Images and the 2nd commandment

Discussion in 'The Law of God' started by Scott Bushey, Dec 21, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. wsw201

    wsw201 Puritan Board Senior

    :up::up::up:
     
  2. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member

    Either that or say, I don't know, they had a meeting of leaders of the Church, and say, discussed the matter for days, and then, I don't know, drafted a statement, and then, maybe, had a vote on it....

    I guess it could have been easier for them just to have cleared it with you and Craig, and since you disagree, and don't like their Biblical conclusions, acquiesced to your will...
    :lol:
     
  3. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member

    You've missed the point, again. But at least I will be glad that you will now be going around and replacing all the non-Divinely inspired sissy Scandanavian false pictures of "Jesus" with a literal rendition of Rev. 1 (complete with the brass feet and eyes of fire). Somehow I don't think the evanglical and pseudo-Reformed Precious moment crowd would like that.
     
  4. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member

    Oh, that's right, I forgot, since we live in the age of evanjellyicalism, the opinion of 1 man carries equal weight with that of the Church. I forgot. I thought that the Church had authority. I guess I'll leave RTS and join my local, non-denominational, no-creed-but-Christ, independent, non-connectional "fellowship of believers."

    Please re-read the "Theological Traditionalism" thread.
     
  5. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member

    I know. [​IMG]

    And then to have the entireReformed Church follow them. If they only knew the power of a sissy picture to evangelize the world. You know like that movie -- you know, the one that got 0.10%, YEAH 0.10%!!!!! of Christians to talk about their faith. Now if we could only get sissy pictures on Starbucks coffee! That would bring about the millennium ;)
     
  6. ReformedWretch

    ReformedWretch Puritan Board Doctor

    [​IMG]
     
  7. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member

    Paul, Paul, Paul...

    Can't even get his Latin logical terms right. (by the way, QED) :lol: :lol:

    Quod erat demonstrandum

    ;)
     
  8. wsw201

    wsw201 Puritan Board Senior

    It's also like those guys in England who called themselves the Divines (wasn't that a MoTown group?). What's up with that! Where do they get off making up stuff based on "their" interpetation of the Bible. Didn't they know that all we need is the Holy Spirit and an open Bible?
     
  9. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member

    Scripture does not say that Christ had two natures and one Person. Therefore Scripture does not say that it is wrong to speak of two Persons.

    QED
     
  10. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member

    Ehh, everyone knows Latin is more important than logic.

    And I still have the Church, which means I have God. You can have logic. You know, that thing that says that election and responsibility can't be reconciled?

    Besides, I ALSO have the better smilies!

    [​IMG][​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    [Edited on 12/29/2004 by fredtgreco]
     
  11. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member

    Just so no one thinks that Paul and I are mad at each other, I had my wife take a photo of us this afternoon discussing the issue:

    [​IMG]
    Paul Fred
     
  12. RickyReformed

    RickyReformed Puritan Board Freshman

    Never in a million years would I have pegged you as a rationalist, Paul! ;)

    Obviously you are using 'merely' human logic instead of divine logic here!

    :lol:
     
  13. RickyReformed

    RickyReformed Puritan Board Freshman

    Jesus is not merely a man and it *is* a violation to visually represent Jesus as a man separated from his divinity. This is where the Nestorian charge comes into play: you can only represent the human nature divorced from the divine when man creates an image of Christ, the third person of the Trinity.

    As for the brass mirror argument, this is essentially the same error that Uzza committed when he placed his hands on the ark of the covenant when the ox stumbled (2 Sam. 6:7). Uzza thought he was doing something good by preventing the ark of the covenant from falling on the floor. He thought he was 'cleaner' than the creation. Likewise, because creation (water, polished brass, etc.) could have - for it is nowhere mentioned in Scripture that this occurred - again, could have reflected Christ's image imperfectly does *not* permit man to create images of Christ, especially in light of the prohibition expressed in the 2nd commandment.

    See the difference? Because creation could touch the ark does not imply men (except the Levites) could touch the ark. Likewise, because creation could have reflected Christ's image does not imply we can represent Christ's image.

    Those who wish to use forbidden images as teaching tools, etc. should head Matthew Henry's warning:

    *from Matthew Henry's commentary on 1Ch 13:9.
     
  14. RickyReformed

    RickyReformed Puritan Board Freshman

    First, let me point out that I don't believe your first premise is correct. I would say that it is not wrong to make an image of a human attribute unless it is forbidden by God. For example, can I make an image of a human attribute and claim it is a representation of God the Father? Of course not; so it is forbidden to make at least some images of human attributes.

    Furthermore, since you have zero descriptions of Jesus' physical features, rather than representing an image of Jesus, what is being offered is a mis-represention of an image of Jesus.

