Well, this is what we have come to. Dan tweeted this cartoon in the last 7 days, and I RT’d it:
And in fact one of our friends at Triablogue linked to it because let’s face it: it is both funny and theologically-astute. When Jesus told (for example) Peter to follow him, straight up: he didn’t mean “watch” him, or “keep tabs” on him. Jesus meant “get off your fishing boat, Simon son of Jonah, and go where I am going.”
The point is, of course, that Jesus wants more, not just the minimum. Being a disciple is not the same as being a fan.
But the line drawing here elicited what I would call the classic tempest in a tea pot when one particular tea pot with more than one crack (the infamous Coram Deo) began accusing all involved of blasphemy because – now get this – it’s a cartoon of Jesus.
You see: this cartoon is a violation of the second commandment. The same sin which Israel committed when it raised up the Ashtoreth’s and Baals? That’s this cartoon – because it seems that all pictures are in some way graven images, and a picture of Jesus specifically is a graven image because, well, it’s Jesus. Apparently when you draw Jesus, you are doing the same thing as saying that the bread and the wine are actually God, and therefore you must worship them.
And of course we can’t have that. I mean that seriously: we can’t be worshipping things which are not God – everyone should agree to this as a premise for this discussion, and not merely in theory but also in fact. We shouldn’t pray to statues. We shouldn’t make a bull and offer gifts to it which we might otherwise give to God. We shouldn’t murder our children for any reason, but certainly not to somehow offer their lives to something which is allegedly going to give us health and wealth and (ironically) fertility.
We can’t be making graven images for the sake of worship, now can we? That’s flat out.
But can we in some way make a sermon? I mean this: given that no one as far as I know has started worshipping the cartoon of Jesus slamming twitter-sized “faith”, and no one has offered prayers to it or has otherwise genuflected or splashed one’s self with water to do whatever the water is supposed to do because of this cartoon, what if this is a 30-second sermon?
Do you see what I’m saying here? DJP and Josh Harris and Patrick Chan and myself all used Twitter to send a message in a Twitter-sides data stream that Jesus doesn’t want you personally to be a tweet-sized follower of Jesus. You should put down the proverbial net – or in this case, the actual mouse and KB, or your laptop, or your phone or iPhone – and follow Jesus.That is: the real Jesus and not the cartoon Jesus, right? The one who actually was a person for reals and who died on a cross so that we can have forgiveness of sin and actual joy.
Not so that we can be just like the Muslims and start intellectual riots over cartoons – especially cartoons which frankly are more edifying than whole segments of the blogosphere which have never made one affirmative statement about faith or how it is lived in the real world.
You personally: I’m not talking about Twitter. I literally want you yourself to follow Jesus.
Right now.
388 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 388 of 388I've got to say, Tom, you make a very strong arguement. Esp. your points 1, 2, & 3 and they leave me with much to think about.
However, I am not saying that the 2nd commandment should be lumped in with the 1st (as the RCC does), I’m saying that in the 1st commandment, the LORD states that we should have no other God’s before Him, and that the 2nd commandment is speaking of how one would do that (make an image to bow down to it).
And as I said before, if it is true that we are not to make any graven image of God, period, then why state that we should not bow down to worship what we are forbidden to even make in the first place?
And maybe this is out there, but what of the fact that in our pluralistic society, my drawing of a cow might cause another to worship this as God? Or does it only matter what the intent of the artist is?
MikeB:
Sir Aaron, can you give examples in the OT where the Israelites made images of God? They made images of other things. Why not make "non-worshipped" images of their creator God, if the 2nd commandment didn't prohibit this?
Mike, the classic argument for the case that the second commandment is about making images of God includes the passage from Exodus 32 "This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt." Phil Johnson, in his sermon on the second commandment, even said they were making an image that was supposed to be a physical representation of Jehovah.
If you don't think the 2nd commandment forbids images of God, how would you draw the great I AM?
First of all, just because the second commandment doesn't forbid something doesn't mean it is good or right to do. I don't base my entire concept of right and wrong on the ten commandments. As to whether I could draw the great I AM, I'd say I couldn't even dream of anything close to God, therefore, I wouldn't. John 1:18 says no Man has ever seen God. The Bible has additional passages which outright say or imply the same. And yet, Man did see Jesus. Therefore, I think I can draw a representational likeness of the man, child, or baby that Jesus was and do so without violating the second commandment.
Tom,
I see your point. And your almost pulling me in (horrors!!)
But, if it's only one command, then the first bit must be directly related to the second bit.
If, as you say, the command is about how we are to worship God, then in what way does that relate to making an image of God (say, a flannel-graph of Jesus) for purposes of teaching and not worship? It seems to me that once you're out of the realm of worship, you're out of the realm of this particular command.
But I still think that if you're right on that, then what is prohibited is images of any kind. Just as prohibitions of murder, stealing and coveting prohibit any kind of those things.
The tabernacle, then, is simply God exercising His perogative, as He did at the conquest of Canaan, to reserve for Himself, the right to do anything that pleases Him, without in any way letting up on what He requires of His people.
I think I'm arguing pretty clearly that intent is not the issue at all - at least intent to worship. Intent to represent God in a visual image is another issue.
And I'm sorry, but to insist that the second commandment refers to the worship of false God's through images (not to the false worship of God through images) is a Catholic, not a Protestant, argument. I'm not saying that you're Catholic, just that this is the pedigree of the argument. If you read above, you'll find that those who have disagreed with me (from Frank on down) have been in agreement on this much - the Second Commandment is about the false worship of the true God.
As to why God goes on to say, "Don't worship what you already may not make" - this prohibition is the heart of the commandment. My argument is not that the making of images is central, just that it is an essential element of the command.
That last was to BP, not Daryl.
Daryl,
At the risk of being redundant, I think that I have said how making an image is related to worship. That was the whole thrust of my points 4 and 5. First, because any effective image will draw worship no matter what its purpose, and secondly, because any image necessarily reduces the glory of God.
This is why I kept making the point early in this thread that the doxological use of images (worship-related) cannot be separated from the revelational use (teaching-related). If an image reveals anything about God, than it demands our worship. If it reveals nothing about God, then it lessens His glory.
Tom,
Fair enough. I'm not convinced, but it is certainly something to think about.
And the next time I run into this, I'll have a much better understanding of the arguments.
Thanks.
Tom did an excellent job in presenting his exegesis of the second commandment. I'd like to offer the counter view expressed by myself and others so that the two views can be compared. This is not a direct argument against Tom, but rather a summary of the position held by myself and others that the second commandment does not forbid the making of images of Jesus. Before do so, I jsut want to express to Tom my greatefulness for his example in remaining humble yet unwavering.
cont->
This literal reading appears to make it two different commands:
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/exo20.pdf
Tom makes a good point with the "Do not" in v. 3 and then again the "Do not" in v. 4. OF course what that means in regards to making other images of animals, etc. that are not worshiped is a secondary question. First priority is determining what the text says, which I think Tom gave a good exegesis of above.
I've learned a lot from this thread and especially your systematic presentation of the way you interpret this commandment, Tom. I have much to think/study/pray on, especially because my computer desk sits directly below a picture of a far-off depiction of Jesus and His disciples in a boat with the "drawing of" the Lord raising his hands and the caption, Peace, Be Still, below it. And you know what's weird? While typing this, I had to be so careful how I worded that, because normally I would have just said, "with the Lord holding His arms out." Hmmm...This position you have does seem extreme though..no Passion of the Christ (which seems to honor Christ in so many ways)..no Last Supper pictures..no flannel board in sunday school...? God's true meaning of this commandment is what I want to embrace and follow no matter how extreme, but just saying...
Btw, bp is a she,
not a he. :)
Tom I don't know how much more plain you can make it then this:
This is why I kept making the point early in this thread that the doxological use of images (worship-related) cannot be separated from the revelational use (teaching-related). If an image reveals anything about God, than it demands our worship. If it reveals nothing about God, then it lessens His glory.
I can't help wonder if we'd even be having this conversation if there weren't any images of Christ or God in the world today as seen in bp's comment:
This position you have does seem extreme though..no Passion of the Christ (which seems to honor Christ in so many ways)..no Last Supper pictures..no flannel board in sunday school...?
Respectfully bp, it is only from your view that is appears extreme, or dare I say the current world's view. In the past this view was not extreme, and has only been perceived that way with the advent of modern media.
Also, it's interesting no one has mentioned Deut. 4:15-18 here? (Maybe they have and I missed it.)
Oops. Sorry, I'm just glad that bp isn't a multi-national corporation with a quickly evaporating reputation for eco-conscience.
And your last comment is exactly on point - does it matter whether it strikes us as extreme or not? The question is, is this the command of God.
I will, though, cautiously suggest that this command also fits with what we know about people. The Puritans used to say that the human heart is a factory for idols - meaning that we make them where we can find them.
I used to preach in a church in which there was a painting of a river scene behind the baptistry. That's not uncommon in back-country Baptist churches, but this was an extraordinary painting by an artist who went on to regional prominence. I never even noticed it, but in one corner of the painting there were tiny figures of a shepherd leading his sheep toward the water.
I still don't think that painting was a violation of the Second Commandment - since that shepherd could have been any shepherd in the middle east, even David - but:
One day a rather confused young man told me that it gave him a great sense of peace during the worship service to contemplate that painting of the Good Shepherd. Now there's a lot wrong with that - he was gazing at a painting while the Word was read and expounded! However, it makes the Puritan's point. We have a natural tendency toward idolatry, and this young man had made a painting into an object of worship.
Given that tendency in the human heart, why would we put a picture in front of anyone - especially an impressionable child - and say, "This is Jesus"? Extreme? Not necessarily. Not if you know the human heart.
Tom...you're pulling me in, at least in the wisdom or the thing.
But I'm still not convinced from Scripture.
Perhaps a study is in order for me.
Well, for goodness sake, don't let me convince you any other way. By all means study. That's how we make this thread mean something!
No fear Tom. I won't be convinced any other way.
Funny thing you know. Since I came to the conclusion that I need to only be convinced by Scripture, sometimes telling people what I don't believe has gotten more difficult, but standing on what I do believe has become simpler, and more solid.
Which is the idea, isn't it?
What did the pagans think of their images of gods? According to Porphyry, they thought it was not their god but only a representation.
"[And those] who make images as objects of veneration for the gods do not imagine that God [himself] is in the wood or the stone or the bronze used in the making of the image. They do not think for a moment that if a part of the image is cut off that the power of God is thereby lessened. Such images -- such as those of animals and those in temples -- were erected by ancient peoples for the sake of evoking the memory of the god. They were created so that those who saw them would remember the god..." (Porphyry's Against the Christians, The Literary Remains, R. Joseph Hoffmann, p. 85)
The gnostics like their images too:
"They style themselves Gnostics. They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world, that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 1, Chapter 26.6).
And to those who don't think images of Jesus can really be worshiped, consider what worship really means on a practical level and listen to the statements made by "believers" when Touchdown Jesus burned down awhile back:
“It sent goosebumps through my whole body because I am a believer,” said Levi Walsh, 29. “Of all the things that could have been struck, I just think that that would be protected. ... It’s something that’s not supposed to happen, Jesus burning,” he said. “I had to see it with my own eyes.”
“I can’t believe Jesus was struck,” said his brother, who noted the giant Hustler Hollywood sign for the adult store across the street was untouched. “It’s the last thing I expected to happen.”
mikeb,
I don't see anyone here saying the pictures of Jesus can't be worshipped.
Of course they can.
I would restate mikeb's comment, "And to those who don't think images of Jesus will eventually be worshiped..."
Because I'm pretty certain the folks at Solid Rock Church never said, "Hey, let's make a ginormous statue so that people will confuse it with the real Jesus and start talking about it as though it really were Jesus!" They never said that, but read the quotes!
"Factory of Idols." The Puritans were on to something.
Oops. That was Calvin, not the Puritans. I'm pretty sure they quoted it a lot, though.
They're analogous.
Tom Chantry,
Thanks much for the concise defense of your view. For me, it is much easier to evaluate than a long string of comments bouncing from question to question. And I will carefully consider each point in light of the Biblical text.
At this point, I think Tom deserves a rest from the "but what about this..." from the rest of us. He's done his best to present his interpretation.
Tom, thanks for your patience in this thread!
Blessings
Steve Lamm
Tom, AMEN.
To those who are not willing to accept Tom's argument and still say he's inconsistent, then you're simply being stiffnecked about it. Brothers still, but stiffnecked. IMO, if that argument he presented won't convince you, then nothing aside from the Spirit of God will.
Just be careful with images. Flippant drawing of the incarnate Christ puts you mighty close if not clearly over the edge of irreverence. Period.
