Images and the 2nd commandment

Status
Not open for further replies.

CalsFarmer

Puritan Board Freshman
Saw the sandals...saw the huggy J---s. And people wonder why I do not patronize Christian supply stores. Who needs supplies like these?

Images.....verbotten.
 

Ianterrell

Puritan Board Sophomore
How can we detatch the historical Christ from the exalted Christ? If we tell of his works through images aren't we performing an act of worship?
 

Ianterrell

Puritan Board Sophomore
Who says we're allowed to distinguish between Christ's natures in this respect? Didn't Thomas bow to Jesus' physical body? Your seperation of Christ's nature is unproven as far as I've seen.

[Edited on 15-1-2005 by Ianterrell]
 

Ianterrell

Puritan Board Sophomore
None of this proves that its okay to create images of Christ. Positively prove your position. By the way I edited my post for clarity but it looks like you responded quickly.

[Edited on 15-1-2005 by Ianterrell]
 

Ianterrell

Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by Paul manata
Ian, there is a little phrase that theologians use, simple, little, yet profound. When we say that Jesus didn;t know who touched Him the proper thing to say is: "in regards to His human nature." Or, when things are attributed to the divine we say, "In regards to His divine nature.' Theologians have distinguished between the natures for as long as I can remember. I didn't think I had to prove that since I thought that premise was a given. Fred and everyone else has granted me that premise. They just have problems from where I go from there.
I'm not asking you to prove that premise as it was never my intention to question it which is why I added "in this respect".
 

DTK

Puritan Board Junior
I've always gotten a kick out of the following ancedote that the Greek Church Father Epiphanius told of himself in a letter with respect to this issue...

Epiphanius of Salamis (310/320-403): Asking what place it was, and learning it to be a church, I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loth that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ´s church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person. NPNF2: Vol. VI, The Letters of St. Jerome, Letter 51 - From Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, In Cyprus, to John, Bishop of Jerusalem, §9.

Blessings,
DTK
 

Peter

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by Ianterrell
None of this proves that its okay to create images of Christ. Positively prove your position. By the way I edited my post for clarity but it looks like you responded quickly.

[Edited on 15-1-2005 by Ianterrell]
I have. Read the thread, find my arguments, reprint them, refute them.
Paul, the thread is 6 pages long, I havent been following it closely and havent been able to find them, do you mind reposting your arguments?
 

Peter

Puritan Board Junior
EX 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven 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.5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
 

Peter

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by Peter
EX 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven 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.5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
oh, well since you posted that I guess I was wrong! Where has that passage been all my life? I never noticed it before.:p
So I win then?:bigsmile:
 

Peter

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Paul manata
yep. You're the big winner. Yeah for Peter, he's the winner.





[size=-2]here's your prize
:2cents:
[/size]
Ok. You can close the thread now. (quickly)

[Edited on 17-1-2005 by Peter]
 

Goosha

Puritan Board Freshman
Paul,

Been following this thread and I find your arguments quite compelling. Thank you. Those who are against your position seem to think that pictures are intended to represent whole persons; however, even in the case of normal human pictures they don't represent whole persons. I look at your avatar and I have no idea who you are but just what you look like. But since we were able to hang out at Fiddlers and spend time with each other, I was able to learn about you things not pictured i.e. your personality, character, ethical habits etc. So all those accusations about splitting up Christ´s nature I find very unconvincing. Anyways, good work!

[Edited on 17-1-2005 by Goosha]

[Edited on 17-1-2005 by Goosha]
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by Goosha
I look at your avatar and I have no idea who you are but just what you look like.
I'm glad then that you know what Christ looked like also. Oh, that's right you don't, because we have no idea what he actually looked like. Sorry. So the purpose of the image again would be...?
 

Goosha

Puritan Board Freshman
Fred,

Your a master of redirection!:) Your rebuttal is powerful, just to somebody elses argument. If you accept my point that pictures don't potray whole persons, then you must also accept that a picture of Christ would not be a picture of His diety. Thats my point in case you care to address it.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by Goosha
Fred,

Your a master of redirection!:) Your rebuttal is powerful, just to somebody elses argument. If you accept my point that pictures don't potray whole persons, then you must also accept that a picture of Christ would not be a picture of His diety. Thats my point in case you care to address it.
Actually, I have. The fact that you and Paul don't accept it, fankly doesn't bother me. The Church does - check your WLC.

But the point does get at your argument: if pictures of Christ don't portrary His Person, but merely are portraying a nature (a hunk of flesh), and they do so falsely, then of what use are they?

I really want to know why I should want to look at a picture not of a person, not to draw me to know a person better (better not worship Him through the image!), and not even to know what He looks like - since not only do we NOT know what He looked like (I wonder why, in such a visual culture of the 1st century?), but almost every image is patently false (e.g. the Scandanavia hippy with the halo).