    Let me offer John Murray on Images, since he is much more eloquent than I am:

    *from http://www.datarat.net/DR/pic.html

    [Edited on 30-12-2004 by RickyReformed]
     
  15. tcalbrecht

    tcalbrecht Puritan Board Junior

    I must say that I normally like Gentry, but on this subject he's missed the mark.
     
  16. luvroftheWord

    luvroftheWord Puritan Board Sophomore

    The purpose of creating a picture of Jesus is not to recreate every last detail of of his appearance. If that's your standard for art, then you make virtually all artistic representation a lie, and therefore sinful. Nobody can copy anything perfectly.
     
  17. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member

    Maybe that is why we shouldn't make representations of the only Person Who is perfect. Any representation of Christ is a lie that takes away from His glory. Even Paul's zeal to "only show the humanity" (sh, sh, don't worry about His deity) is a lie about Who Christ is.
     
  18. luvroftheWord

    luvroftheWord Puritan Board Sophomore

    Not if you reject the assertion that a picture of Jesus can only bring glory to him if it is an exact replica.
     
  19. ReformedWretch

    ReformedWretch Puritan Board Doctor

    Forgive my ignorance but..

    I remember some Christian art playing a vital role in my life as a youngster. Pictures made me ask questions like;

    -Why is Jesus knocking on that door?

    -Why is Jesus holding that lamb?

    These are juvinile questions but I was a child! They lead me to inquire when I may not have.

    As corny as that old picture of Jesus "who's eyes seemed to follow you" may be to us now, it made me think of how important Christ was to my grandparents who had one hanging in their home for as long as I can remember.

    I want to honor the Lord, I do, but if some art can cause a child to ponder and seek answers about the Word of God can it be all bad?
     
  20. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member

    Craig,

    Stick with Paul's arguments. He's wrong, but they're much better. :lol:

    Uh - sin glorifies God. Should we engage in it?
     
  21. luvroftheWord

    luvroftheWord Puritan Board Sophomore

    If you're willing to throw out all artistic rendition because it is all a lie, then whatever. But I don't except such an incredible and down right ridiculous (not to mention completely arbitrary) claim that pictures that aren't exact replicas are sinful, since that is almost NEVER the purpose of artisit rendition anyway.

    I'll leave Paul to argue with you guys. I was just trying a different approach since you guys aren't getting his arguments (And please, nobody post a list of popular dead people's names and ask me how dare I suggest that they all just don't get it).

    My involvement in this discussion = :tombstone:

    Ciao.
     
  22. tcalbrecht

    tcalbrecht Puritan Board Junior


    [​IMG]

    Is this close enough?
     
  23. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritanboard Commissioner

    [​IMG]
     
  24. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritanboard Commissioner

    Yea. I like em!!
     
  25. RickyReformed

    RickyReformed Puritan Board Freshman

    Paul, your on the horns of a dilemma:

    If you portray Christ only in His humanity, then you are portraying an aryan Christ (which is a lie.) But only atheists and aryans can view a picture of Christ without thinking of His divinity; the orthodox will see Jesus, the God-Man. When depicting an image of Christ, regardless of how much emphasis you put on His humanity, and how much you attempt to de-emphasize His divinity, unless you divorce His humanity from His divinity, you cannot help but portray His divinity. But if any amount of Christ's divinity is portrayed, then how is this not a violation of the 2nd commandment?
     
  26. RickyReformed

    RickyReformed Puritan Board Freshman

    Above was my last post on this. Although I feel very strongly about this issue, I do not want readers to think that I don't appreciate Paul or Craig. The truth is, I've learned much from both of them in the past and consider them my brothers in the Lord.

    In fact, my wife took some video of us not to long ago while mule-deer huntin'. See:

    :deadhorse:
     
  27. pastorway

    pastorway Puritan Board Senior

    can you look at a picture of Christ (or at least a picture that is supposed to be Him) and not be moved to worship?

    if so, it is indeed a lie and not Christ - for to see Him is to worship and adore Him.

    I don't want to look at fake pictures of my Lord drawn from out of the imaginations of some artist, no matter how grand. I want to see HIM, and long for His appearing!

    Phillip
     
  28. pastorway

    pastorway Puritan Board Senior

    too bad it really is not as simple as it is written:

    1. Don't worship anyone but Me.
    2. Don't make an image of Me.
    3. Don't misuse My name.

    no. I didn't think it could ever be that simple......



    :candle:
     
  29. Authorised

    Authorised Puritan Board Freshman

    [​IMG]

    "This is not a pipe"
     
  30. PuritanCovenanter

    PuritanCovenanter Moderator Staff Member

    Now this is a good thread.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page