite modalism). 

Behind the idea of personhood is God, who is, as has been said, persona personones, or a person-consitituting being; whereas man is persona personata or personalized person. 

(do not remember where I got this from)

[Edited on 3-9-2004 by Visigoth]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 9, 2004)

Mark, remember, God is INVISIBLE. 1 Tim 1:17, &quot;immortal, invisible...&quot; God has manifestedhimself in certain ways on earth - theophanies - burning bush, smoking firepot, column of fire, etc. Ultimate in his Son, Jesus. In heaven God is still invisible. God does not lose an essnetial attribute of his character in certain &quot;places.&quot; In heaven, though, God is manifesting himself most. Heaven is bvest defined as the palce where God manifests himself most. The angels where &quot;flying&quot; in his &quot;presence&quot; and saying holy, holy, holy. Was God in a certain locale? Or was it that he is manifesting himself more in heaven to the senses of His creatures than on earth in this capacity? So then, how do we see God face to face? In the face of Jesus Christ he carries the fullness of the Godhead bodily - (whatever that means). That is why, as you probably know, we call this &quot;vision of God&quot; the &quot;beautific vision&quot; because ti will be the most lovely thing we will ever see in Christ - the fullness of God and all his glory (whatever glory is). Remember the &quot;shekinah&quot; was so thick (whatever thick means) in the tabernacle and temple at times, the priests could not perform their duties. What is glory? It means &quot;weightiness&quot;. God's presence. His heaviness, or his manifestation, in some way. 

Owen writes long on this in volume 1 &quot;The Glory of Christ&quot; and wrestles witht he idea that God will be &quot;seen&quot; in heaven through Christ. How does the invisible become seen in Christ?? I haven't a clue. I will wait to get there. But even when I am there, my finite brain is not going to be able to comprehend all of what I see. I will ahve eternity to experiecne him, and so I will be evedr increasing in my experimental knoweldge of his person forever. (Not that is a wonderful thought, and definitely worth living for!).


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 9, 2004)

Paul it is the exact opposite of what you said that is problem.


[quote:b3dd9704c3]
Again, I have denied no christological formulations, only the naive and immature philosophical idea that immaterial things can be pictured. 
[/quote:b3dd9704c3]

Everyone you quoted, including everyone else you did not quote, will say that the Godhead of Christ CANNOT BE captured by the paintbrush. THAT IS PART OF THE REASON images are not allowed. You cannot capture the divine. Nor can you adequately add in the divine to what they lack. They very fact that you say you have to do that demonstrates you are missing the point of what has been orthodox for 2000 years. If you cannot capture God in a box, then quit making the box. Its idolatry. That is why every formulation of trying to give an analogy for the trinity fails miserable because only God can interpret himself perfectly. The human part of Christ is an empty shell until the personality of the divine Son takes it up and fills it in that capacity. Until the painter can capture both the material substacne perfectly (which he will never be able to do because he has absolutely no idea what Christ looked like) and that he can capture the divinity of his personality, then to make a &quot;form&quot; would be debasing to his person. this is not rocket science. Exactly what you said above is exactly the case. If you can finish the protrait by adding the divine, infinite, eternal, immense personality of the Son, then you will never have Christ, or a representation of him.

What you keep missing is that fact - unless you CAN capture the immaterial, then anything created concernig pictures of God, including Christ - which is the God-man, is idolatry. It is devil worship and debasing to God, his attributes and his personality.


[quote:b3dd9704c3]
You guys are MIXING the natures! 
[/quote:b3dd9704c3]

No, orthodox Christianity is not mixing anything. They are determining, based on the commands, and the unattainble fact that one cannot paint the immaterial, that it is idolatry to create the possibility of a pciture. That is misplaced faith. If you have to add in the divine (which again you cannot do even mentally adequately) then you are falling dead center into the trap that we are warning you about.

None of the men you mentioned, albeit possibly for Grudem, do not violate the second commandment. They are quite against making images of God or Christ.


----------



## Guest (Mar 9, 2004)

Does the photograph capture the immaterial soul ? ?


