christian_soldier33
Inactive User
The following seems to be a different argument than most that I have confronted on the topic. My friend and I (both formerly opposed to the idea; and I still am) were debating the issue (him playing the devil's advocate) when he actually presented a very sound idea.
When we read the Bible we must picture Christ in our mind's, knowing that He is God, but still picturing Him, as a man, doing the things that He did. So what is different from doing this in our mind's and putting it in a children's book so that children can picture what Christ did. This view would still hold strictly to picturing Christ ONLY as the Bible portrays Him and anything outside of this would be idolatry.
This is normally the argument that I present against ANY image of Christ.
The Second Helvetic Confession - Chapter IV
"Of Idols or Images of God, Christ and The Saints
Images of God. Since God as Spirit is in essence invisible and immense, he cannot really be expressed by any art or image. For this reason we have no fear pronouncing with Scripture that images of God are mere lies. Therefore we reject not only the idols of the Gentiles, but also the images of Christians. Although Christ assumed human nature, yet he did not on that account assume it in order to provide a model for carvers and painters. He denied that he had come to abolish the law and the prophets (Matt. 5:17). But images are forbidden by the law and the prophets (Deut. 4:15; Isa. 44:9). He denied that his bodily presence would be profitable for the Church, and promised that he would be near us by his Spirit forever (John 16:7). Who, therefore, would believe that a shadow or likeness of his body would contribute any benefit to the pious? (II Cor. 5:5). Since he abides in us by his Spirit, we are therefore the temple of God (II Cor. 3:16). But what agreement has the temple of God with idols? (II Cor. 6:16)."
BUT who reads the Bible without "picturing" what it looked like. I don't think that anyone can really get into the Gospel w/o doing this. So what is the difference? Anyone got any ideas?
Knight4Christ8 (borrowing my brother's id)
When we read the Bible we must picture Christ in our mind's, knowing that He is God, but still picturing Him, as a man, doing the things that He did. So what is different from doing this in our mind's and putting it in a children's book so that children can picture what Christ did. This view would still hold strictly to picturing Christ ONLY as the Bible portrays Him and anything outside of this would be idolatry.
This is normally the argument that I present against ANY image of Christ.
The Second Helvetic Confession - Chapter IV
"Of Idols or Images of God, Christ and The Saints
Images of God. Since God as Spirit is in essence invisible and immense, he cannot really be expressed by any art or image. For this reason we have no fear pronouncing with Scripture that images of God are mere lies. Therefore we reject not only the idols of the Gentiles, but also the images of Christians. Although Christ assumed human nature, yet he did not on that account assume it in order to provide a model for carvers and painters. He denied that he had come to abolish the law and the prophets (Matt. 5:17). But images are forbidden by the law and the prophets (Deut. 4:15; Isa. 44:9). He denied that his bodily presence would be profitable for the Church, and promised that he would be near us by his Spirit forever (John 16:7). Who, therefore, would believe that a shadow or likeness of his body would contribute any benefit to the pious? (II Cor. 5:5). Since he abides in us by his Spirit, we are therefore the temple of God (II Cor. 3:16). But what agreement has the temple of God with idols? (II Cor. 6:16)."
BUT who reads the Bible without "picturing" what it looked like. I don't think that anyone can really get into the Gospel w/o doing this. So what is the difference? Anyone got any ideas?
Knight4Christ8 (borrowing my brother's id)