Is the crucifix idolatrous?

[Zach1689]

Hey y'all,

For preface, I believe in the three-fold division of The Law. I believe the crucifix is idolatrous. I believe images of Christ are idolatrous; Unable to show Him as God, but only man.

Recently, I've been challenged on this view by a great brother of mine.

His argument is that if someone wears a crucifix or has one tattooed out of their love for God, it is not idolatrous, as long as they don't worship or equate it with God.

I have tattoos, I believe God forbade tattoos for the nation-state of Israel, to separate them from the pagan religious groups surrounding them, making it civil-Law,

I'm not here to debate on tattoos though, I figure I'm in the minority belief on this forum.

To get to the point, I would love if y'all could help me out with the second Commandment, and why y'all believe crucifixes, or images of Christ, are idolatrous as well.

Or if you disagree with me, Why you believe they're not idolatrous.

Thank y'all so much for any feedback, I do ask that y'all remain kind with any words about my brother in Christ, because he is just that,

Zach.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Just a note for moderating, that the crucifix is idolatry is the view of the reformed confessions; so, you won't get any arguing against the confessions' view per the board rules. Honest questions asked, by all means. There are a lot of resources on this at Reformed Books Online. As to his general argument, one could plead for breaking the other nine commandments by simply claiming it is out of love for God. Christ said if you love Him, keep His commandments.

 

[MyCrows]

Yes.

 

[jwithnell]

On so many levels: not just the image but that it leaves the Risen Savior on the cross. The One the Bible tells us is glorified and sitting at the right hand of the Father. It is also idolatrous in the way having a Ba'al in your living room would be: the figure itself is worshiped in the Roman church.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

Hey y'all,

For preface, I believe in the three-fold division of The Law. I believe the crucifix is idolatrous. I believe images of Christ are idolatrous; Unable to show Him as God, but only man.

Recently, I've been challenged on this view by a great brother of mine.

His argument is that if someone wears a crucifix or has one tattooed out of their love for God, it is not idolatrous, as long as they don't worship or equate it with God.

I have tattoos, I believe God forbade tattoos for the nation-state of Israel, to separate them from the pagan religious groups surrounding them, making it civil-Law,

I'm not here to debate on tattoos though, I figure I'm in the minority belief on this forum.

To get to the point, I would love if y'all could help me out with the second Commandment, and why y'all believe crucifixes, or images of Christ, are idolatrous as well.

Or if you disagree with me, Why you believe they're not idolatrous.

Thank y'all so much for any feedback, I do ask that y'all remain kind with any words about my brother in Christ, because he is just that,

Zach.

God forbids us to make images of him. Christ is God. Therefore, Christ forbids us to make images of him.

The only legitimate visible representations of God are theophanies, visions, the human body of Christ, and the beatific vision in heaven. In all of these instances, it would be a grave sin not to bow before the God-ordained visible representation.

It's impossible to have any legitimate visible representation of God that we're not to worship before.

To summarize: God reserves solely to himself the prerogative to represent him visibly, and he requires that we worship him in his visible representations of himself.

 

[Ed Walsh]

For preface, I believe in the three-fold division of The Law. I believe the crucifix is idolatrous. I believe images of Christ are idolatrous; Unable to show Him as God, but only man.

Recently, I've been challenged on this view by a great brother of mine.

His argument is that if someone wears a crucifix or has one tattooed out of their love for God, it is not idolatrous, as long as they don't worship or equate it with God.

Hi Zach,

Of first importance, I think, is to know that idolatry, to be idolatry, must be rooted in the heart.

 

[CovenantPatriot87]

I don't see how having a simple cross in one's home or even on a chain is idolatrous. My bible cover zipper links have them along with the ichthus fish. The cross is never a representation or image of God but rather a representation of what he did on our behalf and what we are to take up in following him. Let's not overreact here and pat ourselves on the back for how well we do this while there is another assembly line of idol manufacturing in another department.

