Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Law of God' started by NaphtaliPress, Nov 1, 2005.
According to Thomas Watson's understanding of the 2nd commandment, we would have to burn the shroud.
Here is an excellent article called "Are Pictures of Christ Unbiblical". What do you think?
http://www.entrewave.com/view/reformedonline/Are Pictures of Christ Unbiblical.htm
[Edited on 11-3-2005 by biblelighthouse]
I think if images of Jesus are indeed idolatrous, then 90% of the Christians that have lived in the past 60 years were never saved. Because they lived lives of gross idolatry. Not only do they approve of such idolatry they publish it and teach it to children.
1Jo 3:7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous.
1Jo 3:8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.
1Jo 3:9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.
1Jo 3:10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.
So is that the stand you are willing to take ? Is anyone that has an illustrated children's bible ouside the city gates ? That is the only logical solution. Since according to first John, a lifestyle of habitually practicing sin is the mark of an unbeliever.
Is all error damnable error? How many Christians do you think have kept the 1st commandment? The 3rd? (before you answer that - look at the larger catechism!) Were all the Israelites damned who worshipped the bronze serpent? Did Aaron go to hell?
One could just as easily say: if images of Christ are not a violation of the 2nd commandment, then virtually all of Christendom for the first few centuries, and all the Reformed from Zwingli and Calvin's day were not saved because they had a wrong view of idolatry.
Bad argumentation, and not very generous to God's grace.
Fred, it was half intended as a reductio ad absurdum.
Seriously, why would God keep the majority of His church in such extreme darkness then ? Seems like decalogue 1 & 2 are big ones . . .
So was mine Mark.
I don't know the answer. An even tougher question is why God would allow His church to labor in the night of synergism and creaturism for centuries. Or why God has allowed the Western/European Church to all but completely die theologically, and the Asian/African church to flourish, after the exact opposite happened for a millennia and a half.
Very good questions indeed.
I agree one cannot depict Christ's humanity without His deity.
My orthodox friend says he venerates the icon to become the icon.
Which, I did not understand at first. (So you are trying to become a shiny two dimensional painting ?) :bigsmile:
But, does not every human bear the divine image ? We do not know what Christ looks like anyway. So every representation is false on that count alone. I watched "Passion Of The Christ" and I will tell you, I never fully realized the suffering He endured before. But when I pray I do not have mental images of Jim Cavaziel in my head. Is a movie any different than the medieval passion plays of Europe ?
Are we not called to be imitators of Christ ? Christ to our wives, outpoured in sacrificial love, as He is to the Church ?
Does anyone know if the new ESV Children's Bible by Crossway has images of Christ in it? It says 200 illustrations but doesn't mention either way...
I answered my own question. On Crossway's website: http://www.gnpcb.org/catalog/bibles when you scroll down to the children's bible, the two sample illustrations that they have are of Jesus. For what it's worth...
You could simply rip out the pictures of Jesus. But then again, you would have to rip out the pictures of "The Angel Of THe Lord" in the old testament as well. And, oops, might as well not have any pictures of any human beings at all, becaused if the saints of God are indwelt by His Spirit, you might actually be portraying some aspect of diety in those images. (Since we are not gnostic)
Sorry but that is an old tired argument on your behalf. According to that logic, we should just as likely worship men because they bear the image of God.
I suppose so. But you would agree to ripping out "The Angel Of The Lord" right ? It is wrong to have images of Him as well.
And what about the burning bush on the from of the harback version of the Reformation Study Bible ? (Serious Question)
With respect . . .
I'm on your side with this issue. But I have to admit I don't follow your logic here.
Mark was not suggesting that anyone should/would worship a painting of the angel of the Lord, or that anyone should/would worship pictures human beings.
Please help me understand how your comment had anything to do with what Mark said. Again, I'm on your side, but I don't see Mark condoning the worship of ANY image.
Rather, I think his point was this:
There are many things that bear the image of God, and yet we do not worship them, and we do not consider them idolatrous. So, what is the difference if we have a drawing/picture/painting of Jesus, in order to bear His image? Couldn't that too be un-worshipped and non-idolatrous?
I am not saying I agree with Mark. I am just saying that is what I think his argument is.
I have to admit I've wondered about this same question. Should we, as reformed Christians, not get rid of ALL depictions of God in ANY form? If pictures of Christ are wrong, then why shouldn't we also get rid of pictures of the angel of the Lord, the burning bush, etc. I do think this is a valid question (even if Mark and I end up answering it differently).
My grandpa wouldn't take pictures of his family, or have pictures taken of himself, because humans are created in the image of God, and so he figured that taking pictures of people would violate the 2nd commandment. (I'm not kidding!) --- How far does the 2nd commandment extend?
[Edited on 11-3-2005 by biblelighthouse]
Are you uncomfortable affirming the Mother of God (deipari) title for Mary?
Well . . . According to Scripture, Mary is certainly the "mother of my Lord" (Luke 1:43).
But I do get a tad uncomfortable with phrasing it "Mother of God", because that phrase seems to imply that she is the mother of the whole Trinity, which she certainly is not.
Historically, though, what earned Nestorius the beginning of his troubles was his attack on this title. Now as far as I know no one has ever affirmed that it means that Mary originated Christ, or that she somehow antedates God.
My point in using the phrase "Mother of God" was that it does not mean origin of God. Just like the blood of God from Acts 20:28 does not mean that God, or Jesus, in the sense of their divine nature can actually bleed.
His blood, is not even physically applied to all of us.
Heb 9:13 For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh,
Heb 9:14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.
The phrase "mother of my Lord" is more accurately rendered "mother of my King", or in our context, "mother of my President." There is nothing related to Divinity going on in this passage in relation to Mary.
I understand your point --I don't think anyone is saying what you're refusing to say. I was just wondering if you objected to calling Mary the Mother of God.
What am I refusing to say ?
I think you're refusing to say that the divine nature bleeds; also I think you're refusing to say that Mary originated God.
The divine nature does not bleed, or suffer in any way (patripassion)
Mary is not the antecedent of the Second Person of the Trinity.
Correct. No one has asserted either of those things. What is being asserted is the communicatio proprietarum, which necessarily proceeds on the assumption of the unity of the person of Christ. See WCF 8:2 & 7.
[Edited on 11-3-2005 by py3ak]
Which is why logically, if you cannot have images of Jesus, you cannot have pictures of any human God indwells.
The communicatio proprietarum applies exclusively to Christ.
I really don't know why such grammatical wrangling is necessary.
Jesus is the Lord.
Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Thus, Mary is the mother of the Lord.
What's the big deal with acknowledging this? It still does not mean that she is deity, or that she should be worshipped, or even that she is free from sin.
It just means what is true: That she is the mother of Jesus
Col 3:3 For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.
Col 1:27 To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.
This is a non-sequitor. Care to put it into a syllogism?
The 2nd commandment can only be taken two ways that I see it.
1. Do not make images at all. No art whatsoever.
2. Do not worship images you make as God.
But it seems like what you guys are saying is:
3. Make any image you want as long as it is not of God, or any member of the Trinity period.
Which is why I have a hard time, because God commanded the making of many images representing Christ, like the serpent on the pole, He only condemned the false worship of that image, not the fabrication of it.
[Edited on 11-3-2005 by Saiph]