A few Scriptures to consider.
Is Christ part of the Divine Nature?
"Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man." Acts 17:29
Duet. 4:23, 25 and 5:8 all reference the second commandment. All of these in the NASB have the "make" component and the "worship" component as two sentences, with the exception of v. 25 which doesn't even mention the "worship" component.
Also, Gen. 1:26 comes to mind, when God made us in his image and likeness. It is frightening to think of us making God in our image or likeness, which every human heart is prone to do.
And I bet Gideon didn't think his ephod would be an object of worship (Judges 8:27)long after he was gone either.
mikeb,
Nor God the bronze snake...
OK, maybe not. But you see the danger of ascribing sin to someone because of what someone else does decades, even centuries later?
"OK, maybe not. But you see the danger of ascribing sin to someone because of what someone else does decades, even centuries later?"
In this area, NO, because to do so at the outset is sin. Its consequences still are far-reaching.
Tom, would I be correct in saying that this harkens back to the infamous 'latria'/'dulia' debate that still exists among some? Usually it relates to images of Mary, but here it would seem that our brothers are arguing for the same unbiblical distinction with regards to our Lord Jesus because of EXACTLY what you say: any true representation ought to draw our worship (and the flippant use of images that we can tell are non-doxological dulls our hearts, thus degrading His glory).
Daryl, God certainly knew about the snake-worship problem.
But you see the danger of ascribing sin to someone because of what someone else does decades, even centuries later?
Do you see the danger of worrying just about intent of one person, when we all have a heart that wants to sin? God just says "don't do it!" because we can't know the effect it will have on others, which is why Calvin said "The human heart is a factory of idols…Everyone of us is, from his mother’s womb, expert in inventing idols."
He also said that when images appear in churches, people began to worship them "For men’s folly cannot restrain itself from falling headlong into superstitious rites".
continued from previous post
#1.) My position is very simple. What does the 2nd commandment say? Here it is:
(NASB) You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing loving kindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
Note: The ESV and KJV use "carved image" and "graven image" respectively instead of "idol."
The verse has four parts. (1) Don't make an idol. (2)Don't make ANY image. (3) Don't worship or serve said images that you weren't supposed to make (4) God is jealous, punishes those who hate Him and is kind to those who love Him.
The commandment nowhere says "Don't make an image of God." It says don't make an idol and don't make an image of anything in heaven or on the earth or in the water. There is no way you can then extricate not making an image of God from not making ANY image. If you can't make an image because making an image is wrong, then you can't make an image of anything because that's what the commandment says.
All of the parts are related of the second commandment are related. Don't make ANY image is related to not making an idol. It's a more explicit instruction. Part three is again a more explicit instruction not to worship and serve idols or images. Part 4 is the reason for it.
Here are some of the objections:
1.) But if you make a giant statute of Jesus, people would worship it? Yeah, if I make a giant statute of Peter and put it in the church, people would worship that too. If I made a golden calf, people would worship that. Of course, this isn’t an exegesis of Scripture. It’s a rationale for your interpretation of the 2nd commandment and moreover, its creating additional legal obligations to prevent somebody from sinning much like saying you can’t hold hands with a woman because it might lead to the sin of fornication. This is not an argument from Scripture. Moreover, this objection still doesn’t address the fact that the commandment prohibits making ANY image not merely images of God.
2.) If God wanted us to have a picture of Jesus, we would have been given one. First, this is an argument from silence. If God wanted us to celebrate Christmas, He would have told us too, right? This is exactly where this logic will lead (and has). Secondly, we do have a description of Jesus, in his glorified form no less. We can argue about the nature of the description in Revelation, but nonetheless, there is a description which forms an image in our mind. And wouldn’t we agree that creating a picture in our minds of Jehovah is as wrong as putting it on paper? Phil Johnson says so in his sermon on this commandment. Lastly, by this logic we'd not create any images of anybody in the Bible. We simply don't have enough data on anybody in the Bible to make an accurate depiction of their face and in most cases of their height, build, hair color, etc. Don’t we in fact, know more about Jesus’ appearance than Adam’s? So maybe we should avoid using depictions of any character for fear of giving people an inaccurate image of a Biblical character?
cont
3.) But an image of God and Jesus should instantly cause us to bow down in worship. So then you bow down and worship every time you see a nativity scene with baby Jesus? And isn’t this so with all of creation? Doesn’t a picture of the Grand Canyon evidence the majesty of God? Should it not cause us to worship?
4.) You can’t separate Jesus' divinity from his humanity and Colossians says Jesus is an image of God. This gets into the very complex issue of the hypostatic union. Jesus is the same God as the Father and yet the Persons of the Son and Father are different and so not the same. John 1:18 says nobody has seen God. And yet, Jesus says if we have seen Him we have seen the Father. So there must be some difference. Moses couldn’t even see God. He had to be hidden. Yet, Jesus was touched, beaten, sweat, bled. We also have descriptions of Jesus’ activities with enough detail to picture him in our heads to some degree as a baby, child, and man. We have zero mental pictures given of God the Father. So obviously, there is some difference.
5.) The Isrealites’ sin in making the golden calf was in making an image of Jehovah. They did this, of course, before they saw the ten commandments. I’d argue their sin was making an idol. It didn’t matter that they said it was God. If they had called the calf Baal or something else they would have been punished just the same. But if they had made the golden calf as a yard decoration to scare away birds would that have changed things? Or what if they had painted the fiery tower or images of their exodus so long as they didn’t worship them? I don’ t believe there would have been any problems then. The story is about making an idol and worshipping it despite whatever they called it.
6.) So then by your reasoning any image of Jesus is acceptable. This isn’t an exegetical argument. It’s a straw man argument. All of morality doesn’t flow out of the ten commandments. The ten commandments don’t have prohibitions against spitting on my neighbor, but its
Scripturally wrong nonetheless. Clearly wisdom and caution should be applied to using pictures of Jesus or even that of anything in Scripture. And I don’t need to shoehorn the second commandment to make that case.
Do you see the danger of worrying just about intent of one person, when we all have a heart that wants to sin? God just says "don't do it!" because we can't know the effect it will have on others, which is why Calvin said "The human heart is a factory of idols…Everyone of us is, from his mother’s womb, expert in inventing idols."
Except God doesn't say "don't make images of Me." He says don't make images of any kind. This treatment of the 2nd commandment is completely inconsistent. Secondly, it's still not an exegetical argument. We don't create additional legal requirements to keep people from commiting actual illegal acts. People are wicked. They do evil things. They abuse gifts. Should we stop making ice cream because people will overindulge and become gluttonous? Because if you make it, somebody will overeat.
Sir Aaron,
This is good. I was thinking that it begins to sound like the reasoning used to say that Christians must not drink alcohol.
Sir Aaron,
A very thoughtful group of posts indeed. Thank you. A few comments.
However, your arguments appears to center around the issue of creating images of any living thing.
You say It says don't make an idol and don't make an image of anything in heaven or on the earth or in the water. There is no way you can then extricate not making an image of God from not making ANY image. If you can't make an image because making an image is wrong, then you can't make an image of anything because that's what the commandment says.
Your logic appears good, except you miss a certain point. The issue of not creating an image of any living thing has implied in it the person will attribute divinity to it. It is ok to make images that we don't attribute divinity to. But how can one make an image of Jesus or God without attributing some type of divinity to it? You can not do it, because the minute you infer that the picture is God/Jesus, you attribute some divinity to it, even if you don't "worship" it.
This is why Paul told the Greeks, "Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man." Acts 17:29
Doesn’t a picture of the Grand Canyon evidence the majesty of God?
Evidence does not equate to image.
If I made a golden calf, people would worship that. Of course, this isn’t an exegesis of Scripture. It’s a rationale for your interpretation of the 2nd commandment and moreover, its creating additional legal obligations to prevent somebody from sinning much like saying you can’t hold hands with a woman because it might lead to the sin of fornication.
Sir Aaron, if you thought for 1 second someone might worship this image you created, and you go ahead and make it, you are indeed sinning even by your own reading of the second commandment (and in light of 1 Cor. 8).
Regarding your #5, you say They did this, of course, before they saw the ten commandments.
Surely you are not justifying their making of an idol because they were ignorant of the commandments? If so, read Romans 1:18-32 and understand that even before there was a Jew, God expected us to worship Him in Truth and Spirit, not in the "image in the form of corruptible man".
"if you thought for 1 second someone might worship this image you created, and you go ahead and make it, you are indeed sinning even by your own reading of the second commandment"
If that is true, then the making of alcohol is always a sin, for surely someone will (or at least might) become drunk and so sin.
But we know that is not true.
Sir Aaron,
Thank you. I will only respond to two points.
First, on your objection #5 - I think you need to reread Exodus 20. The Israelites heard the Ten Commandments. Before God called Moses up on the mountain with Him, He only urged Moses to reiterate one commandments to them - the Second. Then Moses went up the mountain - and they made an image and called it God.
Second, I don't think you made your point re. the necessary relationship between the clauses of the commandment. You write: The verse has four parts. (1) Don't make an idol. (2)Don't make ANY image. (3) Don't worship or serve said images that you weren't supposed to make (4) God is jealous, punishes those who hate Him and is kind to those who love Him.
The commandment nowhere says "Don't make an image of God." It says don't make an idol and don't make an image of anything in heaven or on the earth or in the water. There is no way you can then extricate not making an image of God from not making ANY image. If you can't make an image because making an image is wrong, then you can't make an image of anything because that's what the commandment says. all you've done here is reiterate the often repeated contention of this thread that the only possible relationship of the two prohibited actions in this commandment is that the second must be the purpose for the first, else the first is accepted. I think I have proposed another possible relationship. Your argument still sounds like, "God made a commandment in which there were two distinct prohibitions, but unless you violate the second of them, you're fine. So go ahead and violate the first prohibition, because God didn't mean that unless you also intend to violate the second."
Now I realize that you think I've made a similar logical error by concluding that the image which should not be made is not any image, but any image of God. I think I have the context on my side. Later in the book two things happen which support my view. First, the people made an image of God and were killed for it. Second, God Himself commanded them to make images, but not of Himself.
I understand what you're saying here, but I remain much more comfortable with my own interpretation.
By the way, back to what Frank was initially writing about - what we are doing today on this thread is the proper way to discuss these matters. Everyone who wanted to surf in, drop a rhetorical bomb, and ride into the sunset has long since flown the coup. (Four metaphors in one mixture - awesome!) If the initial response to Dan had been something more like what we are doing now and less like a comment that said, "This is blasphemous - Repent!" - Oh how much better that would have been!
mikeb:
No, I don't think the verse implies divinity. The verse doesn't say or imply divinity. Something on earth or something in the water, divine? Why wouldn't the verse just say, "Don't make anything that represents God?" No, it says don't make an idol. That includes any image of anything that you bow down to or worship. Everything else is being read into the text.
Sir Aaron, if you thought for 1 second someone might worship this image you created, and you go ahead and make it, you are indeed sinning even by your own reading of the second commandment (and in light of 1 Cor. 8).
So if I make ice cream knowing somebody might overeat, then I'm sinning? Surely I wouldn't make ice cream for an overeaters anonymous meeting, likewise, I wouldn't decorate a church with stained glass windows for ex-Catholics. But whenever I create something, there's always the possibility that somebody somewhere will do something sinful with it.
Surely you are not justifying their making of an idol because they were ignorant of the commandments?
Yep, just like I justify Abel's murder before the ten commandments. Come on. I'm saying you can't use the golden calf as a prooftext for the exegesis of the second commandment.
Except God doesn't say "don't make images of Me." He says don't make images of any kind.
Sir Aaron, you're talking in circles. Is not an image of God included in "images of any kind"? Why would you think "images of any kind" supersedes an image of God? Pagans made images of their gods. "Images of any kind" includes both images of God and images of other gods.
Daryl, you may be trying to be sarcastic, but your analogy is off. If a Christian makes a beer and calls it the Beer of Jesus Christ or makes the bottle in the image of Jesus or put a picture of Jesus on the bottle, this would violate the 2nd commandment.
I'm saying you can't use the golden calf as a prooftext for the exegesis of the second commandment.
Have you looked at Exodus 20 yet?
Sequence of events:
1. God speaks the Commandments verbally from Mt. Sinai.
2. The people get scared and say, "No more! Moses, you go talk to God first."
3. Moses agrees.
4. Moses goes up on the mountain.
5. God's first comment to Moses: "You're going to have to remind them of the Second Commandment"!
6. (Exodus 32) While Moses is up there, they make a golden calf.
