Reformed Consensus on Images of Christ

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have always truly wondered if Jesus would have destroyed a camera if He had bodily lived on earth during our times, and someone had tried to take a picture of Him.


I've wondered this since childhood.
 
well, surely I am not still wondering it...
:sheepishlykicksthedirt:

I was saying what I used to wonder as a kid...you know....innocent wonderings...

:)
 
:sheepishlykicksmoredirt:

Sorry brother, just giving you a hard time. :)

That's not exactly what the term means in missiological literature.

I would be interested in hearing what the term means in missiological literature. Feel free to post it here or PM it to me. I did bring it up so it is part of the discussion. Typically, when I hear "contextual" it means we modify something in the way we do our ecclesiology to make it more palatable or understandable to the people living in that culture. However, if I am misunderstanding the term it would be helpful to hear the correct definition.
 
I would be interested in hearing what the term means in missiological literature. Feel free to post it here or PM it to me. I did bring it up so it is part of the discussion. Typically, when I hear "contextual" it means we modify something in the way we do our ecclesiology to make it more palatable or understandable to the people living in that culture. However, if I am misunderstanding the term it would be helpful to hear the correct definition.

In missiology, it refers to how we communicate the gospel and practice our faith within the context of another culture. I.e., the fact that in India a missionary would conduct worship in Hindi is an example of contextualization. That's what the base of the term means. Now of course, the debates have to do with how to do contextualization well and in line with Scripture. Sometimes people ignore Scripture in favor of culture. But that doesn't make the term itself something we should avoid. It's an unavoidable part of ministry, particularly in cross-cultural situations. That's all I was getting at.
 
well, surely I am not still wondering it...
:sheepishlykicksthedirt:

I was saying what I used to wonder as a kid...you know....innocent wonderings...

:)

It wasn't innocent, brother! It was one of your childhood sins! Now go away and repent of it and sheepishlykickmoredirt !

:lol:
 
The whole What if scenarios are just silly. They weren't. God is the maker of history. There weren't artistic renditions of him, nor cameras, etc. It is irrelevant. "Thou shalt not make..." There it is. That's all we need. Direct, explicit, divine revelation. Don't do it.

Amen. And I'd also like to add, "If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas."
 
In fairness to Sproul and others, though, who do not hold to the strict interpretation of the 2nd commandment, just because something like a picture of Christ has the potential to be turned into an object of worship does not necessarily make it wrong. That's like saying justification by faith alone is bad because it has the potential to be abused and turned into Antinomianism. That something CAN be abused is not cause alone for shunning it.

The EPC church I attend for Bible study has a large stained-glass portrait of Jesus Christ on its back wall behind the pulpit, but never have I seen or known of anybody, nor have I myself, look to that image as an object of worship. Not everybody who has a picture of Christ immediately falls into the Catholic trap of worshipping the image, and we need to be fair-minded and careful when we discuss this and not stereotype.

That being said, I do agree that many images of Christ do not do Him justice, and the Caucasian/effeminate portraits I've seen of him are less than appealing.

Two things.

First, the commandment forbids the making of the image of God, not the worshipping of it. The latter is forbidden by the First Commandment.

Second, no image of Christ could EVER do Him justice because it either a) separates His humanity from His Divinity, thus being a false image of a "pretend" Jesus that never existed, or b) depicts God, which is clearly forbidden in the second Commandment

very good point
 
Our brother in his original post has asked why so many confessional Christians do not adhere to this part of the confession

1. Ignorance
2. Opting for tradition over scripture
3. Weakness.

and how we should respond to them.

Respectfully, if they are our elders (That's how you should do it, not necessarily how I would)
 
Just a couple of notes on threads that have to do with the Law.

1. The Law is non-negotiable. It is a reflection of the character of God.

"But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; 9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;" (1Ti. 1:8-10).

and

"And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Mat. 7:23). (i.e. law-less ones)


2. People who violate the Law of God go to hell. The second commandment is a capital offense. People who violate the second commandment willfully demonstrate they are not regenerated, and subsequently will go to hell.

