Images and the 2nd commandment

[wsw201]

Originally posted by tcalbrecht

Originally posted by Paul manata
Jesus was also 100% man. The Bible does not forbid this. You guys also need to take this into account because it appears as if monophysitism is running amuck, here.

"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.

"The only admissible figure of the humanity of Christ, however, is bread and wine in the holy Supper. This and no other form, this and no other type, has he chosen to represent his incarnation"¦"

Synod of Constantinople (Hieria, 753 AD)

Quotes collected by the First Presbyterian Church of Rowlett, Texas

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Paul manata

"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.

How do they know? Looks like someone stacked the deck in his favor.

Like this: whoever denies that Christ in His humanity can be represented just denies the humanity of Christ.

Wow, that was easy. I wish all positions could be like the Constantinople one. Just assert that if the oponant does something you disagree with they're wrong. All you need is to tell people that if someone does something then it's wrong.

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...

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by luvroftheWord
Then I guess the fact that the Bible does, in fact, tell us things INSPIRED (see God-devised) about Christ's appearance then we are allow to picture him as he walked with his disciples in our minds as well, just as we are allowed to picture Revelation 1:13-16 in our minds. Thanks for pointing that out.

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.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Paul manata

"The only admissible figure of the humanity of Christ, however, is bread and wine in the holy Supper. This and no other form, this and no other type, has he chosen to represent his incarnation"¦"

If they say so. Frankly, I'm not impressed by this.

Look what I can do:

"We must be careful that we not suggest that his body was divine. When he trimmed his hair, deity did not lay upon the ground to waste away. When his body laid in the tomb in the coldness of death, deity was not dead. Rather, Christ´s mortal body was the real and tangible manifestation of his true incarnate condition. And as such, was capable of artistic reproduction."

-Ken Gentry


Oh, he's not as old as your quote? -argumentem ad antiquitum.

Oh, he's not as godly as the puritans? -argumentum ad hominem.

Oh, there's more quotes on your side? -argumentum ad populum.

Oh, he disagrees with the Bible? -argumentem ad ...... prove it!

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.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Paul manata

"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.

How do they know? Looks like someone stacked the deck in his favor.

Like this: whoever denies that Christ in His humanity can be represented just denies the humanity of Christ.

Wow, that was easy. I wish all positions could be like the Constantinople one. Just assert that if the oponant does something you disagree with they're wrong. All you need is to tell people that if someone does something then it's wrong.

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...

well, if that's the case I lost a whole lot a respect for them. I mean, to meet for days, and have the church vote, and then draft a statement--all that to end up committing the fallacy of false alternative!

Maybe you're right, Fred. They should've asked Craig and I.

I know.

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

 

[ReformedWretch]

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Paul manata
Just for Fred,

quad erot demonstratum

Paul, Paul, Paul...

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

Quod erat demonstrandum

 

[wsw201]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Paul manata

"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.

How do they know? Looks like someone stacked the deck in his favor.

Like this: whoever denies that Christ in His humanity can be represented just denies the humanity of Christ.

Wow, that was easy. I wish all positions could be like the Constantinople one. Just assert that if the oponant does something you disagree with they're wrong. All you need is to tell people that if someone does something then it's wrong.

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...

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?

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Paul manata
Scripture does not say that it is wrong to make images of human attributes. Christ's body was a human attribute. Therefore Scripture does not say that it is wrong for me to make an immage of Christ's body.

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

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Paul manata
Scripture does not say that it is wrong to make images of human attributes. Christ's body was a human attribute. Therefore Scripture does not say that it is wrong for me to make an immage of Christ's body.

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

how can a syllogism which committs the fallacy of a double negative (two negative propositions) be a q.e.d.? You need to ALWAYS have a positive on in there.

Fred, Fred, Fred, can't get his logic right. Now I know why he likes all those "arguments" by the divines!

Mine, on the otherhand, was valid---QED.

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!