Conclusion: they had the Second Commandment (and indeed all ten) in direct verbal form from the very mouth of God, which (per Deuteronomy 5:4) had particular weight.
mikeb,
No, I wasn't trying to be sarcastic. I really do see your argument as identical to the teetoltalling argument.
I could be wrong, but it looks that way to me.
First to MikeB:
Umm, of course, images of any kinds includes images of God. My argument is that the second commandment says make no images to be worshipped. You divorce the worship from the images and say it doesn't matter the intent, images of God are not to be created. Except that the verse doesn't say no images of God. It says no images of any kind. So if you buy the goose you have to take the gander.
I think I understand the beer analogy. Just because someone might get drunk doesn't make brewing beer a sin, and just because someone might worship it doesn't make the manufacture of miniature Statues of Liberty a sin. Potential sin doesn't equal sinful intent, or even culpability.
My argument is distinct from this. I argue that making images to represent God is sin because He forbade it. Beyond this, I believe that I can understand why He would forbid it - given the long proven potential for idolatry.
Tom:
First of all, you're right. I forgot Exodus 20. Secondly, you're right about all the drive-bys having left. I'll also add, that despite our differences on this issue, we actually have a lot in common. Both of us would avoid flippant, careless images of Christ and both of us would avoid creating images of God the Father. And neither of us is commanding the other to repent.
Back to Exodus 20, I think it actually makes my case for me. In Exodus 20, God tells Moses to say the following: "You shall not make other gods besides Me; gods of silver or gods of gold, you shall not make for yourselves." I don't see anywhere where it says, don't make images of Me. It says don't make other gods. I also think the context is on my side as well. The Ark, the mercy seat, etc. had images of things in heaven, which should have been prohibited in the second commandment. God would never contradict Himself. So the verse means, don't make an idol from an image of anything in heaven (or on the earth or in the water).
I don't think the argument came so much from you, Tom. But it has been a recurring argument that we had to address.
The ark, the mercy seat, the bronze serpent, etc.
These things, like the grand canyon, a man, and other suggested created things are not, and can never be thought of as, artisting renderings which claim to be representational of the person of God.
Whereas the golden calf simply was. Trace its history throughout the Old Testament and this become crystal clear. Aaron said the calf was the one who brought them out of Egypt. Jeroboam was criticized for not having Levites serve as priests - why, if it was a false god? Ahab is said to have gone further than Jeroboam when he imported Baal - why, if the calf was also a false god? Jehu was faithful to Yahweh - but continued to worship the calf! It simply was a physical representation intended to represent God.
Of course it was also an object of worship. So your point is not repudiated by the identity of the calf alone. But let's not get confused at this point in the conversation. The image of a created thing which they made was intended as a representation of the one true God.
As I see it Aaron, our difference boils down to one thing: what limits the absolute prohibition against images? We can both agree that it is limited; we are not Amish.
You say it is limited by the next prohibition, and that unless the two prohibitions are broken together the law is not violated. I can see the internal logic in your point of view, which is why I will not rail against anyone who holds it as a blasphemous pagan. I say, however, that the grammar does not justify the paraphrase, "do not make with the intent to bow down," and I further argue that context suggests that what limits the prohibition against images is their identification as representations of the one true God.
You say that I am importing that into the text; I say that a careful analysis of text and context demands it. I say that your combination of two clauses which do not appear to be related as you wish to relate them is a dangerous attempt to allow partial violation of the commandment in the hope that thorough violation will not follow; you say that only this interpretation allows a rational reading of the text without importing an element from elsewhere.
I understand, but I disagree. I think your position is dangerous. I do think that it will eventually lead to idolatry in the hearts of some. But that is not the reason I oppose it. I oppose it because I do not believe it is what God has commanded, and that in effect you are slicing a critical part of God's law out of the command.
Yet, while disagreeing, I can see that you have argued your case from scripture and not - like many - from emotion. You have, in other words, said more than merely, "But I really liked 'The Passion'!"
As has been noted on this blog before, I abhor the phrase, "Let's agree to disagree." But I disagree with you respectfully.
Tom,
It's kinda humorous in that when I read your last post I was thinking that summed up my position with respect to you. ;)
But better theologians than I have disagreed on this issue. I'm happy we could ultimately come to respect each other as true Christian brothers.
I haven't yet wandered into the gifts post today. I'm wondering where that is.
Reading all this, I'm getting a huge headache.
Question. The Deut.4:15-18 (and on) reference. Isn't some of this part of the very reason why the Jews reject Jesus in the first place? Because no one can see God, and He made Himself equal with God?
At what point do we find ourselves so focused on the finest points that we miss the Son?
I knew I should have changed my moniker! :-/
I know there's more depth to it, but I see three views here.
1. The two imperatives in the 2nd commandment (you shall not make; you shall not worship) make it clear that both are forbidden, and the fact that visual artistry is clearly not forbidden (as in the tabernacle instructions), we can deduce that the image that is forbidden is that which represents God.
2. Since it is clearly not forbidden (other places in Scripture) to make ANY likeness of ANYTHING in heaven/on earth/under the earth, and the fact that God is dealing specifically (in the first commandment) with having other gods/idols, we can deduce that the image that is forbidden is one which we would make is "another god" in order to bow down to and worship.
3. Since it is clearly not forbidden (other places in Scripture) to make ANY likeness of ANYTHING in heaven/on earth/under the earth, and since the Israelites made a practice of creating images to represent God (ie: the golden calf), we can deduce that the image that is forbidden is one which we would make (as a representation of God) in order to bow down to and worship.
Is that accurate?
bp,
Very Accurate. To go a step further, your first option is the classic Reformed position, your second the classic Catholic position, and the third the classic Lutheran position.
Here's another question, not to be argumentative, but just an honest question:
Those who are troubled with any portrayal of Jesus at all and base that on the 2nd commandment: Do you hold your hand over your heart or remove your hat and pledge allegiance to any flags, or sing the Star Spangled Banner? And if so, how is that not a 2nd commandment issue? I can't do that because of a heavy conviction regarding the 2nd commandment because those are acts of worship and veneration of an object and of something represented by that object....but I have a copy of the Gospel of John on DVD and have learned a great deal through its dialogue and imagery (as I mentioned in my comment from yesterday, I'm GOING to have a mental image of any event I read about, it's the only way they will make any sense to my feeble brain and having some help in making it an accurate one is a good thing).
I guess I'm a bit confused on the 2nd one being the classic catholic position because I've been to the Catholic cathedral here in Minneapolis and they have huge statues of the virgin Mary and the saints. And while I know they would deny that they worship them, they have kneeling bars right in front of the statues, and the 2nd commandment does say, do not BOW DOWN or serve them.
"And if so, how is that not a 2nd commandment issue?"
Barbara,
It's not a religious context, and no one thinks that the pledge or the flag are representations of God.
We're talking about likenesses of the Incarnate Son.
Your parallel is well out into left field.
Sir Aaron, we appear to be speaking past each other. Let's try it a different way. You think the point of the 2nd commandment is not to make an idol. I agree. But you don't seem to agree that an image of God would be an idol.
Let us concede for the moment, that you are correct and the two parts go together (which I don't think is true because of the two commands starting each phrase). We are not to make an idol. Merriam-webster defines an idol as:
1 : a representation or symbol of an object of worship; broadly : a false god
OK. So the idol is not the object of worship, but a symbol or representation of the object of worship. This was also the mindset of ancient pagans (see Porphyry quote above.)
So as Christians, what is the object of our worship? The Triune God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit.) So if we create an image of God/Jesus, have we not just made a symbol/representation of our object of worship? Regardless of if we bow down to it or not, or pray to it, by definition we have just created an idol.
Also, notice vs. 4 says "an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven". If we take the "or" statement as further explanation of what an idol is, thereby equating an idol with a "likeness", my argument above stands. If we take the two as separate, as in "don't make an idol" and also "don't make any likeness of what is in heaven", why would there be a differentiation if not to say "making a likeness of what is in heaven (God is in heaven) equal to idolatry." So any way you take the word idol, it shows we are not to make an image of God. So let me sum it up for you:
1. The object of our worship is God
2. An idol is a representation of the object of worship
3. A representation of God is an idol.
God says do not make an idol.
btw Barbara, as to the second part of your post, I think it's alreay been said that the 2nd commandment does not forbid making "mental" images.
bp,
That is where they get into their worship/veneration word games. But to justify the worship of Christ through a crucifix they have long argued that what we call the Second Commandment is a furtherance of the First - that the images in Exodus 20:4-6 are images meant to represent false gods, not the one true God.
MikeB:
The problem, again, is that you take "or any likeness in Heaven" and stop. The verse goes on to say or anything on the earth or in the water. So if you are going to say you can't make any likeness of anything in Heaven, you must also conclude that you may not also make anything of likeness on earth or in the water. And actually, that's exactly the conclusion that some Protestants have come to.
Your second point actually is better. You define any representation of God as an idol. also go a bit further. I wouldn't say that any representation of God is an idol. Otherwise, I'd have to get rid of all crucifixes because they are, in fact, a representation of Jesus. An idol is a physical or material image or form representing a reality or being considered divine and thus an object of worship. So the idol must be an object of worship in order to be an idol. A flannelgraph of Jesus is not meant to be an object of worship, to replace worship or the one true God, or in any way to be used to elicit worship. Therefore, pictures of Jesus or other heavenly things are not in an of themselves, idols.
BP:
Actually, that's incorrect. Phil Johnson, in his sermon on the second commandment (he posted it here) says that making a mental image of God is as wrong as actually painting it.
Tom's correct with respect to Catholics. They play word games and what they say doesn't match their behavior. Statues of Mary aren't idols, their "worship aids" designed to give the worshipper a feeling of reverence and humility. But in actuality, they're bowing down and worshipping Mary. That's why I don't like using the RCC position. It says one thing and often does another.
Nobody can read the Bible and not have some mental image of God (Father, Son and Spirit), it's impossible. When we read stories, whether ficitonal or non, we have mental images, that's the way the human brain works.
BP,
When you've been raised in a setting in which visual imagery is not everything, and in which you are never, even once, subjected to an image of any Person of the Godhead during your formative years, then you may say, "no one, never."
I'm not boasting here, but I honestly have No mental image of God the Father or God the Spirit, and unless the discussion is about images, I very often think about Christ without any mental image coming to me at all.
That's not a sign of spirituality, but of upbringing. The question is whether we should aim for the same with our children.
Wow. I guess I've never heard anyone say that, Tom. I guess I can't fathom it.
@Tom, when you read a book, whether fiction or non, do you have mental images of the people, places, things in it (even if they don't describe details)?
Yes. I hated the Lord of the Rings movies, mostly because I have such a strong mental image of them and, through no fault of Peter Jackson, the movies didn't match.
But of God? No. How could I have an image of the Father or the Spirit? And with Jesus I was so consistently taught that the pictures one sees are not Jesus, I have learned not to see them when I read the Word or hear it preached.
I truly think it's a matter of religious culture. Someone said above that this is only an extreme view in our visual day, when churches have chosen visual image as a way of teaching. It does not have to be so, and the question is whether it should not be so.
Humerous anecdote: When my grandfather died, my three year old nephew went into the Lutheran church for the funeral. After puzzling over the painting of the ascension on the front wall, he whispered, "They've got a picture of Moses up there!" He had been raised without images of Jesus, and he had no mental image of Jesus in His mind. Yet he knew who and what Jesus is and could tell you about Him - in a three-year-old manner, of course.
What gives God and Jesus more glory? Does images of Christ give more glory to him or attempt to take glory away?
Wow… 260 posts…. talk about late to the party. There’s no way I can add anything to this except to say what I think of the cartoon in of itself. If somebody drew that picture and expected someone to worship it as if it somehow were Christ, obviously, that’s a big problem. But that’s not what is going on here at all. The point of the cartoon is simple… get real about following Christ. That’s the entire message and I think it’s a good one. One that I need to hear from time to time particularly in this high-tech age where one can think they’re following Christ simply by having a list of Christian blogs they keep up with.
Sir Brass, I'm sorry if you think the parallel is in left field, it just looks to me like creature worship since people are too quick to credit the country for giving us our freedoms rather than the God who made that country who gives us our freedoms. People do worship the flag - or they sure do around my neck of the woods, and when you have churches equating political involvement with the gospel, there is an issue at hand and the flag is an idol or a representation of one. And I have a hard time separating that from the idol worship that was carried on in the name of God in the Temple when we do the same thing here. So I really don't see the difference. The second commandment is about making and worshipping visual idols, no? This argument has been carried to the point of suggesting that photographic avatars for blogger icons violating the second commandment but nobody actually bows down to, sings to, pledges allegiance to, nor worships those. We don't carry our blogger photos into the church with us. Even in my own church at the front stand two flags - a US flag and a "christian flag". I pledge to neither.
