Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally posted by py3ak
Mark,
I didn't say you did deny it. You seemed to be objecting to the communicatio proprietarum in Acts 20:28. I was pointing out that this same idea is taught in other places, and that it is historic Christianity. The discussions I've read pretty much all list Acts 20:28 as evidence for the hypostatic union.
was answering mine about the communicatio proprietarum.Which is why logically, if you cannot have images of Jesus, you cannot have pictures of any human God indwells.
Originally posted by py3ak
Warfield actually responds to that very charge --The Two Natures and Recent Christological Speculation, I think is the name of the article. Some people tried to use what at that time was the new psychology to try to explain Christ. I side with Warfield over Berkhof because Christ does say things that reflect a distinctly duplex self-consciousness. Only He knows the Father; He had a glory with the Father before the world was; He and His Father are one; yet He is ignorant of the day and hour of the coming of the Son of Man; He grows in wisdom; He walks over to a fig tree to find out if there is fruit; He can say that His Father is greater than He is (the first and last are probably the only ones that directly apply to self-consciousness, though the others have implications about it).
Originally posted by py3ak
yet He is ignorant of the day and hour of the coming of the Son of Man;
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Ruben, Mark,
The work can be found here:
http://www.biblecentre.net/theology/books/war/Christ.html
Originally posted by py3ak
Chris,
So then imaginations would have to have an idolatrous (or lascivious) intent in order to come under the condemnation of the Larger Catechism?
Originally posted by trevorjohnson
Doesn't the Decalogue say don't make a "pesher" or idol...not merely an image.
It seems like, from the logic of many, then I cannot paint or photograph any person with a soul (after all, I can only portray haf of him - the material half).
It says do not make an idol or bow down to it. An image made but not worshipped is not an idol.
What about all those little angels knick-knacks that I know some of your wives probably collect???
Originally posted by trevorjohnson
Why put angels on the Arkof the Covenant? We are forbidden to make idols, not merely images.
Before we proceed to consider the matter of this commandment, we shall premise something, in general, concerning the difference between it and the first commandment. The first commandment respects the object of worship; the second, the manner in which it is to be performed. Accordingly, the former forbids not owning God to be such an one as he has revealed himself to be in his word, and also the substituting of any creature in his room, or acknowledging it, either directly or by consequence, to be our chief good and happiness; the latter obliges us to worship God, in such a way as he has prescribed, in opposition to that which takes its rise from our own invention. These two commandments, therefore, being so distinct, we cannot but think that the Papists to be chargeable with a very great absurdity, in making the second to be only an appendix to the first, or an explanation of it. The design of their doing so seems to be, that they may exculpate themselves from the charge of idolatry, in setting up image-worship, which they think to be no crime; because they are not so stupid as to style the image a god, or make it a supreme object of worship. This commandment, however, in forbidding false worship, is directly contrary to their practice of worshipping God by images.
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Edward Fisher on Wherein the First and Second Commandments Differ
Thomas Ridgeley on the Difference between the First and Second Commandment:
Before we proceed to consider the matter of this commandment, we shall premise something, in general, concerning the difference between it and the first commandment. The first commandment respects the object of worship; the second, the manner in which it is to be performed. Accordingly, the former forbids not owning God to be such an one as he has revealed himself to be in his word, and also the substituting of any creature in his room, or acknowledging it, either directly or by consequence, to be our chief good and happiness; the latter obliges us to worship God, in such a way as he has prescribed, in opposition to that which takes its rise from our own invention. These two commandments, therefore, being so distinct, we cannot but think that the Papists to be chargeable with a very great absurdity, in making the second to be only an appendix to the first, or an explanation of it. The design of their doing so seems to be, that they may exculpate themselves from the charge of idolatry, in setting up image-worship, which they think to be no crime; because they are not so stupid as to style the image a god, or make it a supreme object of worship. This commandment, however, in forbidding false worship, is directly contrary to their practice of worshipping God by images.