Does seeing a image of Christ cause sin?

[Glenn Ferrell]

I would say no too, I have one above my couch and I look at it and don't sin.

Why's it there? Why does it remain?

 

[historyb]

Because that's where it looks good and it was my Dad's.

 

[lynnie]

Just want you to know that the face of Jesus on a fried potato just sold on ebay last week for 16 bucks.

Now here is his image on a raw potato:


jesus_in_potato.jpg

Good thing we are reformed and don't think Mary is our sinless co- redemptress, because we can look at her on a grilled cheese sandwich that sold for TWENTY EIGHT THOUSAND DOLLARS!!!!!!!!

BBC NEWS | Americas | 'Virgin Mary' toast fetches $28,000

I am broke around here....I sure hope I don't see Jesus on my toast or its gonna be powerfully tempting to head over to ebay

 

[toddpedlar]

Because that's where it looks good and it was my Dad's.

I think Glenn was asking you to go a little deeper in considering the question seriously...

 

[historyb]

I do and I have settled it for me and my family, I find nothing wrong with it and it is one of the few things left from my Dad

 

[toddpedlar]

I do and I have settled it for me and my family, I find nothing wrong with it and it is one of the few things left from my Dad

Okay - I certainly understand the connection to things of your father's and don't mean to demean the sentimental value it holds. Clearly if you were convicted about the issue of images of Christ differently than you are, you'd not hold onto it, I think.

Anyway, I only posted because I thought when asked you might offer a little more than a quick "no problem for me", that is, a few thoughts about how you've come to settle the issue, since Glenn asked. I used to think there was nothing wrong with such things either until I considered more carefully than I previously had what exactly the sin surrounding the golden calves involved, and also until I had studied more deeply the union of Christ's two natures.

 

[historyb]

Okay - I certainly understand the connection to things of your father's and don't mean to demean the sentimental value it holds. Clearly if you were convicted about the issue of images of Christ differently than you are, you'd not hold onto it, I think.

Yes

Anyway, I only posted because I thought when asked you might offer a little more than a quick "no problem for me", that is, a few thoughts about how you've come to settle the issue, since Glenn asked. I used to think there was nothing wrong with such things either until I considered more carefully than I previously had what exactly the sin surrounding the golden calves involved, and also until I had studied more deeply the union of Christ's two natures.

Because it is not a graven image, I don't fall down like the papist do and worship pictures. I know there is no real picture out there of what Christ really looks like but I don't within myself go wild (not trying to be flippant, can't find the right word for what I am trying to say) with the commandments. I guess I'm not into the whole law thing that much.

If we were to start worshipping it, than it goes to storage.

 

[toddpedlar]

Because it is not a graven image,

Am I getting you right, Doug, that if it was a statue, you'd
have tossed it, but because it's a painting it's ok?

Joshua's already picked up on the other thing I'd comment on,
although I'd like to ask whether you'd consider if there are more
ways to worship in violation of the 2nd commandment then bowing
down to an image as though the image itself were the object of worship.

 

[historyb]

I guess I'm not into the whole law thing that much.

If we were to start worshipping it, than it goes to storage.

Here's where I'm having difficulty, Doug. If you're not "into the whole law thing that much," you need to reconsider some things. Jesus has said, "If you love me, you will obey my commands." Now, this doesn't mean that Christ believes that any Christian will always perfectly obey His commands. That's not the point. But being "not into the whole law thing" is not supposed to be the hallmark of a Christian. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you're not a Christian . . . but, according to your profession of being a Christian, you should be able to echo with the Psalmist, "O how I love thy Law."

I do not write this out of anger toward you, but concern.

What I am trying to say is that I don't get down to the jot and tittle of it, or make it more than what it is. I know many here go deep into the law almost to semi legalism I just don't worry that much about it, if I am doing something wrong God let's me know it is not something I sweat about that much. I don't fret about it I am trying to say

-----Added 5/26/2009 at 05:50:14 EST-----

Am I getting you right, Doug, that if it was a statue, you'd
have tossed it, but because it's a painting it's ok?

No, because I wouldn't worship that either.