 

[MyCrows]

I don't see how having a simple cross in one's home or even on a chain is idolatrous. My bible cover zipper links have them along with the ichthus fish. The cross is never a representation or image of God but rather a representation of what he did on our behalf and what we are to take up in following him. Let's not overreact here and pat ourselves on the back for how well we do this while there is another assembly line of idol manufacturing in another department.

The crucifix he is referring to is not just the cross itself, but the cross bearing a likeness of Christ upon it.

 

[CovenantPatriot87]

The crucifix he is referring to is not just the cross itself, but the cross bearing a likeness of Christ upon it.

Ah, you mean the white European dude in a diaper?

 

[Zach1689]

Just a note for moderating, that the crucifix is idolatry is the view of the reformed confessions; so, you won't get any arguing against the confessions' view per the board rules. Honest questions asked, by all means. There are a lot of resources on this at Reformed Books Online. As to his general argument, one could plead for breaking the other nine commandments by simply claiming it is out of love for God. Christ said if you love Him, keep His commandments.

Amen brother,

That last sentence really hit home for me on how, and why I can help him know it's idolatrous.

I appreciate your feedback brother, God Bless,

Zach.

 

[Zach1689]

Also thanks for the info on the website.

 

[Zach1689]

Hi Zach,

Of first importance, I think, is to know that idolatry, to be idolatry, must be rooted in the heart.

Hey brother,

I agree with you all the way. Somehow my belief came up in our conversation and he just couldn't wrap his head around it. I have more tools in my belt thanks to y'all though.

God Bless,

Zach.

 

[Zach1689]

On so many levels: not just the image but that it leaves the Risen Savior on the cross. The One the Bible tells us is glorified and sitting at the right hand of the Father. It is also idolatrous in the way having a Ba'al in your living room would be: the figure itself is worshiped in the Roman church.

Amen!

 

[NaphtaliPress]

The bare cross becomes an idol or superstitious when it is made a talisman. I recall a conversation with George Calhoun of the old Mount Olive Tape Library (tape, what's that? he even had reel recordings), he, another or more were in a conversation with another, possible a reformed baptist (don't remember any details) about the misuse of the cross and he got very upset. And finally said, through a particular rough period, he didn't know how he would have gotten through it without a cross on a chain hanging from his review mirror or something like that. They all immediately told him he had made an idol of the thing; his reaction was to fall on his knees with the realization they were right. It is for the potential misuse of the bare cross I think it is a mistake to place it prominently in places of worship (sadly we have a rather hefty architectural cross at the front of my church's sanctuary).

 

[greenbaggins]

Danny Hyde's book In Living Color also brings out very clearly the non-worshipping use of crucifixes as still falling foul of the second commandment. His argument against the "instructional" use of images is particularly helpful: it is a direct attack on the sufficiency of Scripture. Scripture gives us everything we need to know about Jesus Christ. To say that it doesn't and that images are therefore needed is thus an attack on Scripture. And, as has already been hinted at, "images" of Christ portray Him in our image, rather than focusing on being made and remade in His image.

Anthropologically, the reason why we are not supposed to make any images of Christ is that we are supposed to be images of Christ.

Furthermore, Jesus was a Jew. He was not a Caucasian male with blonde effeminate hair, blue eyes, and a halo around Him. If someone from the Far East said they wanted to make a picture of you, but hadn't seen you in person, and they remade you to look like a Korean person, would you agree that the portrayal was a good image of you? Wouldn't you say, "Well, this isn't me"? This is what all Western artistic portrayals of Christ are doing.

And, more theologically, what can be said about either nature (human or divine) can be said about the person. So if we are able to portray the human nature of Christ, then we are able to portray the God-man. However, since we cannot portray God, we cannot portray the God-man either. To say anything else is to separate His human nature off from the divine. All image-making of Christ, therefore, is Nestorian.