"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies...Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." (Gal. 5:19-21).

"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." (Jam. 2:10).

3. You can't get this question wrong, nor can you get it wrong and then teach others the wrong version.

"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" (Mat. 18:6-7).

Scary stuff.
 
2. People who violate the Law of God go to hell. The second commandment is a capital offense. People who violate the second commandment willfully demonstrate they are not regenerated, and subsequently will go to hell

I agree with you about the second commandment, but are you saying anyone who breaks God's commandments will go to hell? Because I think we all break God's commandments probably on a daily basis.
 
2. People who violate the Law of God go to hell. The second commandment is a capital offense. People who violate the second commandment willfully demonstrate they are not regenerated, and subsequently will go to hell

I agree with you about the second commandment, but are you saying anyone who breaks God's commandments will go to hell? Because I think we all break God's commandments probably on a daily basis.

I wouldn't worry about whether he believes that everyone actually gets the punishment that they earn, since Dr. McMahon subscribes to the Westminster Standards. It is by grace we are saved, through faith -- not by anything that we do. Dr. McMahon is simply pointing out that everyone earns Hell, and we need to take EVERY command of God and EVERY sin seriously, because EVERY sin requires an eternal punishment from God.

violate the second commandment willfully demonstrate they are not regenerated

The key word here is willfully. Many Christians are ignorant and thankfully God is a God of immense grace and will overlook their hidden sins so long as they are trusting Christ. But as those who are not ignorant, we ought to acknowledge our hidden sins and seek to trust the Lord to empower us to cease sinning in the ways that He shows us. The regenerate Christian has and exercises the evangelical grace of repentance. Some people choose to knowingly reject God's commands and presume upon His grace because of laziness or the desire to please their family or whatever. May we not malign the holiness of God, and give in to those who despise His grace with their antinomianism, but may we be a city upon a hill and give glory to God.
 
2. People who violate the Law of God go to hell. The second commandment is a capital offense. People who violate the second commandment willfully demonstrate they are not regenerated, and subsequently will go to hell.

Could you please clarify what you mean by willfully? Do you mean knowing the truth and still rejecting to be obedient, or even one who is ignorant that pictures of Christ are in fact disobedience. If the latter then I would not be so ready to cast judgment. "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" 1 John 1:8.
 
Could you please clarify what you mean by willfully? Do you mean knowing the truth and still rejecting to be obedient, or even one who is ignorant that pictures of Christ are in fact disobedience. If the latter then I would not be so ready to cast judgment. "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" 1 John 1:8.

Willful - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
1. obstinately and often perversely self-willed
2. done deliberately: intentional

Thankfully, it doesn't look like they've redefined this term yet!
 
So, is Luther in hell? Maybe I am mistaken, but wasn't he a violator of the 2nd? I don't think he was ignorant, so he can't get a pass on that.
 
So, is Luther in hell? Maybe I am mistaken, but wasn't he a violator of the 2nd? I don't think he was ignorant, so he can't get a pass on that.

We cannot go beyond what Scripture says, and its teaching is laid out clearly for us in the Confession: repentance unto life is an evangelical grace.

I can hardly imagine Luther saying, "I know that having images of Jesus is forbidden by God." And, "Though I know this, I will willfully make an image of Christ for myself." I don't know enough about Luther to determine that that's what he did (maybe you should give us some quotes to show that what you're suggesting is true: 1. Luther violated the 2nd commandment; 2. Luther was not ignorant that such a violation was sin). But if that's what he did, do you really think that he had the gift of repentance?
 
I am not trying to be belligerent, Mr Davenport. I've read some things that led me to believe Luther had not a problem with images and such in churches. I am sorry if I was mistaken. When I get to my big computer later, I will try to track down what I read for you. I'd love to get an opinion on this. Again, I was not trying to get anyone's goat. I don't always phrase things so well...old age creeping up on me!
 