Why again?
 

Goosha

Puritan Board Freshman
Originally posted by fredtgreco
But the point does get at your argument: if pictures of Christ don't portrary His Person, but merely are portraying a nature (a hunk of flesh), and they do so falsely, then of what use are they?
So, do you grant Paul's point that a picture portrays Christ's human nature and not His whole person (ie His diety)? Answer this first and then we can address your reductio.

[Edited on 17-1-2005 by Goosha]
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by Goosha
Originally posted by fredtgreco
But the point does get at your argument: if pictures of Christ don't portrary His Person, but merely are portraying a nature (a hunk of flesh), and they do so falsely, then of what use are they?
So, do you grant Paul's point that pictures portray natures and not whole persons? Answer this first and then we can address your reductio.
Nope. Never have, never will. If that's required for an answer to the immediate practical question, so be it.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by Paul manata

The fact that you don't find it useful, frankly doesn;t bother me.
No it shouldn't.

But it should bother you that your Church does. Unless ecclesiastical authority means nothing to you. (Which I know it does ;) )

EDIT: Too quick with typing: I MEANT to say that Paul DOES care about ecclesiastical authority, not the opposite! Sorry, Paul.

[Edited on 1/17/2005 by fredtgreco]
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Paul manata

The fact that you don't find it useful, frankly doesn;t bother me.
No it shouldn't.

But it should bother you that your Church does. Unless ecclesiastical authority means nothing to you. (Which I know it doesn't ;) )
my church in particular? They don't, actually. You must mean the confessions. But that isn't "the Church" anyway. There was a Church before there was the WCF. And, it does bother me a little, that's why I looked into it. I don;t find their views compelling. btw, you Church voted aginst a strict subscription, so no cake and eating it too;)
I mean the PCA. Remember, we're not congregationalists. ;)
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by Paul manata

you mean the ones who voted against strict subscription? Also, this issue isn't even addressed in the confession but the catechisms. So, I'm still at a los:book2:
Subscription does not give the mind of the Church. Her subordinate Standards (WCF AND the Catechisms) do. Don't be confused. You can be rebellious, but don't be confused. :D
 

Me Died Blue

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Originally posted by Goosha
Originally posted by fredtgreco
But the point does get at your argument: if pictures of Christ don't portrary His Person, but merely are portraying a nature (a hunk of flesh), and they do so falsely, then of what use are they?
So, do you grant Paul's point that a picture portrays Christ's human nature and not His whole person (ie His diety)? Answer this first and then we can address your reductio.
I think what he was saying was that the logical consequence of that point (that a picture only portrays Christ's humanity and not His person) is the uselessness of such pictures, since the one thing they are limited to portraying by that definition (his flesh) is portrayed completely inaccurately.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by Paul manata
huh? Your PCA, which you will be ordained in, would not have a problem... especially given my arguments:D so I'm still addressing the claim that my Church should worry me. The PCA wasn't around when the confession was framed, so I'm still confused:book2: I think you're diverting again.
Already ordained. :p

Just because some men refuse to uphold their Standards doesn't make it right. Or are the 3rd use of the law, the Sabbath, length of creation days, and paedocommunion unimportant as well? :cool:
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Paul manata
huh? Your PCA, which you will be ordained in, would not have a problem... especially given my arguments:D so I'm still addressing the claim that my Church should worry me. The PCA wasn't around when the confession was framed, so I'm still confused:book2: I think you're diverting again.
Already ordained. :p

Just because some men refuse to uphold their Standards doesn't make it right. Or are the 3rd use of the law, the Sabbath, length of creation days, and paedocommunion unimportant as well? :cool:
now your having cake and eating it. Fred, doesn;t it bother you to disagree with your Church?
Not sure what you mean.


btw, congrats on your ordination!!!!
Thanks, but remember that ruling elders are ordained too!
I'll be ordained again (D.v.) in a couple of years. But that polity argument is for another day.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by Paul manata
"Not sure what you mean."

Originally you said it should bother me to disagree with my church. You said my church was the PCA. I brought up that, due to the PCA's vote on subscription, I would't have a problem. You said you didn;t agree with the outcome of that vote. But the PCA voted for it. So, you disagree with your church just like you said I did..
Oh. Ok. But I submit. I enforce those new provisions in the BCO in my Presbytery.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Paul manata
"Not sure what you mean."

Originally you said it should bother me to disagree with my church. You said my church was the PCA. I brought up that, due to the PCA's vote on subscription, I would't have a problem. You said you didn;t agree with the outcome of that vote. But the PCA voted for it. So, you disagree with your church just like you said I did..
Oh. Ok. But I submit. I enforce those new provisions in the BCO in my Presbytery.
I thought you said you disagreed?
Disagreeing with a vote and refusing to submit to a lawful act of the Church are two things. The Church has spoken, and I submit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top