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. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member

    I will.

    The Church says (through her Subordinate Standards) that the 2nd Commandment is to be interpreted as forbidding pictures of Christ. The Church says that to make such pictures is sin.

    You say that such pictures are permissible and not sin.

    From the Church's perspective (her Standards), it is the equivalent of saying that cheating on your taxes, or blaspheming God's name is not a sin. That is, what the Church says is sin, you say is not sin. So what the Church would tell a person the Bible says to them, you contradict. In others words, you set your authority up over the Church's. You have said that you are right and they are wrong, and people ought to follow you rather than the Church.

    That's how Confessions work.
     
  2. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member

    Actually Paul,

    The Church has said that the Standards do not endorse eiher view, and therefore neither is a test for orthodoxy so long as the man affirms Creation by God ex nihilo (see the Ad Interim Committee's Report). I can live with that, so it does not bother me.

    You may have me by miles on logic training, but I'm not ready to capitulate regarding the BCO and subscription. :D After all, I've probably studied the issue more than about everyone in the PCA save a dozen or so guys. :lol:

    [Edited on 1/20/2005 by fredtgreco]
     
  3. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member

    Oh, and by the way, I do have a couple of small exceptions to the Standards and it does bother me. One bothered me so much I tried to get my hands on everything I could on the issue, and I was able to accept the Church's position in good conscience. :chained:
     
  4. luvroftheWord

    luvroftheWord Puritan Board Sophomore

    What position is that, Fred? (If you don't mind me asking) The strong language you used has peaked my curiousity.
     
  5. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member

    No problem. I was formerly of the opinion that Ruling Elders could administer the sacraments without a teaching elder being present. I took that position from the "logical consequence" of Thornwell's two-office view (which I still hold). The only problem was that it was not the logical consequence. I was able to get my hands on an out print Presbyterian Journal article written by Thornwell from my friend (and great historian and gift to the Church) Wayne Sparkman, caretaker of the PCA Historical Center, in which Thornwell actually takes the opposite position that I took.

    So I read some more Thornwell, and Hodge and others and the texts they were dealing with, and changed my position. Removed my exception to the Standards, and notified my Session, Presbytery and another Presbytery I was licensed in. All this in the context that I did not teach (ever in this case) contrary to the Standards, but kept the matter to myself and had all my discussions within the Courts of the Church, acting for change (albeit slowly).
     
  6. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member

    I agree that this one is about done, and I agree that Paul is a pleasure to engage. It's a good thing we're both paisons, or we might offend each other!

    I'm going to shut this down unless Craig or someone has further questions on the subscription issue, in which case I'll split those posts off to a new thread.

    Onward and upward!
     
  7. luvroftheWord

    luvroftheWord Puritan Board Sophomore

    No, I'm good. I was just curious, that's all. I think this thread has run its course, myself.
     
  8. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member

    No problem. Just wanted to make sure.

    Closing.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page