Mr Davenport, this is what I read:

"Therefore I freely admit, images are neither here nor there, neither evil nor good, we may have them or not, as we please. This trouble has been caused by you; the devil would not have accomplished it with me, for I cannot deny that it is possible to find some one to whom images are useful. And if I were asked about it, I would confess that none of these things give offense to me, and if just one man were found upon earth who used the images aright, the devil would soon draw the conclusion against me: Why condemnest thou that which is still useful in worship? This challenge I could not answer; he would have successfully defied me. He would not have got nearly so far if I had been here. He played a bold game, and won, although it does no harm to the Word of God. You wanted to paint the devil black, but forgot the charcoal and used chalk. If you would fight the devil, you must be well versed in the Scriptures, and, besides, use them at the right time." From sermon 4, in this book: http://books.google.com/books/about/Works_of_Martin_Luther.html?id=Q3xIAAAAMAAJ
 
I think the context helps a bit here.

On page 407 of the link you gave, Luther says, "On the subject of images, in particular, we saw that they ought to be abolished if they are going to be worshiped, otherwise not, although I wish they were abolished everywhere because they are abused, -- it is useless to deny it. For whoever places an image in a church, imagines he has performed a service unto God and a good work, which is downright idolatry."

...

"But this is not sufficient reason to abolish, destroy and burn all the images; and why? Because we must admit that there are still people who have not the wrong opinion of them, but to whom they may be useful. Although they are few, yet we cannot and should not condemn anything which is still useful to the devotions of any man. But you should have taught that images are nothing, God cares nothing for them, and that He is not served, nor pleased when we make an image for Him, but that it would do better to give a poor man a gold-piece than to give God a golden image, for God has forbidden the latter, but not the former."

...

"Now, although it is true, and no one can deny that the images are evil because they are abused, nevertheless we must not on that account reject them, nor condemn anything because it is abused. That would result in utter confusion. God has commanded us not to lift up our eyes unto the sun, etc., that we may not worship them, for they are created to serve all nations. But there are many people who worship the sun and the stars. Shall we, therefore, essay to pull the sun and stars from the skies? Nay, we will not do it. Again, wine and women bring many a man to misery and make a fool of him. Shall we, therefore, kill all the women and pour out all the wine? Again, gold and silver cause much evil, shall we, therefore, condemn them? Nay, if we would drive away our one worst enemy, who does the most harm, we would have to kill ourselves, for we have no greater enemy than our own heart, even as Jeremiah says, "The heart of the man is crooked," or, as I take the meaning, "always twisting to one side or the other." And what good would that do us?"

"He who would blacken the devil must have good charcoal, for he, too, wears fine clothes and goes to the fair. But I can catch him by asking him: Do you not place the images in the churches because you think it a special service of God? and when he says Yes, as he must, you may conclude that what was meant as a service of God he has turned into idolatry by abusing the images; he eagerly sought what God has not commanded and neglected God's positive command, to help the neighbor."

...

"Therefore I freely admit, images are neither here nor there, neither evil nor good, we may have them or not, as we please. This trouble has been caused by you; the devil would not have accomplished it with me, for I cannot deny that it is possible to find some one to whom images are useful. And if I were asked about it, I would confess that none of these things give offense to me, and if just one man were found upon earth who used the images aright, the devil would soon draw the conclusion against me: Why condemnest thou that which is still useful in worship? This challenge I could not answer; he would have successfully defied me. He would not have got nearly so far if I had been here. He played a bold game, and won, although it does no harm to the Word of God. You wanted to paint the devil black, but forgot the charcoal and used chalk. If you would fight the devil, you must be well versed in the Scriptures, and, besides, use them at the right time."
 
I'm having some trouble understanding

the devil would soon draw the conclusion against me: Why condemnest thou that which is still useful in worship?

