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

[Matthew Willard Lankford]

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]

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

 

[Peairtach]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[stephen2]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

 

[Rom]

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.

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

literary imagery

Jon, what do you mean by literary imagery? Can you give an example?

 

[sevenzedek]

literary imagery

Jon, what do you mean by literary imagery? Can you give an example?

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]

literary imagery

Jon, what do you mean by literary imagery? Can you give an example?

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.

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]

literary imagery

Jon, what do you mean by literary imagery? Can you give an example?

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.

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

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]

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]

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]

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.