[Edited on 12/29/2004 by fredtgreco]

 

[fredtgreco]

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:

Paul Fred

 

[RickyReformed]

Originally posted by Paul manata

God's nature is logical. That means I have God. God can never be illogical. The Church can err.

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!

 

[RickyReformed]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by RickyReformed

Originally posted by luvroftheWord
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If the commandment forbids any and all images of God, then it forbids any and all images of anything.

Craig, if God forbids any images of Himself, how does it follow that God forbids any images of anything else? That only follows if these things are also God, and I know you're not saying that.

Furthermore, if God forbids any visual representations of Himself and Jesus is God, then doesn't Jesus forbid any representations of Himself?

Jesus is also man and it is not a volation to represent man. So, if I downplay the one you guys down play the other.

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:

Let the sin of Uzza warn us all to take heed of presumption, rashness, and irreverence, in dealing about holy things (1Ch_13:9), and not to think that a good intention will justify a bad action. In our communion with God we must carefully watch over our own hearts, lest familiarity breed contempt, and we think God is in any way beholden to us. 2. Let the punishment of Uzza convince us that the God with whom we have to do is a jealous God. ... Let us not dare to trifle with God in our approaches to him.*

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

 

[RickyReformed]

Originally posted by Paul manata
I am representing Jesus in his humanity. That is, I'm *recognizing* an aspect of the person. That is, the image is of his *body.* I know you don't like this, but formulated this way I have ZERO problems. I know Jesus isn't merely a man. But, he's not merely divine, either, Ricky.

It is not wrong to make an image of a human attribute (we all agree on this premise). Jesus' body is attributed to the human nature (cf, ALL the systematics texts and bible). Therefore, it is not wrong to make an image of Jesus' body (necessarily follows from the two true premises, making it sound).
[Edited on 12-30-2004 by Paul manata]

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:

What then are we to say of pictures of Christ? First of all, it must be said that we have no data whatsoever on the basis of which to make a pictorial representation; we have no descriptions of his physical features which would enable even the most accomplished artist to make an approximate portrait....No impression we have of Jesus should be created without the proper revelatory data, and every impression, every thought, should evoke worship. Hence, since we possess no revelatory data for a picture or portrait in the proper sense of the term, we are precluded from making one or using any that have been made.*

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

[Edited on 30-12-2004 by RickyReformed]

 

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by Paul manata
Look what I can do:

"We must be careful that we not suggest that his body was divine. When he trimmed his hair, deity did not lay upon the ground to waste away. When his body laid in the tomb in the coldness of death, deity was not dead. Rather, Christ´s mortal body was the real and tangible manifestation of his true incarnate condition. And as such, was capable of artistic reproduction."

-Ken Gentry

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

 

[luvroftheWord]

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.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by luvroftheWord
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.

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.

 

[luvroftheWord]

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

 

[ReformedWretch]

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?

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by luvroftheWord
Not if you reject the assertion that a picture of Jesus can only bring glory to him if it is an exact replica.

Craig,

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

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

 

[luvroftheWord]

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 =

Ciao.

 

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by luvroftheWord
Not if you reject the assertion that a picture of Jesus can only bring glory to him if it is an exact replica.

Is this close enough?

 

[Scott Bushey]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Yea. I like em!!

 

[RickyReformed]

Originally posted by Paul manata

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.

See, divorced is a word used to slant the argument in your favor. I know you can't divorce them, but you CAN *distinguish* them.

I am representing Jesus in his humanity. That is, I'm *recognizing* an aspect of the person. That is, the image is of his *body.* I know you don't like this, but formulated this way I have ZERO problems. I know Jesus isn't merely a man. But, he's not merely divine, either, Ricky.

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?

 

[RickyReformed]

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:

 

[pastorway]

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

 

[pastorway]

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

1 And God spoke all these words, saying: 2"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3"You shall have no other gods before Me. 4"You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.7"You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.

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......

 

[Authorised]

"This is not a pipe"

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by houseparent

Now this is a good thread.