As to use of images to teach, God did quite a bit of that through the prophets - they didn't use words alone - they had object lessons demonstrating it all. We're given fives senses for a reason, and all are to be used in and for the glory of God - both in proper worship and in learning of Him. And He did give us His son, in the form of man. I don't picture God the Father either, but I sure do picture Jesus walking around and talking with His disciples and it seems that that is part of the grace of His condescending to take on human form and to come to earth - it's an amazing grace and it seems somewhat disingenuous to despise that grace by saying we can't envision Him as a man doing what the Scripture tells us He has done.
Something else to consider. When you show your kids a picture of someone and ask who is that, they say "Uncle John" or whoever. We are trained in our minds that the image of something is the thing itself.
Also, here is some history for ya:
Westminster Larger Catechism (1647):
Q. 109. What sins are forbidden in the second commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever; all worshiping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.
It's possible you guys are right and the church fathers, Calvin, the Westminster divines, writers of the Heidlberg catechism, Al Mohler, Phil Johnson, John MacArthur, all the Puritans, and 99% of protestants in history are wrong on this issue.
Tom, what you're saying seems inconsistent. You say that you don't see mental images of God/Jesus/Spirit when you read the Bible because you were raised w/out any such images around, yet you have mental images of people/places/things in LOTR when, here also, you had no prior images around. :-/
I don't know how one can stop they're brain from imagining Jesus walking in the garden of gethsemane, as they're reading Luke 22:43. I just can't fathom it.
Besides, words themselves are meaningless unless I have something concrete that I can attach them to. I see the word "table", my mind attaches the word to something in the likeness of a table and then I have comprehension. I read the word "blue", I see the color blue and I have comprehension. I read of Jesus in the Gospels before His resurrection and I see a Jewish man walking and talking, turning over the moneychangers' tables with a whip of cords, and even then I have to have some idea of what a whip of cords looks like or else I can't really have comprehension of that either.
This is basic stuff here. So you're telling me it's a sin to envision these events, you've left me without a sinless means of comprehending those events.
Thanks.
But Mike, if Phil is equating "mental" images making images with our hands, I honestly get stuck there. I am becoming convinced by Tom's arguements that he's made here, but I don't know that I could ever believe that a person is breaking the 2nd commandment by having a mental image of God or Jesus as they read the Bible.
bp,
I am with you there, especially when God Himself gives us that imagery through His own descriptions and theophanies. Is it a sin to visualize a bush that is burning yet not consumed, to even imagine such a thing as possible? Or to "see" the interaction between Joshua and the Angel of the Lord? Is it a violation of God's Holy Commandment - the sum and total of which in concert with the other 3 on the first table is "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and mind and soul and strength" - to picture these awe-some images and be amazed by the God who chooses to reveal Himself through them? It's as if He knows our feeble minds need some means of understanding on our feeble level, so He grants us that kind of imagery as a grace in His self-revelation.
Surely even more so: it was in the grand imagery of the throne room of Ezekiel 1, as I was trying to imagine something so huge that the wings of angels sounded like the roaring of an ocean, that the Holy Spirit shone Himself down and showed me who and what I had been for all my life by deigning to stand as judge over that very word. He reveals Himself to our hearts through our senses too. He revealed Himself to the prophets in visions and dreams, and even to the apostle John in a vision - and we have the gift of having had this shared with us so that we too might see and understand. So this is crucial. It matters.
OK. Let me see if I can clear that up. When I think "Jesus and disciples walking in the garden" I suppose I focus on what they are saying, but if I really think about it I might see (imagine) men (indistinct) walking around in a garden. I never see anyone who looks like da Vinci's Jesus. When I read that God spoke to Moses from out of the cloud, I see nothing. No form, no Michaelangelo type old man - nothing. The focus is on the words.
I know this is a matter of upbringing and being told to be careful about images of Jesus, because when I read about Frodo and Sam, I see faces that I have conjured, or perhaps that came out of a book illustration, and they look nothing like Elijah Wood and Sean Astin.
I do not imagine think that if you see in your mind's eye you visualize men in a garden you are violating the command in any sense. As I understand it (and I didn't hear Phil's sermon) actively trying to visualize God in your mind is drifting in the direction of idolatry.
For what it's worth, my argument has not been that imaging in the mind is idolatry. I have argued that making visual representations is idolatry, which is my reading of the commandment. An advantage of this approach is that our heads are not turned by man-made images, but remain focused on the words with which God reveals Himself.
Ahhh, yes, the everyone else thinks you're wrong argument. Very Scriptural. Of course, you're wrong on that point too. You better check your facts again. MacArthur's view is that you may use depictions of Christ to teach children.
I have no idea what you are talking about. The what argument?
Oh, sorry, you were talking to mikeb, weren't you? I was reading and rereading my last comment thing, "What...who...?"
Tom Chantry,
I've truly appreciated your Christ-like patience, diligence, and charity in this thread.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is what Christ looks like.
And lest the preceding statement be misconstrued, I'm not referring to Tom's avatar visage, but rather to the character traits he's displayed herein, by which he displays and adorns Christ.
May He be crowned with many crowns!
Thus far I've intentionally restricted my comments in this meta because I'm pretty certain that I won't receive a fair hearing from some, and I've not wished to be an unnecessary distraction from the outstanding in-house conversation that's been taking place amongst so many sincere and knowledgable believers.
In fact I'd venture to say that this thread, for the most part, has been a case study in steadfast, passionate, and at times sharp disagreements, while nonetheless maintaining a spirit of humility, gentleness, and grace.
DJP,
I apologize and I repent of my un-Christlike attitude and behavior towards you. I've asked the Lord to forgive me, and I ask for your forgiveness as well. I didn't treat you as a brother in Christ should be treated, and for that I'm deeply and sincerely sorry.
Soli Deo Gloria!
In Him,
CD
Tom,
Although we (right now) see this differently, we have a very similar experience when reading or hearing about God.
I too, have no visual of God. Not for trying, I must say. But, sort of similar to the LOTR movies not getting the characters quite right. (except the Nine, they got those very very close to what I have in my mind).
When I've tried I've always ended up saying to myself "No that's not even close" and so I've given up.
Nothing works.
For that matter, I don't even have a visual of the burning bush. It doesn't compute, even though I've seen art-work depicting it.
I think that's also carried over to Jesus for me. Once I was old enough to realize that Jesus was a Mid-Eastern-type guy who looked nothing like all the art-work, I've given up, because nothing gets it right.
Even the "Passion" movie failed me there. The most poignant moment for me was when the soldier stuck the cat-o-nine tails into the desk, I realized really really what the physical pain must have been, but the whole rest of the time it was like watching a movie about a close friend.
You say "Yup, some of that happened to my friend, but the character? Nope, it's just not working."
I've never thought to be thankful for that, but here I sit, thankful to the Lord for keeping me dissatisfied with any and all images I've seen or imagined of The Father and Jesus. (I can't even imagine imagining the Spirit).
Interestingly, there is one bit of physical information given us by Isaiah, but everyone, even Mr. Gibson, ignores it heartily.
Isaiah tells us that there was nothing in His appearance that would attract us to Him.
Sounds to me like He was probably homely, even ugly, or at least very very plain.
Try imagining a hero, any hero, as ugly.
Can't do it.
I've never been entirely certain that Isaiah was describing the normal physical characteristics of Jesus. Part of that statement is in the midst of the description of Christ on the cross. I think we can take it for granted that if you were to take a paragon of masculine beauty, strip him, flog him, press thorns into his head, and crucify him, he, too would soon be "as one from whom men hide their faces."
Ahhh, yes, the everyone else thinks you're wrong argument. Very Scriptural.
I'm not saying these men were infallible, but to disagree with some of the most worthy men of church history puts the burden of proof on you. To say the men of history have nothing to teach us is to deny God's providence.
Since we aren't making much progress on the second commandment, let's try the 3rd.
"You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain."
This means that we "dishonor God's reputation either by words that speak of him in a foolish or misleading way, or by actions that do not reflect his true character." (Grudem's ST, 158). So when we show a picture of God or Jesus to children, and say "that's Jesus healing the sick", are we speaking of God in a misleading way? Are we using his name when the picture clearly does not reflect his true character (which there is not way it can)?
Another thought on the 2nd commandment...
We should consider Romans 1:23, 24, where Paul says "Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures."
I understand that Paul is talking about pagans here. But what is interesting is that he says they "exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man". Notice the contracts between God's nature as incorruptible and mans as corruptible. So the minute we put the form of God into a man, we have corrupted the image of God. Even with Jesus, as he was incorruptible, and any man we draw has to be a corruptible man as well because we do not know how to draw an incorruptible one. (Please don't make the argument that God the Father did this when He made Jesus a God-man, as that is God's prerogative and not even close to what we are discussing.)
Ah, Sir Aaron, no mention of worship her in Romans 1:24. They corrupted the image and that was bad enough. And because of this corruption of God's image, God gave them over to "lusts of their hearts" and other dishonorable things. Then they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator".
Ahh, but you say, "see v. 25 speaks of worship and points back to v. 23 and connects up with the image."
Douglas Moo says in his commentary, "But since v. 23 has already expressed the reason for this handing over, it is preferable to see v.25 as initiating a new sentence. Rather than looking backward, then, v.25 looks ahead, providing, as does v.23 in relation to v.24, the basis for God's judicial "handing over" of sinners to the consequences of their choices...Moreover, the bases are very similar. If in v. 23 Paul accuses people of exchanging the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of the image of mortal man...", so here he claims they have "exchanged the truth of God for a lie."
Of course you might say who's Douglass Moo that I even listen to him. And if that is your reply, it's not likely you'll listen to anyone else on this issue :(
mikeb,
A little graciousness might be in order.
Why is it that everyone else seems to try to understand the other's point of view and respectfully disagree, but you, seemingly, can't bear to be disagreed with.
Lighten up.
You might be wrong.
I know that the whole "mental images" point hasn't been part of your argument, Tom, but do you believe that creating mental images of God in our minds is also forbidden by the 2nd commandment? I'm still processing all that you've presented here, and I guess I'd just like the whole shabang laid out on the table. Do you believe it's just the making/creating these images with our hands that is sinful or also creating (distinct or indistinct)mental images?
Daryl, that's because we're talking about something which sullies God's glory.
Lighten up over it? It's not like he's dropping a "repent!" grenade and leaving (and thank you CD for that gracious apology). This is important!
I believe the commandment forbids artistic representations of the deity - as sculpture, painting, drawing, characters in drama, and perhaps even characters in fictional books (the Shack?).
As always with commandments, there is the specific command and the underlying principle. I believe the underlying principle is to think no unauthorized thoughts about God. In that sense, we ought not to strive to image Him in our minds.
I would be much less critical of this than some, but I don't think it's at all a good idea to try to formulate a mental image of what God looks like. It distracts from His word and works, which tell us what He actually is like.
...Holy Spirit in the form of a dove....corruptible? Really?
Seriously some of this is getting to the point of straining gnats. I think we all understand that when we point to a picture and say "That's Jesus healing the sick" that even a child understands that that is not literally His healing the sick right there but that it is just a picture that somebody drew depicting Jesus healing the sick. At some point there has to be some place for common sense. It seems to me that this is where "the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" comes into play. It's like at a women's study where a couple of ladies tried to set down every possible scenario regarding when and where a woman can or cannot teach and who she can and cannot speak of Biblical things to until it would have been comedic had it not been so tragic. So much time picking apart so many details that the point, the spirit of it - love for God above all things, worshipping Him with our whole selves in Spirit and in Truth which can only happen because He first loved us - seemingly is made secondary to the infinitesimal details. And it seems to me that that is what Jesus was railing the Pharisees for. They couldn't see Him because they were too busy picking apart the law and stretching it farther than it was intended to go.
That is not intended to accuse anyone here of being Pharasaical. Our natural bent is toward legalism, seems I read that someplace, and when we get to the matter of whether or not someone is sinning when they try to imagine the word of God, His own chosen means of His self-revelation, in some sort of visual context in order to understand and teach it better, then we seem to have gotten to the point of burdening people rather than lifting a finger to ease it.
Just my $.02.
Daryl, I ask your forgiveness if you think I have not been gracious. I don't feel like I've been uptight, angry or even mean-spirited. But sometimes words can come across different depending on the reader. I understand others points of view, but in a debate we don't have time for lots of small talk. I personally think in our postmodern world we've lost the art of meaningful debate because we get too worried about feelings, emotions, etc. Not that we should be like Luther who called people dogs and pigs. It's okay to disagree and debate it strongly on matters of doctrine.