Why does Luther answer that with

This challenge I could not answer; he would have successfully defied me.

I would expect Luther to have had an answer for the devil, but I suppose it's in the case that someone supposedly benefits from using the images in worship. But then he says

He would not have got nearly so far if I had been here.

Is that to suggest that he wouldn't have let the devil speak?

He played a bold game, and won, although it does no harm to the Word of God.

I have no idea what Luther means by this. It seems that it does harm to the Word of God (unless Luther is referring to a hypothetical situation of someone benefiting from an image)

You wanted to paint the devil black, but forgot the charcoal and used chalk. If you would fight the devil, you must be well versed in the Scriptures, and, besides, use them at the right time."

It seems Luther is suggesting they weren't ready to face the devil.

Anyway, apart from that last section that I'm having a lot of trouble understanding, it seems that Luther is saying that he is opposed to images in worship, but not in general, and he doesn't even bring up images of Christ (is there some historical context I am missing?). I could be misunderstanding, but please correct me if that's the case.

In any case, it seems that Luther is not willfully rejecting the Word of God.
 
And don't forget the blue-eyed, blonde haired, caucasian "Christ" pictures that were so common when I was a child.

Ha! Were you brought up in the 1930s in Germany!?
I've never heard of that before!

I saw them often as well.

The original question was how should we respond to people who have images in their homes and churches and see no problem with them.

Pictures of Christ, for me, fall into the same category as expensive organs and high church liturgy. Even if they're not Second Commandment violations, they're at best unnecessary and at worst are temptations to sin. They also may be violating the Ninth Commandment because most of those images of Christ are obviously non-Semitic and in direct violation of several Biblical principles. Jesus almost certainly had short hair and a traditional Jewish beard.

Those are the arguments I make to people who want to have images of Christ.

I prefer to fight on other issues, but the worship in my "ideal church" would look very much like a Covenanter congregation; I agree with Cromwell on smashing the stained glass windows and destroying the statuary and instruments. However, it's hard for me to forget things like the decision of Jonathan Edwards to introduce the Watts hymnal into First Congregational Church of Northhampton, or the Dutch Reformed continuation of the Christological holy days, or the decision of the Dutch government to refuse to allow the removal of organs, instead hiring municipally-paid organists to play the organ before worship services.

I think we need to allow for some level of charity in these matters. Satan's primary line of attack today is not hymnody or stained glass windows, and while I oppose wasting God's money on unnecessary expenses, we have other problems to deal with which are far more critical. I'd much rather fellowship with a conservative 1928 Prayer Book Anglican than with a liberal PC(USA) minister whose beautiful old whitewashed church meetinghouse reflects a theology of the founders no longer shared by the current occupant of the pulpit.
 
Willful - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
1. obstinately and often perversely self-willed
2. done deliberately: intentional

Thankfully, it doesn't look like they've redefined this term yet!

Thanks for the dictionary version, but I was quite aware of that, it was the way in which Mcmahon stated it that was unclear to me. "People who violate the Law of God go to hell." That sounds like anyone ignorant or not, and I don't see the Bible teaching that. And then the next sentenced he then said "willfully disobey" so I just wanted clarification to make sure I am understanding him correctly.
 
Willful - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
1. obstinately and often perversely self-willed
2. done deliberately: intentional

Thankfully, it doesn't look like they've redefined this term yet!

Thanks for the dictionary version, but I was quite aware of that, it was the way in which Mcmahon stated it that was unclear to me. "People who violate the Law of God go to hell." That sounds like anyone ignorant or not, and I don't see the Bible teaching that. And then the next sentenced he then said "willfully disobey" so I just wanted clarification to make sure I am understanding him correctly.

Patrick,

FYI, "people who violate the Law of God go to hell" is biblically accurate. Any who transgress the Law, death is required of them. Death is both spiritual and physical. Ignorance is not an excuse either. Whether one is ignorant of their sin or not, it's still transgression of God's Law.
 