Joshua's already picked up on the other thing I'd comment on,
although I'd like to ask whether you'd consider if there are more
ways to worship in violation of the 2nd commandment then bowing
down to an image as though the image itself were the object of worship.

No, I don't believe so if I understand your question properly.

 

[toddpedlar]

Am I getting you right, Doug, that if it was a statue, you'd
have tossed it, but because it's a painting it's ok?

No, because I wouldn't worship that either.

Okay, but you said, when I asked, that the reason you didn't
find the picture objectionable is that it wasn't a graven image.

So I gave you an instance of a graven image - that is, a statue -
to which you reply that you wouldn't worship it, either.

For you what I think I'm hearing is that the means of making
the image doesn't matter - that all are okay as long as you do
not worship them. That making all manner of images of God
are fine, as long as they aren't objects of worship.

Am I hearing you right?

Joshua's already picked up on the other thing I'd comment on,
although I'd like to ask whether you'd consider if there are more
ways to worship in violation of the 2nd commandment then bowing
down to an image as though the image itself were the object of worship.

No, I don't believe so if I understand your question properly.[/QUOTE]

Okay... my point is this - you don't have to bow down to an image, believing it to be the god you are worshipping, in order to be guilty of breaking the 2nd commandment. The Israelites were condemned for using the golden calves to represent the true God, and using them to focus/excite religious devotion to Jehovah. They were NOT condemned for building false gods and worshipping the idols as though they were in fact gods themselves.

 

[historyb]

Okay, but you said, when I asked, that the reason you didn't
find the picture objectionable is that it wasn't a graven image.

So I gave you an instance of a graven image - that is, a statue -
to which you reply that you wouldn't worship it, either.

For you what I think I'm hearing is that the means of making
the image doesn't matter - that all are okay as long as you do
not worship them. That making all manner of images of God
are fine, as long as they aren't objects of worship.

Am I hearing you right?

Yes, to me a graven image is anything one worships. Pictures, Statues, TV etc

Okay... my point is this - you don't have to bow down to an image, believing it to be the god you are worshipping, in order to be guilty of breaking the 2nd commandment. The Israelites were condemned for using the golden calves to represent the true God, and using them to focus/excite religious devotion to Jehovah. They were NOT condemned for building false gods and worshipping the idols as though they were in fact gods themselves.

okay

-----Added 5/26/2009 at 06:10:03 EST-----

And yet, Christ Himself said, "think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." So, that means, it's still applicable. It's still binding.

Okay

Who here has done this?

I see question here all the time, someone upset because they may have sinned by doing this or that little thing.

You make it sound as if there's no effort or work to be done on the part of the Christian in discerning God's Law, but nothing could be further from the truth. Why else would we have to "meditate on it day and night." Throughout the Psalms the Psalmist expresses his study of God's Law. There's a reason for that. We are to follow hard after God's character as revealed in His Law. Not everything is so simple as the surface seems to be in the English translation of God's Word, friend.

Okay

 

[INsearch]

Sorry to intrude but I just talked to my dad about taking down our picture of Jesus, and he himself has thought about taking it down, and he said something along the lines of "Well Jesus was actually here, he was human, so its ok to have a picture of him" Is their any merit to what he has said?

 

[toddpedlar]

Okay, but you said, when I asked, that the reason you didn't
find the picture objectionable is that it wasn't a graven image.

So I gave you an instance of a graven image - that is, a statue -
to which you reply that you wouldn't worship it, either.

For you what I think I'm hearing is that the means of making
the image doesn't matter - that all are okay as long as you do
not worship them. That making all manner of images of God
are fine, as long as they aren't objects of worship.

Am I hearing you right?

Yes, to me a graven image is anything one worships. Pictures, Statues, TV etc

Okay, well, with all due respect, whether an image is
a "graven image" has nothing to do with whether it is worshipped or not. The word "graven" describes its construction. Yes, any image that purports to display Christ is a graven image (whether it's painting, sculpture, or a relief carving).

 

[historyb]

okay

 

[Confessor]

Sorry to intrude but I just talked to my dad about taking down our picture of Jesus, and he himself has thought about taking it down, and he said something along the lines of "Well Jesus was actually here, he was human, so its ok to have a picture of him" Is their any merit to what he has said?

