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. CalsFarmer

    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.
     
  2. Ianterrell

    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?
     
  3. Ianterrell

    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]
     
  4. 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]
     
  5. Ianterrell

    Ianterrell Puritan Board Sophomore

    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".
     
  6. Ianterrell

    Ianterrell Puritan Board Sophomore

    Are we allowed to create images of theophanies?
     
  7. DTK

    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
     
  8. VirginiaHuguenot

    VirginiaHuguenot Puritanboard Librarian

  9. Peter

    Peter Puritan Board Junior

    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?
     
  10. Peter

    Peter Puritan Board Junior

    Then you concede and accept defeat? Very noble of you, thanks.:p
     
  11. Peter

    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;
     
  12. Me Died Blue

    Me Died Blue Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    [​IMG]
     
  13. Peter

    Peter Puritan Board Junior

    So I win then?:bigsmile:
     
  14. Peter

    Peter Puritan Board Junior

    Ok. You can close the thread now. (quickly)

    [Edited on 17-1-2005 by Peter]
     
  15. Goosha

    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]
     
  16. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member

    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...?
     
  17. Goosha

    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.
     
  18. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member

    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?
     
  19. Goosha

    Goosha Puritan Board Freshman

    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]
     
  20. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member

    Nope. Never have, never will. If that's required for an answer to the immediate practical question, so be it.
     
  21. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member

    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]
     
  22. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member

    I mean the PCA. Remember, we're not congregationalists. ;)
     
  23. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member

    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
     
  24. Me Died Blue

    Me Died Blue Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    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.
     
  25. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member

    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:
     
  26. ARStager

    ARStager Puritan Board Freshman

    (Fred:

    Check your U2U.

    Andy)
     
  27. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member

    Not sure what you mean. [​IMG]

    Thanks, but remember that ruling elders are ordained too![​IMG] I'll be ordained again (D.v.) in a couple of years. But that polity argument is for another day.
     
  28. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member

    Oh. Ok. But I submit. I enforce those new provisions in the BCO in my Presbytery.
     
  29. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member

    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.
     
  30. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member

    Better to say I disagreed.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page