Barbara, you said I think we all understand that when we point to a picture and say "That's Jesus healing the sick" that even a child understands that that is not literally His healing the sick right there but that it is just a picture that somebody drew depicting Jesus healing the sick.
I agree. They don't think that it's happening in a real time, but they usually do think that's what Jesus looks like.
I believe in total depravity, so the human idol factory (heart) knows no bounds.
Catholic children are encouraged to pray to Mary, the saints, and even their guardian angel. I doubt they even question this when their parents tell them to do it.
http://catholicism.about.com/od/prayers/tp/children_prayer.htm
Or what about the 15 yr old in Dallas who made a film where a cop beat a kid with a baton, portraying the beating of Christ by a Roman soldier.
"The home-schooled fifth-grader, who is taking a class on religious symbols in art at a Catholic church, decided to do a modern depiction of Christ being beaten by a Roman soldier.
"I thought about how innocent Jesus was, like a kid," Jackson said. "I thought a police officer was sort of like a Roman guard.""
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35968080/
I can't imagine that anyone would have to "strive" or "try" to formulate an image of Jesus in their mind as they read the gospels, it just happens (with me anyway). I'd actually have to strive NOT to formulate an image of Jesus as I read about Him.
But lots to chew on here and this will be a subject I'll continue to study more in depth. I appreciate you patiently plodding through this here, Tom. Your original points on why you believe the classic reformed view is the true interpretation are fairly convincing, but the additional "mental images" point seems gray and impossible to me.
I believe in total depravity too, and the fact that a messed-up kid being taught faulty theology turned it against an innocent man is reflective of that, not of whether there was a drawn picture of Jesus in his books. We all have a faulty view of Jesus, even of who He is, until He meets us and the Holy Spirit opens our eyes.
...Holy Spirit in the form of a dove....corruptible? Really?
We are forbidden to make idols/images to represent the Holy Spirit:
"Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flieth in the heavens,"
(Deu 4:16-17)
"and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things." (Rom 1:23)
"and to birds; as the dove by the Samaritans" (Gill)
More selections from Gill:
"The Jews (t) say, that the idol Jacob hid under the oak was in the form of a dove, which the Samaritans after some time found, and set it on the top of Mount Gerizim."
"the dove by the Assyrians" (concerning what is prohibited in the Second Commandment)
"doves by the Syrians were worshipped as deities"
"And though the inhabitants of Samaria might be better instructed, after Manasseh and other Jews came to reside among them in later times, still they retained idolatrous practices; and, even in the times of our Lord, they were ignorant of the true object of religious worship, Joh_4:22; and they are charged by the Jewish writers (i) with worshipping the image of a dove on Mount Gerizim"
"Pope Innocent was at Mass, a golden crown was seen, and on it a dove, and under it a smoking censer, and hard by them two burning firebrands: and it is reported of Pope Hildebrand, that, whenever he pleased, he could shake his sleeves, and sparks of fire would come out; and by these miracles deluded the eyes of the simple with a show of holiness, which, with other instances, are taken notice of by Napier, Brightman, and other writers: and so here this is said to be done "in the sight of men"; to their apprehension, seemingly, in their view; they being cheated and deluded with an appearance and show of things which were not real."
Yeah, but we didn't come up with the dove as representation of the Holy Spirit. God Himself did.
I'm not referring to the creation of such an image with hands, but rather the mental/visual representation/identification that God Himself has given us.
Are you telling me that we are to despise such things because the Counterfeiter makes counterfeits and deceives people into creature-worship?
Tom Chantry noted:
"As one who has been in opposition today, I do not see any truth in Bverysharp's description of Frank. It just hasn't happened."
I certainly don't discount your impression.
On my read, the comment stream for this particular post has evidenced some pretty pointed vitriol. And, on my read, it's generally coming from one direction.
Obviously, there's some bad blood between Coram Deo and Frank Turk. centuri0n's particular blogspot has made that clear.
I have no dog in that hunt. But, I do now have a clearer impression of which Pyromaniac blog posts I should chance to read in future.
The vitriol herein spewed against, for example, Turretinfan is distasteful to me.
And, note, the lion's share of it wasn't posted by Cent.
I don't know if this comment will see the light of day, but, for the record, and for the very tiny little bit that it matters, I'm self-restricting to Phil Johnson's posts for now.
There's righteous edginess and then there's just being a jerk.
_____________
The following not directed at Tom Chantry
_____________
Insofar as certain blog admins here see fit to encourage by example poor logic, acontextual readings, and a manifest lack of charity, I leave you to it.
I'm not referring to the creation of such an image with hands, but rather the mental/visual representation/identification that God Himself has given us.
Barbara,
God lovingly and condesendingly provides us with a number of anthropomorphisms and anthropopathsims about Himself in His Word, but He is not to be thought of as being a dove, or a man of war, or a rock, or a fortress, or a buckler, or any such created thing because He is transcendent and infinitely holy.
God is infinitely holier and infinitely more glorious than the burning ones who ever fly around His throne crying Holy! Holy!! Holy!!!
To think of Him, much less depict Him, in a manner unworthy of Him is to rob Him of His glory.
This is among the reasons we are forbidden in the strongest of terms, in the earliest and first table of the law not to image Him.
It's for our own good, and for His glory.
Let's trust and obey that His way is best, and submit ourselves to His Word.
In Christ,
CD
CD,
I don't think of God as a dove. But we are given that representation. However, as one who Christ brought unto Himself after 4 decades of a life that was spent being let down and betrayed and disappointed and used and abused, I can tell you that knowing Christ as my Rock, the unchanging, unmoveable cleft in which I can hide, and that as that Rock He will not change, but is in a very real sense a very real rock upon which I can count completely and absolutely to be faithful to His word, when I can't count on anything else in this world, and everything is shown to be sullied and passing away, let every man be a liar but God is true...that is a very very very precious thing to me. He is the Rock, the cornerstone upon which I fell and was smashed to pieces, by His grace, rather than having Him fall onto me and crush me. No, not a literal, physical rock, not literal pieces of glass, but a very real rock in a very real sense and a very real smashing ot pieces nonetheless. So yes, I do think of God as a rock and a fortress, among other things. He has given me that. It is part of who He is and I cherish that in Him. His word gives us that and describes Him that way - so who are we to despise that and say it's not good enough? Of course He is holy - and that holiness is the sum and measure of what makes all His other attributes beautiful, not the least of which is the price He requires, and yet Himself gave to bring such as we unto Himself and to make the way open to Himself that we who were once His enemies are now granted the privilege of calling Him Father. The more I know of Him, the more I love Him, and the more the imagery and metaphors we are given in Scripture become less metaphorical and more real. I know the removal of the veil - I remember it. It might not have been a physical veil, but it was no less real.I know my Redeemer, and with all due respect you seem to be missing a big piece of the point here.
"He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove." Keyword here is "like". The Gospel writers all appear to be more concerned with the "how" of the descending, not necessarily what it looked like.
DJP did a post similar to this issue on "his sweat became like great drops of blood" at:
http://bibchr.blogspot.com/2010/04/did-jesus-sweat-drops-of-blood-as-he.html
Mike,
You'll really have an uphill battle convincing me that making a depiction of Jesus is equivalent to taking God's name in vain. But I do appreciate that you want to shoehorn this prohibition into yet another commandment. I'll leave you the following from John MacArthur:
"Here's another question...the Bible is clear on the fact that we should not use images of the Lord. Why do we use pictures of Jesus to teach our children?
Well that's an interesting question. Are we disobeying the Word of God? No, let me give you what I think might be a helpful answer. By the way, I wouldn't mind if someone wanted to believe that you should never have a picture of Christ at all. That's fine, I don't argue with that at all. In fact, personally I don't like pictures of Christ. I don't know why, I just...I don't care for them personally. I don't think they're wrong in this sense, it is one thing to have an image of Christ which is worshiped. It is another thing to have a representation on paper which is clearly not worshiped. And it is the heart attitude that is the issue. When the Old Testament commandment said that we are to not make images of God and we are to not make idols, the point was the purpose of worship. And, of course, remember now, that is the Old Testament and God was a spirit and had no image. But even God made Christ into an image that could be seen, right? He is the visible image of God, Hebrews 1. God actually appeared in a visible form.
And so, if in children's books there are pictures of Jesus, as long as we don't worship the picture as if it were Jesus or God, as long as we understand that it is simply a representation of a man that really did walk on the earth and really did live on the earth, I think we can make a distinction in the minds of children. We're not worshiping the picture. We're not drawing an image of God. God Himself came in the form of a man and we're simply reproducing the form of a man in which God came, not that the form is to be worshiped at all.
Barbara,
By no means do I mean to minimize your or trivialize your professed love for Christ.
The critical point is that all those examples you listed are earthly analogies that God has graciously given to us to reveal spiritual truths about Himself.
Just as He has given us OT symbols types which foreshadowed Christ, and just as the Lord Himself used parables to teach His disciples of heavenly, spiritual realities when they were only ready for spiritual milk, and not meat; so it is that with the advent of the new, the old passes away, which things were but shadows and signs of the thing signified.
In the fulness of time, and in a glorious display of divine condescension to fallen humanity, God has expressed Himself perfectly and fully in the Son, and the Son is expressed in the inscripturated Word of God.
So while here and now we see darkly, as through a glass, nevertheless God is most fully displayed in His glorious attributes [or perfections] as they are revealed in Holy Scripture.
That's where we find Him glorious, as He has revealed His manifold perfections in His Word.
And as believers this is where our primary source of comfort, joy, peace, hope, and longsuffering lies...in His exceedingly great and precious promises to us in His Word.
Obviously He also provides us with the communion of the saints, the privileges of both private and corporate prayer and worship, and His table where, through the partaking of the elements we remember, even as we also look forward in joyful anticipation to the Marriage Supper of the Lamb yet to come.
All of these are His prescribed means, and they are more than enough.
In Christ,
CD
Sir Aaron, the discussion is on images of Christ, not simply the second commandment. If the 3rd applies, its up for discussion. Any answers to the question I posed:
When we apply His name to the picture, would you agree it does not clearly reflect his true character (which there is not way it can)?
I'm usually in agreement with MacArthur, but not here. I'm not sure if he is stating this, or simply reading the question, but this statement is illogical,"the Bible is clear on the fact that we should not use images of the Lord. Why do we use pictures of Jesus to teach our children?" If he thinks the Bible is "clear", why is he even asking this question?
Also, what's at the bottom of this statement, "In fact, personally I don't like pictures of Christ"? Why?
Sir Aaron, care to take a knock at my Romans 1 application?
Sir Aaron,
FWIW J-Mac's articulated position on the didactic usage of "jesus" images in that quoted piece is practically identical to Rome's position on the didactic usage of the crucifix [among other gross errors peculiar to that communion].
The obvious problem in J-Mac's premise is, of course, that any "jesus" image we may use for didactic purposes is a lie because it isn't [nor could it be] a true image of Jesus Christ, rather it's a false image purporting to represent Him, which thing is an idol.
I don't often disagree with Dr. MacArthur, but here he's just wrong. We ought not lie to our children, and we ought not set worthless idols before their eyes and in effect tell them, "here is your god!"
In Christ,
CD
299...
...do I hear 300?
Oh what the hay... 300!
It was funny. A play on words and not disrespectful.
BTW - Peter, John, and James went into a bar, and... (never mind)
CD,
So I can think of God in the terms in which He has given me to think of Him, which does include thinking of Him as a rock as described above and in the way intended by the Holy Spirit through the Psalmist and prophets and repeated by the Apostles.
That was my point. Nobody here is talking about pointing to a rock or a dove or a drawing of Jesus and calling it God and bowing to it. We live in union with Christ, in fellowship and communion with Him through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit - that's not just a poetic thing, it's very very real. And as walk in Him in every moment of every day, as your screen name brings out, and pray without ceasing, living a worshipful, prayerful life seeking to know Him more and more through His word, finding Him faithful to teach us and to mold us as He promises, we can love Him more.
It's not something to be condescending about just because it involves emotion and affection too - I get the impression that is despised among a lot of people in this circle. But we are commanded to love and servie Him with our whole selves and that is something that I pray for more of - that I may know and love and worship and serve Him in Spirit and in Truth forever.
Which is why this matters. And I'm sorry, but it still seems that you miss a key point. We're talking on two different planes here.
I'm out ... it's 9am here, I've got to get to work and I didn't mean to take part in any derailment of the meta.
Have a wonderful weekend.