We are gnostics if we say it does not.


When I see a painting of a crucifix, my mind is drawn to the historical Jesus I have never seen, and only know through the scriptures. Yet subjectively, the hideous torture before my eyes can be imagined being placed upon the subjective impression of that same Jesus.
I know the image is not Him. It only helps me experience visually in some small way the suffering He must have endured. 

So what if we made a movie about a man being crucified by the Romans, and we said he was not Jesus in any way. Would you then be able to see it without breaking the second commandment ? ?

Could we not then do the same thing with Mel Gibson's movie ? ? We certainly know that the actor on the screen is NOT the saviour of the world.

[Edited on 3-9-2004 by Visigoth]


----------



## Radar (Mar 9, 2004)

*Paul, pardon my ignorance of your point...*

but what was difference between the Israelites making an image of Jehovah God in the form of a calf, which was only the image of a body and not of a person, and a movie's making an image of Jesus Christ using the form of an actor, which was only the image of a body and not of a person?


----------



## Radar (Mar 9, 2004)

*When he said here is your God...*

did he intend to communicate that all of their jewelry and such that was used to craft the calf crafted the very entity that led them out of Egypt, or is it better to assume that he offered them an image of their god who led them out?

For Visigoth, 

again pardon my lack of brain power, but when you wrote:

&quot;When I see a painting of a crucifix, my mind is drawn to the historical Jesus I have never seen, and only know through the scriptures.... I know the image is not Him. It only helps me experience visually in some small way the suffering He must have endured.&quot;

Could it be reworded like this, or not?:

&quot;When I see the gold calf, my mind is drawn to the historical Jehovah I have never seen, and only know through the scriptures.... I know the calf is not Him. The shiny gold only helps me experience visually in some small way the glory He must surely possess.&quot;

Sorry for any annoyance. 8^D

[Edited on 3-9-2004 by Radar]


----------



## Guest (Mar 9, 2004)

[quote:564ed2dbdd]
Could it be reworded like this, or not?: 

&quot;When I see the gold calf, my mind is drawn to the historical Jehovah I have never seen, and only know through the scriptures.... I know the calf is not Him. The shiny gold only helps me experience visually in some small way the glory He must surely possess.&quot; 
[/quote:564ed2dbdd]

Nice comeback. Did not think of that one.

However I do know we could change the same statement from the calf to the bronze serpent on the pole and I would say YES !!

Not sure why I would approve of one but not the other. I will have to ponder this a bit.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 9, 2004)

Yes Paul, Christ had a true hmanity. But that does not make him the Christ. I have a true humanity too. What makes Christ, the Christ, is that he is the God-man. Don't seperate the two. If you cannot adequately and completely depict such a hypostatic union, then anything less is idolatry.


----------



## pastorway (Mar 9, 2004)

A few points:

1. On the calf, note the language used. When they worshipped the calf they were worshipping Yahweh. They held a &quot;feast to the LORD.&quot; And when Aaron said this is the God that brought you out, he is not saying, &quot;This calf is a god that brought you out.&quot; He is saying, &quot;This calf IS GOD, who brought you out.&quot; (Ex 32)

2. On the snake on a pole, no where does it ever tell us in Scripture that the snake was a representastion of God. It was a divinely ordered image of a snake that the people were to look to, having faith in God to heal them whem they looked upon the plague in their midst put up on a pole. So the snake, just like the images commanded to be put on the tabernacle and temple, was not an image of God. The lesson here is not &quot;This is your God&quot; but rather, &quot;Look and live.&quot; Jesus was lifted up as the snake was, and those who look to Him in faith will live. So the picture is one of lifting up, not one of presenting God in an image.

3. Paul, help us understand your view of Christ and His natures. You implied earlier in this thread that although Christ died that God cannot not die. Do you believe that Jesus was fully God and fully man from the time of His conception in Mary's womb? It sounds as if you think that His diety left Him at some point and was separated from His humanity when He was on the cross.