The problem with that is that the picture is an alleged image of Christ and not an actual image. It is what some artist happened to think Jesus might look like. (You'll notice a physical description of Jesus is given nowhere in the Gospels.)

 

[toddpedlar]

Sorry to intrude but I just talked to my dad about taking down our picture of Jesus, and he himself has thought about taking it down, and he said something along the lines of "Well Jesus was actually here, he was human, so its ok to have a picture of him" Is their any merit to what he has said?

No, I don't believe so. This has been covered in other threads, but one of the key issues is that Christ is not merely human. Any picture that purports to display Christ cannot display Him properly because He is fully God and fully man -and any image made of Him can display only His humanity, thus separating what cannot be separated. Further, if the picture is intended to bring forth reminders of the love of Christ for His sheep, and thereby give rise to worshipful thoughts and devotional meditations, then it is intended as an instrument of worship - and is thus an idol, condemned by the 2nd commandment. One needn't actually get on his knees and think that the image IS Christ in order to be worshipping God through the use of the image (which is what the Israelites were condemned for).

 

[INsearch]

Sorry to intrude but I just talked to my dad about taking down our picture of Jesus, and he himself has thought about taking it down, and he said something along the lines of "Well Jesus was actually here, he was human, so its ok to have a picture of him" Is their any merit to what he has said?

No, I don't believe so. This has been covered in other threads, but one of the key issues is that Christ is not merely human. Any picture that purports to display Christ cannot display Him properly because He is fully God and fully man -and any image made of Him can display only His humanity, thus separating what cannot be separated. Further, if the picture is intended to bring forth reminders of the love of Christ for His sheep, and thereby give rise to worshipful thoughts and devotional meditations, then it is intended as an instrument of worship - and is thus an idol, condemned by the 2nd commandment. One needn't actually get on his knees and think that the image IS Christ in order to be worshipping God through the use of the image (which is what the Israelites were condemned for).

My dad understands this reasoning and now asks "Then what about childrens books with Christ in it? then we shouldn't be using those at all?"

 

[py3ak]

Your dad has caught on!

 

[INsearch]

Your dad has caught on!

About what?

 

[Confessor]

Your dad has caught on!

About what?

We shouldn't have purported images of Christ in children's books.

-----Added 5/26/2009 at 06:39:23 EST-----

Any picture that purports to display Christ cannot display Him properly because He is fully God and fully man -and any image made of Him can display only His humanity, thus separating what cannot be separated.

We've talked about this via PM before, and I still disagree with this reasoning, primarily because it would make the scenario in which a person living contemporaneously with Christ would be sinning if he recalled a memory in which he saw Christ. If all images of Christ are sinful because they imply docetism, then recalling an accurate image of Christ via memory (i.e., not a purported image, but an actual one of what He looks like) would be sin. And that is simply absurd.

 

[toddpedlar]

Sorry to intrude but I just talked to my dad about taking down our picture of Jesus, and he himself has thought about taking it down, and he said something along the lines of "Well Jesus was actually here, he was human, so its ok to have a picture of him" Is their any merit to what he has said?

No, I don't believe so. This has been covered in other threads, but one of the key issues is that Christ is not merely human. Any picture that purports to display Christ cannot display Him properly because He is fully God and fully man -and any image made of Him can display only His humanity, thus separating what cannot be separated. Further, if the picture is intended to bring forth reminders of the love of Christ for His sheep, and thereby give rise to worshipful thoughts and devotional meditations, then it is intended as an instrument of worship - and is thus an idol, condemned by the 2nd commandment. One needn't actually get on his knees and think that the image IS Christ in order to be worshipping God through the use of the image (which is what the Israelites were condemned for).

My dad understands this reasoning and now asks "Then what about childrens books with Christ in it? then we shouldn't be using those at all?"

Yup. We shouldn't. The images there are no different than the images on the wall of the church (if you're unfortunate enough to attend one that has such an image).

 

[INsearch]

Your dad has caught on!

About what?

We shouldn't have purported images of Christ in children's books.