I'd like to start by commenting on John Calvin's thought on our hearts being idol factories. If we're going to hold to this, then I am with Sir Aaron. Don't make ANYTHING if you are holding yourself accountable for other people's hearts. Calvin is saying that our hearts/minds will make an idol out of anything. What can we make into an idol: books - yep, TV - yes, food - yes, knowledge - yes, sounds - yes, art - yes, blogs - yes, spouses - yes, children - yes, wirds - yes. The list is endless. So, if I am accountable for somebody incorrectly worshipping what I put forth for some other use, then I should make NOTHING.
Exodus 20:4, taken by itself would limit me from making any likeness of anything. No pictures, no paintings, no carvings, no statues, etc. "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." And for anybody looking to the decorations for the temple, the Israelites were making that for God, not for themselves (notice the words "for yourselves").
I also wonder what we should make of Paul saying that people can eat meat from animals that were sacrificed to idols unless we are at risk of offending a weaker brother. So long as your heart is thankful to God for the food, and you don't recognize the idol as anything, then you're OK. I think we can use felt boards and color sheets to demonstrate concepts. But we have to ensure that the children know we don't know what Jesus looks like.
I can respect the argument put forth on the other side and respect your convictions, but I have searched Scripture and this is where I stand on the issue.
I do think that we have to be careful in how we represent God, but that goes back to the heart. Why are we using this image? Are we trying to attribute a message to God that He does not truly state? I think the message from the cartoon is quite true, Jesus wants people to literally follow Him and not just like or follow certain pages/concepts online. And many people do just the minimum (in their minds), to their own detriment.
Robert, do you disagree with what Calvin says about our hearts being idol factories? Calvin is saying as sinners, we are constantly looking for other things to worship in the place of God. Because we are not to make images worthy of divinity it does not follow we can never draw a duck, or look up a work of art. The point Calvin was making is that we always have to be watchful of our own hearts.
Exodus 20:4 taken by itself simply means don't make an idol, a symbol of the object of your worship.
I do think that we have to be careful in how we represent God, but that goes back to the heart.
With all due respect Robert, this type of faulty reasoning has been used a lot in this meta. Substitute any of the other commandments in here (except maybe the sabbath commandment) and you'll see how absurd it is. If something is a sin to do, then it doesn't matter where your heart is in the matter. "I do think we have to be careful how we murder, but that goes back to the heart." Or "I do think we have to be careful of how we commit adultery, but that goes back to the heart." What you're really saying about this one specifically is "I do think we have to be careful of how we use idols, but that goes back to the heart." You may think I'm out to lunch on this, but they are all commandments, equal in their emphasis. God commanded them of us, not as a good idea to follow, but as a commandment.
A bit off topic, but this whole thing makes me think of LOTR, where everyone wants to take the ring and use it for good. "Why can't we use it for our side?" You see, the question isn't whether we can use pictures for good, or if anyone has ever learned from it, or if we saw it in J-Mac's church, or if ...but the primary question is, "Is it right to make an image of God/Jesus?" We cannot reason backwards and say "Everyone does it these days, therefore it's got to be right and the 2nd commandment can't mean what I think it does."
MikeB:
The John MacArthur quote came from a Q&A session where he was answering questions posed to him. So the entire context is him answering questions. There are other questions and he reads them all aloud before answerng them.
Back to the image of Jesus. You don't agree with MacArthur and I do. His view echoes my own sentiments, for which I have already provided an exegetical case for. In the OT, God was a spirit. We could not even dream of Him. But then he came in the form of a man. We don't depict God but the form of a man in which he appeared to us. Just like if we were to draw a pillar of fire or a pillar of cloud. We aren't drawing God but how he appeared to the Israelites as they came out of Egypt.
As to faulty reasoning, we could accuse you of the same. Because your reasoning is because man is naturally sinful, then we ought to make extra prohibitions to prevent men from sinning. Either God says not to make images of Him or He doesn't. If He does then we shouldn't do it. If he doesn't then we ought not to make laws where none exist. I obviously believe that if you read the 2nd commandment as a prohibition if images per se rather than a prohibition of images to be worshipped, then the prohibition includes any art at all. And that is exactly the conclusion many Protestants came to based on your line of reasoning.
Barbara:
I actually relate to you well. I learn visually as no verbal description can be anywhere near as detailed an exact as a picture. I also make mental pictures when learning or reading. That's why I don't read books before watching the movie. Always the movie first, otherwise I can't enjoy it (because I've already created detailed mental images of people's faces and appearances).
As to the flag, I am very close to you there. I don't like having the American flag in our church, or even the Christian flag for that matter. I'm not thrilled about the idea of placing my hand over my heart and pledging allegiance either. I'm not saying its idol worship and of course, I still do it. But it certainly encrouches the realm of discomfort for me.
Mikeb,
Who is calling what an idol? And I don't buy the definition that an idol is the symbol of the object of worship...it IS the object of worship. I think that Calvin's thoughts on idol factories shows just that. If I have a felt board image that represents Jesus, as long as I am not telling people that the image is divine and that this is exactly what Jesus looked like, then how is it an idol? Now can people make it an idol? Yes. Can people make the physical book of the Bible an idol? Most definitely. How about the written/spoken name of God? What makes any of these an idol is when you get away from the fact that they are only tools used to get us to think about God. The second we get all caught up in the words themselves, in the book itself, or in a picture/image, and lose sight of God Himself, then we fall into idolatry.
It is the heart/method of use of something that makes it an idol. Aaron told the people the calf was God and they worshipped it. In fact, they told him to make God from the gold. Their heart was already set to make God from theor own handiwork. That is what made the calf an idol. What if I wanted a golden calf to decorate my office because I had hideous taste? Would it be an idol? Of course not, because I'm not setting it there to worship it. But if my heart treasures it and I make it an idol in my heart, then the trouble starts. Same could be said for family pictures, right? I guess it all comes down to defining the word idol.
Just to keep things lively here, I've been reviewing a lot of what's happening in the thread without comment to see if anyone else was going to say something about this. Since no one has, I will.
One of the pillars of Tom's argumentation is that any image of Jesus is necessarily, by definition, a "false image" of Jesus. And the reason for this is that the Law in Israel says explicitly that Israel was [a] not to make graven images to worship, and [b] not to seek to represent the invisible YHVH with visible objects.
Tom's view relies heavily on continuity between Israel and the Church, and between Old Covenant and New Covenant. The problem is that, becuase of Christ as incarnation, there is a significant discontinuity between OT and NT.
Consider it:
God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they. [NASB]
Right? Heb 1:1-4, with a special emphasis on this phrase: "He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature". That Greek word under "exact representation" ("χαρακτήρ"), ironically, is a word used to describe the engraving in a coin -- it is specifically an engraving term.
This speaks to us about the nature of the incarnation, doesn't it? Somehow, because Jesus was exactly like God, there's a discontinuity between the OT demand that there are no created images which can represent God and the NT fact that Jesus, conceived in Mary's womb as a man in the form of a servant, is actually God.
In that, it's not wrong for us to know for certain that Jesus is a man with a man's body, is it? This is where Tom's declaration of all visual depictions of Christ as "false" goes off the rails: it forgets the way Christ was himself revealed and made himself known.
Can it be tasteless? Sure it can, as can some forms of preaching. Can it be unsavory? Of course it can -- as can some forms of corproate gathering. Can it be unwholesome spiritually? No doubt -- as are many written texts about God and Christ today.
But does it have to be "false" by definition? Only if we assume that thinking of Christ in the form of a man is itself "false", and it is not.
I honestly respect the boundary line being advocated for by Tom and others -- that we need to worship the actual Christ and not, for example, the idol of a "baby Jesus" and so on. But to demand that the only way to do that is "with words" because inages are somehow false by definition forgets even Job's declaration that, "I had heard of [God] by the hearing of my ear, but now I have seen you with my own eyes."
Consider it.
Frank, you make a good point. Christ is both God and man. It is clear in the OT we are not to make images of God (although some like Sir Aaron would even contend with this). But to depict a man is not necessarily wrong.
But does it have to be "false" by definition? Only if we assume that thinking of Christ in the form of a man is itself "false", and it is not.
I would contend that it's not a false image because it is an image of a man, but because it does not accurately represent Christ. Yes, Jesus is an exact representation of God. But anything we create is not an exact representation of Jesus, is it? Since we do not have an accurate description of Christ, we can not draw one. Therefore anything we do draw lessens his glory. Him being God then, we should respect that (and additionally consider the 2nd and 3rd commandment) and not draw/make/picture Him. Can we really draw Christ human nature without also depicting His divine nature? The issue is more of respect and reverence.
Here's a good scenario to consider. Suppose it's possible to clone a human being. A group of well meaning Christians get together, and for educational purposes, they make a human clone that looks as close to Jesus as history and science can get. Then they call his name Jesus Christ, and use Him to educate others about the Bible. When they did all this, not one tiny bit of their intent was to make an idol or to falsely represent God in any way. They sincerely wanted to create something to help educate the people and draw them to Christ, in this messed up, fallen world. Sir Aaron, Robert, Daryl, Frank, and others...have they done anything wrong? If yes, why? If no, why?
mikeb,
Take that reasoning to its limit.
Say Peter was an artist and a fisherman.
Say he drew a picture of Jesus, photo quality.
It's an exact picture of Jesus.
Did he sin?
Now, same scenario, same picture, same quality. But the mole above Jesus left eye is 1/4" too high in Peter's photo-quality painting.
Did he sin?
Two quick words, and then I'm done. (It's finally my day off, followed by my two busy days.)
First, and to totally derail the thread - mikeb, why maybe not the fourth? I mean I loved your argument, but why not the fourth. "I think we really do need to keep the Sabbath, but that goes back to a matter of the heart, ergo it doesn't matter what we actually do." And that works for you? I know it's a little off topic, but really? It brings out that there is a more fundamental distinction in how many people view these issues. The proliferation of protestant and even Calvinist images corresponds historically to the view that Old Testament morality no longer applies. I think it's hard to make the case for thorough adherance to the Second Commandment while promoting the abrogation of the second.
Second, I have also wondered where that argument is, Frank. I attempted to address it above even though no one was really making it. I wrote:
If the Commandment once meant that God was never to be represented through visual imagery, then it would require a substantial reversal in God’s word to assume that He now sanctions the practice with regard to the second Person of the Godhead. The incarnate Christ is no less the Almighty God than is the Father or the Spirit. The same reverence is due to Him today as was due during the Old Covenant. It should be evident that this is no denial of His true humanity. Yet the New Testament never suggests a change in the standard regarding images; in fact its warnings against idolatry are as clear as those in the Old Testament.
I actually think that the argument you just made about the incarnation is the strongest one out there for your view, and the reason I hesitate to anathematize the view. (It is a wholly different argument from, "If you don't like images you must be Docetic, which has no weight at all.)
My response grows from a view of what we do with Old Testament morality. It is my belief, which this thread will not allow the time to defend, that Old Testament law, being God's law, is either expressly abrogated or it still stands. God told the church that the laws of ethnic separation and dietary regulations were removed. He commanded them to be obedient to the civil authority of Rome rather than to seek the reestablishment of the Old Covenant theocracy. He abrogated much.
But when we come to consider idols, I perceive no such abrogation. Yes, Christ has come in the flesh, which creates a very different circumstance from that of the Old Covenant, but what does the New Testament say about the regulation of idols? Only this, "Little children, keep yourselves from idols."
My conscience is such that unless the Word of God tells me to ignore the Old Testament law as I understand it, I will continue to follow it. I realize that this is a theological and hermeneutical distinction which goes far beyond the subject matter of this thread. No doubt it will be unsatisfactory to many. I don't intend to defend it here, merely to state it as my answer.
Thanks to all for a worthy dialogue. And Frank, you were as good as your word. You were indeed "more than happy to treat this subject with the seriousness that it deserves." Thank you. Coram Deo, thank you for making right that which was wrong. I greatly appreciate it.
MikeB:
First, I never said OT. We were discussing the 2nd Commandment. The OT is a lot more expansive than just the ten commandments. I would agree with you that Bible has precepts that indicates we ought not to make pictures of God in the generic sense (although I would say, if he appears as a human (or pillar of fire) then we can draw the appearance).
Second, I don't want to get drawn into a debate about your last challenge. Cloning has a myriad of ills and its impossible to address what I think your real point is without getting mired by the other evils of cloning.
I'll give you an analogy of what I think the 2nd Commandment illustrates. My daughter, being the naturally sinful human that we all are, sometimes obey the technical command I give her and not the spirit. If I tell her don't touch the table while I'm working on it. The uses a stick to touch it. So then I tell her, don't touch the table with your finger, don't touch it with a stick, don't touch it with anything on your body or anywhere else. Is each don't a different command? No. It's the same command with additional emphasis to leave her without excuse before I paddle her behind. And it certaintly doesn't mean never, ever touch the table.