[quote:995e869dac]Jesus DIED, therefore DEITY died!!?!?!?! 

so God can die, not know things, cry, get hungry, change, etc etc etc...whew, this is not what i have learned, I've been bamboozled.[/quote:995e869dac]

You are accusing us of mixing the natures while you separate them.

[quote:995e869dac][i:995e869dac]LBCF[/i:995e869dac]
Thus two whole, perfect and distinct natures were [b:995e869dac]inseparably joined together in one person[/b:995e869dac], without conversion, composition, or confusion; 

- So that the Lord Jesus Christ is truly God and truly man, yet He is one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man. [/quote:995e869dac]



Phillip


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 9, 2004)

You're still missing it Paul.

Based on WHAT YOU SAID, you cannot go to the Passion Movie, or use pictures of Christ.


[quote:dc17d9b486]
PERSONHOOD is NOT material
[/quote:dc17d9b486]

Exactly!!!!

So, don't attempt to create in any form God, or the humanity of Christ, unless you can attribute to him, perfectly, the immaterial aspects that CANNOT BE CAPTURED.

GOD FORBIDS IT.

You keep missing this.

THe two nature are never, at ANY TIME separated or independent of one another. THis is the theological blunder Gordon Clark makes and says, in his own book on the Incarnation, that he takes on a form of Nestorianism - and he does. At NO TIME was the humanity ever distinct from the divinity when the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary. The humanity never acted independently from the personality fo the immaterial spirit of the Son.

If you cannot create that on canvas, or on a movie reel, you are finished arguing about this.

[Edited on 3-9-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 9, 2004)

I would only add to Matt's post that Robbins rejection of Calcedon is explicit, not implicit:

[quote:17da20e1e1]&quot;If, as seems to be the case, we now have a solution to the puzzles of the Incarnation, a solution that avoids the contradictions and meaningless words of the traditional formulations, a solution that is supported by Scripture itself, we are obliged to accept it. Jesus Christ was and is both God and man, a divine person and a human person. To deny either is 
to fall into error&quot; (G. Clark, &quot;The Incarnation,&quot; 78).[/quote:17da20e1e1]


----------



## Guest (Mar 9, 2004)

That sounds like Nestorianism.

Paul ? ?


State what you are asserting again. I am lost now.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 9, 2004)

If I may, Paul seems to be saying that depicting the HUMANITY of Christ is not a bad thing because the IMMATERIAL (i.e. the personality of the divine Son) cannot be catpured. So when he watches the Passion, or looks at a crucifix, he has to make the mental leap of taking the object and inserting, in his mind, the divine part (the knowledge that the personality is of the divine Son) that the object cannot convey. In his mind, then, Christ remains complete because he knows the crucifix is really not Jesus.

Paul, are we on track with your thought?


----------



## pastorway (Mar 9, 2004)

Paul, re-read my post.

I said that you were accussing US of mixing the natures while YOU were separating them.

If you say that when Christ died only His human nature died, instead of His whole being person then you have separated the human and the divine. 

Phillip

[edited to clarify as per Visigoths next post!]

[Edited on 3-10-04 by pastorway]


----------



## Guest (Mar 9, 2004)

[quote:befe326073]
If you say that when Christ died only His human nature died, instead of His whole being. . .
[/quote:befe326073]

Phillip, I do not think you meant to say &quot;being&quot;.

God is one being, three persons. Death is seperation. Christ was seperated/forsaken by the Father . . His being was ontologically one the whole time .. .



[Edited on 3-9-2004 by Visigoth]


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 9, 2004)

[quote:2ff04af5c3][i:2ff04af5c3]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:2ff04af5c3]
[quote:2ff04af5c3]
If you say that when Christ died only His human nature died, instead of His whole being. . .
[/quote:2ff04af5c3]

Phillip, I do not think you meant to say &quot;being&quot;.

God is one being, three persons. Death is seperation. Christ was seperated/forsaken by the Father . . His being was ontologically one the whole time .. .



[Edited on 3-9-2004 by Visigoth] [/quote:2ff04af5c3]

I am sure that what Phillip mean was the Person of Christ (His whole Person - hypostasis/persona).


----------