 

[Zach1689]

Just a note for moderating, that the crucifix is idolatry is the view of the reformed confessions; so, you won't get any arguing against the confessions' view per the board rules. Honest questions asked, by all means. There are a lot of resources on this at Reformed Books Online. As to his general argument, one could plead for breaking the other nine commandments by simply claiming it is out of love for God. Christ said if you love Him, keep His com

The bare cross becomes an idol or superstitious when it is made a talisman. I recall a conversation with George Calhoun of the old Mount Olive Tape Library (tape, what's that? he even had reel recordings), he, another or more were in a conversation with another, possible a reformed baptist (don't remember any details) about the misuse of the cross and he got very upset. And finally said, through a particular rough period, he didn't know how he would have gotten through it without a cross on a chain hanging from his review mirror or something like that. They all immediately told him he had made an idol of the thing; his reaction was to fall on his knees with the realization they were right. It is for the potential misuse of the bare cross I think it is a mistake to place it prominently in places of worship (sadly we have a rather hefty architectural cross at the front of my church's sanctuary).

Similar story I've got,

I had given a silver cross necklace to my child-hood best friend, basically my brother, and now my brother in Christ, for his last birthday.

It was around the time he had come to faith, thanks be to God.

He ended up calling me a month or two later, and with a worried tone he explained to me how he had nearly missed being in a car crash that would've been life threatening, he said to me how thankful he was because he felt like that cross saved him.

He was taken aback by my response, "No it didn't, it's just a necklace, a mere reminder, God saved you, not that necklace".

I love him dearly so I explained to him furthermore that again it's just a reminder, and that it holds no power, exactly what I had told him when I gave it to him.

I believe it took him awhile to understand, but at the end of it all he was thankful to God, not the chunk of silver, so mission accomplished in my mind.

It's a blessing to see God sanctify those around me, and to see it in my own life as well.

Thanks for the response, God bless,

Zach.

 

[MyCrows]

Similar story I've got,

I had given a silver cross necklace to my child-hood best friend, basically my brother, and now my brother in Christ, for his last birthday.

It was around the time he had come to faith, thanks be to God.

He ended up calling me a month or two later, and with a worried tone he explained to me how he had nearly missed being in a car crash that would've been life threatening, he said to me how thankful he was because he felt like that cross saved him.

He was taken aback by my response, "No it didn't, it's just a necklace, a mere reminder, God saved you, not that necklace".

I love him dearly so I explained to him furthermore that again it's just a reminder, and that it holds no power, exactly what I had told him when I gave it to him.

I believe it took him awhile to understand, but at the end of it all he was thankful to God, not the chunk of silver, so mission accomplished in my mind.

It's a blessing to see God sanctify those around me, and to see it in my own life as well.

Thanks for the response, God bless,

Zach.

Seems like it ended up being more than a reminder.

It ended up being a conversation starter to communicate an important truth to your friend. An important occasion for any of us. Sometimes on the giving end, sometimes on the receiving end.

 

[Zach1689]

Danny Hyde's book In Living Color also brings out very clearly the non-worshipping use of crucifixes as still falling foul of the second commandment. His argument against the "instructional" use of images is particularly helpful: it is a direct attack on the sufficiency of Scripture. Scripture gives us everything we need to know about Jesus Christ. To say that it doesn't and that images are therefore needed is thus an attack on Scripture. And, as has already been hinted at, "images" of Christ portray Him in our image, rather than focusing on being made and remade in His image.

Anthropologically, the reason why we are not supposed to make any images of Christ is that we are supposed to be images of Christ.

Furthermore, Jesus was a Jew. He was not a Caucasian male with blonde effeminate hair, blue eyes, and a halo around Him. If someone from the Far East said they wanted to make a picture of you, but hadn't seen you in person, and they remade you to look like a Korean person, would you agree that the portrayal was a good image of you? Wouldn't you say, "Well, this isn't me"? This is what all Western artistic portrayals of Christ are doing.

And, more theologically, what can be said about either nature (human or divine) can be said about the person. So if we are able to portray the human nature of Christ, then we are able to portray the God-man. However, since we cannot portray God, we cannot portray the God-man either. To say anything else is to separate His human nature off from the divine. All image-making of Christ, therefore, is Nestorian.

I couldn't agree more brother,

Also, just from your writing you seem like a very intelligent fella. I'll have to look up the definition of "Nestorian".

Thanks for the response, God Bless,

Zach.