MikeB:
I want to add that Tom and I have already summarized our disagreement.
He believes the 2nd commandment forbids any visual representation of any person of the Triune God. I believe the the 2nd commandment specifically forbids making any idols, which includes some visual represenations of God if such representations are used to worship.
I, however, disagree that the prohibition extends to instances where God appeared in some natural form (e.g., pillar of fire or clouds, when He wrestled with Jacob, when He appeared and ate with Abraham, when He was born as a human, when he appeared to Thomas, etc.). That is so long as it not a representation used for worship.
Daryl:
I'd like to add to your point. God didn't just appear as Jesus. There are other instances when God represented Himself to man in some visible, describable, drawable form. If you ban pictures of Jesus for any purpose then you must also ban any depictions of those other events.
Man Tom, you do 'cut to the quick' of it:
My response grows from a view of what we do with Old Testament morality.
This goes back to Phil's post on Antinomianism. The way I see it, we have two options.
1. Obey the OT laws unless Jesus and the Apostles tell us otherwise in the NT. (What they don't abrogate, we still do.)
or
2. Don't obey the OT laws unless Jesus and the Apostles tell us otherwise in the NT. (What they don't reaffirm from the OT, we don't have to worry about.)
Yeah, thank you Tom for opening a whole other can of worms before he heads off for his more important Pastoral duties.
I was going to ask earlier, whether those who hold, as Tom and mikeb do, to the non-picturation of Jesus, also hold to Sunday as Sabbath.
I thought it was off topic so I left it. Perhaps it is more on-topic that I thought.
In the OT no man could see God. In the NT, everyone Jesus met, did.
Would it have been wrong for a street vendor in Nazareth, who only saw Jesus walking by, to draw a picture of Him?
By mikeb's definition, yes, it would have been blasphemy.
I think there is a clear difference between making up something and calling it Yahweh (as an OT guy must do to draw God, because God had no form), and drawing a picture of what God has said is His image (as the aforementioned street vendor could have done).
So in that way, if the 2nd commandment explicitly forbade making a picture of God for any reason (and I'm not convinced of that), then a case can be made that God, in Christ, abrogated that command.
Just as I believe He did with the Sabbath, also in Christ.
mikeb,
I think there is a third option. I don't know what to call it, but nowhere in the OT is the mixing of 2 kinds of textiles either reaffirmed or abrogated.
Same with cooking a young goat in his mama's milk.
Frank,
I haven’t followed this thread, (I’m apparently the only one who hasn’t ;-)), so I only made one comment, basically saying I didn’t have a problem with the drawing along the lines of “[a]” in your latest comment.
Honestly, I didn’t think “deep” enough to consider the “[b]” part of your comment and this thread has/will cause me to do so. That said, I still don’t see a problem, even without the incarnation, and I guess for me it boils down to “intent”.
I imagine I’m back in OT times and I am trying to explain to my child something about God and His relationship to man and I’m drawing a picture in the sand. At some point I draw something to represent God and say something like, “and here’s God” while making a circle (for example), and then go on to make whatever my point is. I find it hard to believe, as some apparently would here, that what I have done is blasphemous. For me, intent is the difference, and the intent in my drawing wasn’t to, in any way, shape, or form, draw something that would “in of itself” be worshiped instead of God.
IOW, God knows my heart, and my intention, and that matters.
P.S. Come to think of it, I did make one other comment, the 300th comment, should I start checking my mailbox for a mug, T-shirt, something for that? ;-)
1. Given the statuary on the lid of the mercy seat, it is clear that there are graven images one does not bow down to. How about the servent lifted up in the desert? Because the 2nd commandment is one commandment and not two, (a fact your view does not explain at all) one does not have to question what God did not say: we can see what God does in fact say and obey that.
I want to continue to challenge you on the matter of created things, because this is a matter in which your paradigm of "false images" is really flimsy. The bread and the wine are not actually Christ, right? But there we are in worship with bread and wine, doing things in remembrance of Christ -- not in the place of Christ.
If we can use the object lessons of bread and wine in worship without doing idolatry, why not plainly outside of worship using images to teach us about what Christ was, said and did?
Frank,
The examples you provide as apparent exceptions: mercy seat, temple decorations, and Lord's Table elements; are all specifically commanded by God, "flannel jesus" isn't.
Also as an aside, the book of Hebrews is concerned with many things, but the overarching point of the book is that the "Hebrews" to whom the letter was primarily addressed [ethnic Jewish converts to Christianity] had a hankering to go back to the pomp and circumstance of temple worship.
The cracker and juice stuff, and getting dunked underwater just didn't carry quite the same "huzzah" that the Jewish observances held, and as such their flesh missed those "beggerly elements".
The inspired author points his readers to the fact that all those things were [and are] mere shadows and types which pointed toward the heavenly spiritual realities revealed by and in Christ.
In effect you're arguing that it's commendable, or at least okie-dokie, to carry around a blurry picture of the shadow of a strange woman [a.k.a. "flannel mom"] that you claim represents your wife and the mother of your children [a.k.a. "Real Mom"].
And furthermore by showing "flannel mom" to your kids you hope to teach them what "Real Mom" is like, even though "Real Mom" has provided you with a 66 book magnum opus, in her own handwriting, revealing everything you need to know about her, albeit without her mugshot.
Oh, and by the way "Real Mom" is notoriously camera shy, and has breathed grave and terrifying threatenings against you personally if you invent a picture of her in absentia.
Fail.
In Christ,
CD
So CD, you've never drawn images of your family that were "inaccurate." I know I've drawn images, even stick figures, to represent my wife to my kid. My daughter similarly draws images of me, my wife, her sister, and herself that are designed to be representations of us doing some sort of activity together. We also draw animals and yet we don't somehow equate those drawings with photographs of the real thing.
You keep coming back to some self invented equation that any representation of Jesus is equivalent to passing off a photograph of somebody else as Him.
Sir Aaron,
What's your point? My family isn't God, nor does any image of it purport to be.
You keep coming back to some self invented equation that any representation of Jesus is equivalent to passing off a photograph of somebody else as Him.
LOL!
If you think that my position against creating images purporting to depict God the Son is a "self invented equation" as of the 323rd comment in this meta, well I'm not quite sure what to say about that...
In Christ,
CD
CD,
I have not read most of what you (and others) have wrote on this topic but if what you last wrote to Frank is a sample of the previous, I’m glad I didn’t waste my time. Your understanding of what Frank is saying is simply wrong and your “fail” remark at the end is not only wrong but arrogant.
Your “real Mom vs. blurry picture of woman” example night have some weight if somehow Frank was suggesting that someone treat the blurry picture as if it was the “real Mom”, but he isn’t, nobody is! And that’s the point… the entire point IMO. That’s why I’ve mentioned “intent” being so important.
I originally saw the drawing elsewhere and gave it a chuckle and appreciated the point it was making and then reflected on my own following of Christ. IOW, mission accomplished for the drawing… it worked. Later I saw it somewhere else with your negative remark and gave your remark it’s due “pfft”. 300+ posts later and I feel exactly the same way about both.
Oh, and btw, I don’t sign-off with anything like “In Christ” because quite frankly, I don’t think I’m good enough to do it, but I notice you do. Considering that right before you sign-off with “In Christ” you say, “fail”, maybe you should put as much thought into that as you have about this drawing. I personally find the two at odds with each other.
Reality:
That's exactly the point I was getting across. Somehow, he's created an equation where any representation is equal to a detailed photograph. I could paint my family and say, here's my family in the yard without passing it off as an authentic image of my family. Similarly, I can draw the forms in which God appeared to us (e.g., pillar of fire, Jesus) without it equating to an exact image of the Triune God.
Just an after thought. I wonder if all this heat would cool if in another balloon the "fisherman" repairing his net responded thus:
["Hey, I follow Christ, not twitter"?]
One, I think, after admiring the cartoon, would be thinking about Jesus and wondering who the guy was asking the "fisherman" to follow him?
Would it have been wrong for a street vendor in Nazareth, who only saw Jesus walking by, to draw a picture of Him?
Yes, if the man knew Jesus was God.
I think there is a third option. I don't know what to call it, but nowhere in the OT is the mixing of 2 kinds of textiles either reaffirmed or abrogated.
Same with cooking a young goat in his mama's milk.
Daryl, there you go again. Let us learn what Scriptures teachs us on principle, then we can apply it broadly. The ceremonial law is done away with. No one here is arguing that the ceremonial (levitical law) is still in place. Every Christian knows, or should know, that Jesus is the sacrifice once and for all. But I will say this, if you cook a goat in his mother's milk...well, let's just say that's weird!
IOW, God knows my heart, and my intention, and that matters.
You seriously think a Jew, 1st century or before, would even consider drawing a picture of God? A person who was caught doing this would have likely been stoned to death. Even today Orthodox Jews do not allow pictures or images of God. Intent is important, but to break the law of God is to break the law, regardless of intent. Apply your 'intent reasoning' to another of the commandments and how far does that reasoning go? As long as the "Do not commit adultery, unless your intent is correct."
If we can use the object lessons of bread and wine in worship without doing idolatry, why not plainly outside of worship using images to teach us about what Christ was, said and did?
I wasn't aware of any protestant churches saying "look, there is Christ in the elements."
“A person who was caught doing this would have likely been stoned to death”
And you’re suggesting that this would have had Gods approval?
So if they drew the pillar of fire or the scene of Moses on the mountain, they would have been stoned?
And would they have stoned God's son? Oh yeah, they did that.
The bottom line is that we aren't drawing God, we're drawing the man as God appeared to us.
I wasn't aware of any protestant churches saying "look, there is Christ in the elements"
Seriously, you need to study the various Protestant positions on the Eucharist.
RC, have you not read...
'Moreover, the one who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him. The alien as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death. (Lev. 24:14)
As regenerate Christians, adopted children of God indwelt and sealed by the Holy Spirit, His law is written upon our hearts - therefore when we do break such a law we won't stay there long because it will break the heart of the Person with whom we are in union and the heart upon which the law is written and which now delights in it. I trust that. Not to say that I trust any kind of visceral reaction all the time, but I trust my Father, who made a covenant with me and put His law and fear of Him within me and made even me His own treasured possession through the sacrifice of His Son just because that's who He is, to the praise of the glory of His grace. Things that three years ago I would never have batted an eye at, or that would routinely come out of my mouth, or that I would have even celebrated, suddenly pierced my heart and made me ill, causing people around me at the time to call me all sorts of names and exit my life. I could only let them go, because now all of a sudden my heart was completely different. So was my language and the things I found pleasure in - not the least of which is the simple fellowship with God and the beauty of the way He reveals Himself in His word and the way that His law tells us something about who He is; so that in loving Him through obedience, we can see and be made like Him. Isn't it said somewhere that the Church is the image of God to the world?
Because of all that, when I look at the 2nd commandment, I can't venerate, bow to, pledge to, or sing to a flag or a statue. It looks like an idol of the people of the land to me and it does not "look like" the God that I serve. Overt graven idols cause me to weep and gape in horror both at the sight of them and at the sheer number of people who are blindly going to their destruction as they serve them. The Cistine chapel ceiling makes me nauseous because it depicts God the Father as an old man and we know that the degenerative aging process is a consequence of sin so too many wrong things are wrapped up in that. But the sinless spotless Lamb of God somehow took on the form of man and came here, into creation, so that we might know Him, to make Himself known to the creatures that bear His image and to bring us to Himself. It boggles the mind and heart that God would do such a thing. He made Himself approachable and even little children were clamoring to come to him.
It was Jonathan Edwards who wrote that,
...Christ had done greater things than to create the world, to obtain his bride and the joy of his espousals with her; for he was incarnate, and become man for this end; which was a greater thing than his creating the world. For the creator to make the creature was a great thing; but for him to become a creature was a greater thing."
Sheer blasphemy to the Israelite under the veil. When I first read these portions of the Old Testament I felt sorry for the unbelieving Jews because it looked like they were just keeping to what they had been taught. But that was before Jesus shone throughout those same pages. They couldn't see, as He said, because they were not His. But to the little child who runs to Jesus in simple faith, the one whom the Spirit gives eyes with which to see, it is the most incredible, beautiful thing imaginable. This is the image we are given. This is the gift we are granted, that we might know Him.
Sir Aaron,
If you can't see the difference between creating depictions that purport to be representations of your family and creating depictions that purport to be representations of God, well...again I guess there's really nothing left to say that hasn't already been said in this meta.