Willful - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
1. obstinately and often perversely self-willed
2. done deliberately: intentional

Thankfully, it doesn't look like they've redefined this term yet!

Thanks for the dictionary version, but I was quite aware of that, it was the way in which Mcmahon stated it that was unclear to me. "People who violate the Law of God go to hell." That sounds like anyone ignorant or not, and I don't see the Bible teaching that. And then the next sentenced he then said "willfully disobey" so I just wanted clarification to make sure I am understanding him correctly.

The first part of that sentence Dr. McMahon wrote tells you who goes to hell (all lawbreakers, period, ignorant or no, unless, of course, God justifies them). The second part tells you that those who willfully continue to break one of God's commandments are showing that they are not regenerate. If they are regenerate, they will repent.
 
FYI, "people who violate the Law of God go to hell" is biblically accurate. Any who transgress the Law, death is required of them. Death is both spiritual and physical. Ignorance is not an excuse either. Whether one is ignorant of their sin or not, it's still transgression of God's Law.

Sorry about not being clear. We were talking about Christians and their violation of the 2nd commandment, so that was what I was assuming when I wrote that. I should have said that it is not Biblical to say that Christians go to hell for violating the law- we do it everyday. "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" 1 John 1:8.
 
If they are regenerate, they will repent.
That assumes that they know it to be wrong. In which case I believe they would repent. But what happens if they never come to this belief? Does that mean they are not regenerate?

We've already answered that, when dealing with "willing" sins. If someone doesn't know something to be wrong, how can they confess it? Yet at the same time, those who love God will love His commandments and keep them -- they will seek to better understand God's Word and abide in Christ.

Also:

By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked. (1 John 2:3-6)
 
We've already answered that, when dealing with "willing" sins. If someone doesn't know something to be wrong, how can they confess it? Yet at the same time, those who love God will love His commandments and keep them -- they will seek to better understand God's Word and abide in Christ.

It doesn't seem that you answered that or at least I am not seeing the answer clearly. There are many who seek to better understand, but will never know the truth completely until glorified. This includes coming to understand the Doctrines of Grace, and even the 2nd commandment, yet they are still Christians even if they die not knowing the truth and subsequently sin because of it. Is that wrong to believe?
 
We've already answered that, when dealing with "willing" sins. If someone doesn't know something to be wrong, how can they confess it? Yet at the same time, those who love God will love His commandments and keep them -- they will seek to better understand God's Word and abide in Christ.

It doesn't seem that you answered that or at least I am not seeing the answer clearly. There are many who seek to better understand, but will never know the truth completely until glorified. This includes coming to understand the Doctrines of Grace, and even the 2nd commandment, yet they are still Christians even if they die not knowing the truth and subsequently sin because of it. Is that wrong to believe?

I did answer the question, but I will try to make it clearer. Can someone who is not perfectly sanctified be saved? Absolutely, and that includes someone who doesn't understand the whole Law of God. I imagine I have deficiencies in my understanding of God's Law, and I certainly don't always keep it! But we would do well to heed the tension in the Scriptures, as in the passage I quoted above. We are saved by grace through faith alone -- but saving faith is never alone.

Doctrine in itself doesn't save. The Lord does by regenerating us and granting us faith and repentance. But won't someone who is truly regenerated, who has truly come to know Him, desire to study and meditate upon and keep the commandments of God? Absolutely. We must not seek to lessen that tension, but trust in the effectual salvation that God provides for us.

"So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Phil 2:12-13).

I'm certainly not saying that someone can't be saved unless they understand all the commandments or that salvation is by works. God forbid! But we should be faithful to the Bible. We don't accept easy-believism's "once-prayed-a-prayer-always-saved". We believe in the robust, Calvinistic doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Not this American foolishness where one altar call can give you assurance of salvation. Only Christ can save, His finished work gives us assurance, and He will not leave us wallowing in our sin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top