RTS & Images of Christ

Status
Not open for further replies.

doulosChristou

Puritan Board Freshman
Fred (or anyone),

I was directed to a fine article on the RTS website today and was surprised to find images of Christ twice appearing there. I assumed RTS had the same reformed view as myself concerning images of Christ. Did I assume wrong or did this possibly slip past the seminary?

Fondly in Christ,
 
Greg,

Good to see you back. I hope you will hang around. Could you give me the url for that article?
 
More evidence that RTS-Orlando is corrupting the purity of Reformed worship with the leaven of innovative, contemporary thought. Sorry Fred, just wanted to beat you to the punch. :p

By the way, welcome back, Gregory. :welcome:
 
Originally posted by luvroftheWord
More evidence that RTS-Orlando is corrupting the purity of Reformed worship with the leaven of innovative, contemporary thought. Sorry Fred, just wanted to beat you to the punch. :p

Actually, it looks like the pictures were probably added after the article by the magazine.

Craig, is Frame a non-WLC 109 2nd commandment guy? I really don't know.
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by luvroftheWord
More evidence that RTS-Orlando is corrupting the purity of Reformed worship with the leaven of innovative, contemporary thought. Sorry Fred, just wanted to beat you to the punch. :p

Actually, it looks like the pictures were probably added after the article by the magazine.

Craig, is Frame a non-WLC 109 2nd commandment guy? I really don't know.

John Frame - Pastoral and Social Ethics - Part IV

Fred,

Check out the above for Frame's treatment on the 2nd commandment. He treats pedagogical uses, images of Christ, regulative principle etc. in it. It's quite a few pages with some setup work on his part so I didn't want to snip and quote him outta context.
 
Fred,

Frame's position is that the second commandment forbids the use of images in worship as the Roman Catholics do (their use of "icons" ). But it doesn't forbid the use of images for purposes of instruction and the like.
 
Originally posted by luvroftheWord
Fred,

Frame's position is that the second commandment forbids the use of images in worship as the Roman Catholics do (their use of "icons" ). But it doesn't forbid the use of images for purposes of instruction and the like.

Craig,

Thanks. But I still think that I am right in that Frame did not have anything to do with the pictures on the article website.
 
Originally posted by luvroftheWord
Fred,

Frame's position is that the second commandment forbids the use of images in worship as the Roman Catholics do (their use of "icons" ). But it doesn't forbid the use of images for purposes of instruction and the like.

Where does ornamentation fall?
 
Originally posted by luvroftheWord
Yeah, I think you are. I doubt Frame cares one way or another if the pictures are there.

Understood. But I would not want anyone to think it was some kind of Orlando or Frame conspiracy - ;)

Just plain garden variety non-Westminsterian magazine publishing. :um:
 
Originally posted by tcalbrecht
Originally posted by luvroftheWord
Fred,

Frame's position is that the second commandment forbids the use of images in worship as the Roman Catholics do (their use of "icons" ). But it doesn't forbid the use of images for purposes of instruction and the like.

Where does ornamentation fall?

Not under icons, which would mean they are okay.

[Edited on 21-12-2004 by luvroftheWord]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top