Oh ok, I was just thinking that he couldn't possibly be replying to that question so fast lol. Umm yeah my dad says he's going to think about it. He used to be a Youth Leader a long time ago some of the kids got that picture for him, so I think he might feel a little sad about the idea of having to let it go.

 

[toddpedlar]

Any picture that purports to display Christ cannot display Him properly because He is fully God and fully man -and any image made of Him can display only His humanity, thus separating what cannot be separated.

We've talked about this via PM before, and I still disagree with this reasoning, primarily because it would make the scenario in which a person living contemporaneously with Christ would be sinning if he recalled a memory in which he saw Christ.

If all images of Christ are sinful because they imply docetism, then recalling an accurate image of Christ via memory (i.e., not a purported image, but an actual one of what He looks like) would be sin. And that is simply absurd.

Your problem, though, is with the confessional description of "mental images", though, am I right? We're not dealing with that here but with the issue of images of Christ in general.

It isn't the separation of natures alone that is the problem, though, as such, but making images of the Godhead that is the problem. Christ is God. He cannot be imaged without sin, simply because He is God.

 

[Confessor]

Your problem, though, is with the confessional description of "mental images", though, am I right? We're not dealing with that here but with the issue of images of Christ in general.

But isn't the same argument used against physical images of Christ logically extended to apply to mental images as well? I don't see how one can draw a distinction between the two such that an argument against physical images does not also apply to mental images.

It isn't the separation of natures alone that is the problem, though, as such, but making images of the Godhead that is the problem. Christ is God. He cannot be imaged without sin, simply because He is God.

I agree. This is why I am vehemently against images of Christ. I just do not agree with the specific iconoclastic argument that deals with the separation of God's natures.

 

[kalawine]

Another "question for an answer" might be, if you drove by a Church that has a cross on it's steeple, would it be a sin for you to visually see the cross? No. Would it be a sin for you to place a cross on your own Church's steeple? Yep.

Now that is a great subject for another thread! Is a cross on a church steeple a sin?

Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven (carved) image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

 

[Whitefield]

Another "question for an answer" might be, if you drove by a Church that has a cross on it's steeple, would it be a sin for you to visually see the cross? No. Would it be a sin for you to place a cross on your own Church's steeple? Yep.

Now that is a great subject for another thread! Is a cross on a church steeple a sin?

Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven (carved) image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

Sorry, but a cross on the exterior of a church is not a graven image within the full context of this verse.

 

[Glenn Ferrell]

I agree. This is why I am vehemently against images of Christ. I just do not agree with the specific iconoclastic argument that deals with the separation of God's natures.

When Jesus was bodily on earth, he could be and was worshiped as a one divine person with a human and divine nature. If it was not inappropriate for any to fall at his feet and worship his physical presences, it would not have been wrong for them to continue to worship the memory of his person, with the mental image God providentially gave them. They saw, knew and remembered the divine God-man Jesus.

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us; ) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
[1 John 1:1-3]​

It is entirely another matter for one to make, or identify a man made image of Christ, which can only propose to show his human nature, thus dividing what God has inseparably joined forever. And, any image proposing to depict the divine person is a sinful attempt at an representing God in a way he forbids.

 

[Confessor]

It is entirely another matter for one to make, or identify a man made image of Christ, which can only propose to show his human nature, thus dividing what God has inseparably joined forever. And, any image proposing to depict the divine person is a sinful attempt at an representing God in a way he forbids.

Can a purely mental image (say for argument's sake a still image) of Christ depict His divine nature?

 

[kalawine]

Now that is a great subject for another thread! Is a cross on a church steeple a sin?

Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven (carved) image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

Sorry, but a cross on the exterior of a church is not a graven image within the full context of this verse.

The Tract Series: Icons, Graven Images, and the Church

From Dr. McMahon's essay at the link above: The words "You shall not make" means just that – men ought never make a visible representation or image of God in any way, shape or form.

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), Chapter XXI, Section I states:

But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited to his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture.

 

[Confessor]

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), Chapter XXI, Section I states:

But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited to his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture.

The cross does not attempt to visibly represent God. It has religious significance, but it does not attempt to depict God.