Images of Christ

Status
Not open for further replies.
I do see the gray area, however here are some thoughts. God has chosen to reveal himself to us using words, spoken and written. The Spirit works according to the power of the Word he inspired.

As to the pedagogical use of drawing connecting lines on the chalk board, that is still something different than creating a symbol/image and calling it God.

Given the very real danger of idolatry, what value do you see in creating and using such images? I suppose it comes down ultimately to a question of the sufficiency of Scripture.

I agree that there is a difference between the teacher's pedagogical use and the creation of an image and calling it God. I just think that the example of the covers of the Trinity Hymnal and Psalter is closer to the former rather than the latter.

I'm not really interested in using symbols to represent the concept of the Trinity; I'm just not ready to condemn the practice of those who do.
 
I was merely trying to point out that the wording of the larger catechism faithfully tracks with the second commandment in identifying the relationship between idolatry and creating images in that form of creatures ("anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth", Exo 5:4; cf. Gen. 1:20-22).

It's not clear to me that if a person denied the extension to geometric forms and shapes they should be deemed unconfessional in this area.
 
Yes, for me it's not a hill to die on. I'm not preparing charges against anybody ;-).

I think the bigger (and clearer) issue is of images of Jesus. I'm surprised at the number of PCA websites I've seen with multiple images of Christ on them.
 
Here's one example:
http://www.trinitychurch.cc/

This site is filled with images and symbols
-several images of Jesus (in the site header that shows on every page)
- the "trinity" symbol that we've been discussing
- a dove (not sure if this would be the Holy Spirit image or the Noah's ark one, however it is not clutching the branch which makes me think the former)
- a stick figure nativity (no Jesus picture, but the manger has a halo??)

All of this is on the home page. It seems odd, considering it is a confessional church. Even if one is not convinced that such images are a violation of Scripture, still to post them on an official church website of a denomination that subscribes to WLC 109 seems a bit odd???
 

Your example is an interesting choice. It could be argued whether this congregation fairly represents a truly confessional congregation. E.g., in addition to the pictures of Jesus liberally scattered about the web site, you will also note they are affiliated with the so-called "Redeemer Network," a niche sub-group within the PCA made up of churches connected to Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan. They have a somewhat egalitarian view of women in office, with a "diaconate" made up of both men and women.
 
Yes, for me it's not a hill to die on. I'm not preparing charges against anybody ;-).

I think the bigger (and clearer) issue is of images of Jesus. I'm surprised at the number of PCA websites I've seen with multiple images of Christ on them.
Unfair "picking on" the PCA, I am rather sure if I did some digging I could find some OPC stuff in violation of RPW.:2cents:
 
It is a bit of a caricaturization, however, that's my experience. The OPC isn't perfect, however, on this issue I think the PCA has a greater struggle. For instance, I spoke w/ a number of PCA pastors when the movie the Passion of the Christ came out, and asked them about second commandment issues w/ regards to the movie. Several of them had never even thought the two were connected, and had never even given images of Jesus a second thought. I was very surprised (to say the least). Not to mention that a PCA congregation would pay to bus people by the droves to see the film!!! :doh:
Thats cool, I am sure there are some PCA congregations that may have made mistakes in this regard, nontheless we should be careful about making sweeping statements, not trying to sound uber-defensive Brother, but as a PCA man myself, you will not find Jesus images on our site nor do we bus people to Jesus films.
 
Last edited:
Yes, for me it's not a hill to die on. I'm not preparing charges against anybody ;-).

I think the bigger (and clearer) issue is of images of Jesus...

Andrew, I am still not convinced on the symbol. No one (that I know) is saying that the symbol IS the Trinity or should be worshiped. Un-like the Golden Calf where Aaron said 'this is your god'. You can say 'God' is a symbol for God and have the same problem.

BTW, I looked at the symbol this Sunday and the one on the Trinity Hymnal is different from the Trinity symbol you mentioned, but same applies.

Thanks, though, for the food for thought, it is good to challenge conventional thinking as I do think Christians violate the 2nd commandment too often today, mainly because they have never been taught what the commandment means.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top