RealityCheck,
If you're more offended by the fact that you think I'm not very nice, and because I sign off "In Christ" than you are about the public denigration of God the Son being imaged in irreverant and flippant caricatures in violation of the 2nd Commandment, then may I suggest that your priorities are quite skewed.
"That’s why I’ve mentioned “intent” being so important.
That's great! And Rome agrees with you 100% with respect to the various blasphemous idolatries peculiar to that communion; Eastern Orthodoxy, too! Congratulations!
Here's a little thought experiment for you; go ahead and overturn some God's other Commandments with your "intent" argument.
I commit adultery with the intent to please God.
I murder with the right attitude.
I covet my neighbor's wife and goods with a holy passion by which I honor and glorify God.
I can teach my children more about lying by showing them a lie, my flannel jesus idol, than in any other way!
Let me know how that works out for you.
Speaking of working things out, how long do the flannel jesus folks think they'd have lasted as a Jew in the desert of Sinai a few thousand years ago with their pocket-sized flannel jesus idol in tow?
"Oh no Moses, you've completely misunderstood; you see this isn't an idol because since we don't know what God looks like I can't possibly even begin to make anything that would represent His likeness. What is it then, you ask? Oh it's God. I mean, it's not really God, we know that, see? It's just, you know, it's sort of what God would be like were He to take on human flesh. So, that's really all, it's nothing, nothing at all practically. I don't worship it, and neither does my family."
*a grumbling crowd begins to gather*
"Hey! What are you doing with those rocks? What do you mean violation of the 2nd Commandment? Put away the sin from Israel? What do you mean? Wait, it's not a violation of the 2nd Commandment because it doesn't accurately picture God in the flesh nor does it intend to, it's just a prop sort of, that's all! Like a teaching aid...
...pelt...Pelt...
OW, that hurt!
Pelt..PELT...PELT..PELT.PELT
Aaaaarrrrrrghhhhhh!!!!!
PELTPELTPELTPELTPELTPELTPELT
Nooooo!!! I have a degree from seminary!!! AAAAAARRRRRRRGGGHHHHH!!!!
PELTPELTPELTPELTPELTPELTPELT
In Him,
CD
CD,
There is room at the cross for you.
Barbara
MikeB,
“RC, have you not read...
'Moreover, the one who blasphemes the name of the LORD”
Yep… and that’s why “what” qualifies as blaspheme matters so much to this discussion. And I’ll stick to what I said that the father drawing in the sand to teach his child a point about God and His relationship to man isn’t blaspheme. And if “it’s” not (and you still haven’t shown how it is) then this drawing in the 21st century, after the incarnation, and not suggesting any worship to “the drawing”, isn’t either.
CD,
I never said I didn’t think you were very nice. I drew attention to what I consider an inconsistency between your tone to Frank and how you sign-off with “In Christ”.
Your reply questioning my priorities, suggesting that I’m in line with Rome, that those who don’t agree with you are “flannel jesus folks”, and apparently a step away from murder, adultery, lying, etc., shows without a doubt that I was way out of line. In fact, it’s obvious from the tone of your comment to me that you really don’t even need to write “In Christ” because it is so obvious. LOL
The bottom line is that we aren't drawing God, we're drawing the man as God appeared to us.
So you're just being a functional Nestorian? And that's better how?
In Him,
CD
CD:
You're just being trite. God said that man could not look upon His face without dying. And so He appeared to us in forms we could relate to. There is clearly a difference. Can man touch God? Surely not! And yet, did wrestle with Jacob? Did He eat with Abraham? Was He in a mother's womb, born, lived, and died? Could we touch Jesus?
Clearly there's a difference. One that you refuse to acknowledge.
Sir Aaron,
Trite? CD? Nah… he’s above all of that, it’s the rest of us who don’t get it.
Now, just to be sure I’ve got it right… that was one “flannel jesus folk” t-shirt and a matching “Nestorian” hat… correct?
mikeb,
Orthodox Jews wouldn't write or say the name of God, either. I wouldn't go using them as the standard. Jesus spent most of His ministry exposing the truth that it is the heart that matters, not just externalities. Given the various interpretations of Exodus 20:4, I agree with Phil that this should be a Romans 14 issue and we should be gracious. Of course, maybe some people in here have a problem with what Paul was talking about there.
Sir Aaron,
I'm not being trite.
Clearly the theopanies you mentioned were amazing condescensions of God's grace, and even more clearly God the Son taking on human flesh was a massive eschataological event of epic proportions, yet through none of these did God ever explicitly or implicitly sanction humans to make graven images of said theophanies, nor of His Incarnation, nor any image or likeness purporting to represent Him.
In other words throughout scripture the 2nd Commandment [given by God to men and not the other way around] stands unscathed, unrepealed, and unmodified being an expression of God's eternal moral character and will. It acts to guard His holiness, and [when obeyed], to protect His creatures from their own desperately wicked predeliction to idolatry.
Surely your argument isn't along the lines of, "Yeah, but God has repeatedly broken the 2nd Commandment, by appearing in theophanies and His coming as Christ, therefore I'm free to violate the 2nd Commandment as well!", is it?
Surely you can agree that God's prerogatives and man's aren't the same, can't you?
Any image or likeness of any created thing that you or I or any other person can make, see, touch, taste, feel, smell, or imagine and say within ourselves, "That's what God is like!" is an idolatrous lie that robs Him of His glory.
He isn't like anything that can be fashioned by men's hands or minds, so to say, "But He was a man, so we just image the 'human aspects' of Him", is to act as a functional Nestorian by separating the two natures of Christ. Being both fully God and fully man His natures cannot be separated or mixed or otherwise re-imagined or re-tooled by men without them arriving at a different "jesus" which thing is a lie and an idol.
He's revealed Himself fully in His Word, and that's where we learn what He was truly like, not through flannel jesus, or cartoon jesus, or crucifix jesus, or whatever. And the argument that it's somehow useful to use flannel jesus, or cartoon jesus, or crucifix jesus, or whatever as didactic tools falls flat on its face in the light of scripture: Thou shalt not...
Besides, are we really to believe that kids don't know what a man looks like so we really need flannel jesus to help them understand how Christ might have appeared? Isn't it enough - and vastly more Biblical - simply teach them that we don't know exactly what Christ looked like, but one day as believers we will behold Him face to face and know Him even as we are known?
And lastly to bring things full circle, there's absolutely zero value - and very much demerit - in the "cartoon jesus" depicted in the subject post and elsewhere. It doesn't do anything that couldn't have been done in a number of different ways that didn't purport to depict God the Son in direct [and up to this point apparently unrepentant] violation of the 2nd Commandment.
In Him,
CD
CD:
What is a graven image? If you look at the Hebrew it is an idol, a carved image. So what does the 2nd commandment say? Does it say don't make an image of the incarnate God? No, it says don't make an Idol. Don't make any image of anything at all (not just God). Don't worship and serve said images.
Nowhere does the 2nd commandment say that we cannot make historical depictions of instances when God appeared to man. Nor do we NOT do something because God never explicitly said we could. Otherwise, we couldn't celebrate Christmas, New Years, July 4th, or birthdays. Nor could we use organs or flutes in our worship services (or hymns for that matter). And since we have no moral directive to refrain from making images of instances when God appeared to man (that we do not worship) then we are free to do so according to our conscience. Just as we are able to make images of trees and angels and whales.
Any image or likeness of any created thing that you or I or any other person can make, see, touch, taste, feel, smell, or imagine and say within ourselves, "That's what God is like!" is an idolatrous lie that robs Him of His glory.
Yet another straw man. Nobody here has argued that we'd create an image and say, that's what God's like. No, we draw a pillar of fire and say that's how God appeared to us. We draw representations of Jesus because He appeared to us as a man. No, He came fully man.
Do we really need? Do we need air conditioning? Do we need dessert at church potlucks? Do we even need a building? How about we just stand outside and worship? Are we going to make decisions on what we "really need"? Furthermore, nobody ever says...here's a flannel Jesus this is what he looks like. Just like we don't make images or other historical figures and say, "This is what he looked like." Just like we don't draw ourselves and say "This is what mommy looks like." The images aren't designed to portray what a person looks like. They are designed to give an image of a man in a historical context.
My bat is getting worn out from beating down all these straw men that have absolutely nothing to do with the Scripture itself.
CD,
To really bring things “full circle” I did some clicking around on you last night and found an interesting previous post by Frank over at:
http://centuri0n.blogspot.com/2010/06/no-one-expects-spanish-inquisition.html
which lead to another interesting post at:
http://blatzkrieg.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/deleted-at-defendingcontendingcom-a-prologue/
This second one talks about comments being deleted at DefendingContendiing.com which is listed as “My Web Page” under YOUR profile.
I don’t know all the in and outs of these “dust ups” but what I do know is that they back up the feeling I get when I read your posts. A feeling that suggest to me that this guy is more about self aggrandizing in his posts than what he wants people to believe he is concerned with in his posts.
You ended up summarizing the bottom line for me very well in your last paragraph:
“And lastly to bring things full circle, there's absolutely zero value - and very much demerit - in the "cartoon jesus" depicted in the subject post and elsewhere. It doesn't do anything that couldn't have been done in a number of different ways…”
Except of course, I would replace “cartoon jesus” with “CD’s comments”.
Here’s hoping that in time you will prove me wrong.
Sir Aaron: "Yea, hath God said?"
Bible: Yes.
Wesminster Divines: Yes.
Three Forms of Unity: Yes.
The overwhelming consensus of the Reformers: Yes.
Additionally in response to your prior question, the resources above are also great places to find out what a graven image is since you're obviously grossly misinformed, or else deeply confused about the subject.
I would think that it might give you pause to be in essential agreement with Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy on this issue, but Iit seems that's not the case.
I can almost hear the rebuttal now..."Yeah, but Rome affirms the Trinity, the inspiration of scripture, the virgin birth, the deity of Christ so neener neener"!
Trinity
Inspiration of scripture
Virgin birth
Deity of Christ
Fashioning graven images
*begin children's ditty*
"Which one of these is not like the others?"
As an aside, for someone who likes to throw around accusations of straw men that have absolutely nothing to do with the Scripture itself you compiled a might impressive list there in your last post.
Pot, meet kettle.
Let me ask you a something, SA:
Are you convinced that nothing good comes out of following your own personal desires, and that if there is to be any holiness whatsoever issuing forth from your life that it must be only by the grace and empowerment of the Lord Jesus and the inner working of the Holy Spirit within you?
If so, please tell me what good, holy, God honoring thing is represented by flannel jesus, cartoon jesus, and crucifix jesus.
Which fruit, or fruits, of the Spirit are demonstrated in depicting God the Son visually in such a manner?
In Christ,
CD
CD,
With all due respect, since you bring it up, I'm left trying to figure out what part of the fruit of the Spirit is most demonstrated in your responses.
Love? According to the 1 Cor 13 definition that we're given, it doesn't look like it.
Peace? Well, if anything there appears to be a particular pleasure taken in maintaining a degree of division & strife showing up. And I know the difference between peacemaking and peacekeeping. Jesus exemplified peacemaking.
Joy? Absolutely not.
Patience? No.
Goodness? It's pretty much been eliminated by the absence of the rest.
Self-Control? After the stoning post that left at least this one reader with the impression that the first stone cast would be from your hand, I would say not. I don't know you, but carrying on like that generally isn't done unless people get some kind of kick out of it.
Gentleness? Ditto.
That leaves Faithfulness. But that's the kind of thing that grows through and with the rest of the fruit of the Spirit. While perhaps well-intentioned in your argument, which you notice Chantry has had the same argument, and you yourself recognized a degree of Christlikeness in the way he carried it out, you have exemplified just the opposite. You sound like a whitewashed tomb to me.
And so all I can think of as I read the way you respond to these gentlemen are Matt. 5:22, Matt. 24:12, Rev. 2:1-7.
You seem so ready to bite and devour and stone those YOU designate as 'blasphemers' or to refuse to show any kind of gospel grace to these men as brothers. I followed the one link and read your post where you accused the source of a man's testimony and faith as being demonic. Jesus had some really damning words to say about that sort of thing. It's one thing to recognize sin and speak the truth in love, quite another to categorically condemn every redeemed sinner out there because they happen to still have some battles with the flesh. Remember - we will each be judged according to the measure that we judge by and when you take that beyond the whole counsel of God and hold other people to a standard that YOU set, you might as well roll out the Talmud. Same good intentions, same thing Jesus condemned.
The most amazing thing imaginable though, is this one thing that doesn't seem to come through in your thought process, and that is this:
We are all blasphemers. Every one of us. You included. Not in a poetic way, but in a very real way. You point your finger and are so ready to take out splinters from every eye you see but there's a huge plank in your own that the whole world can see and you seem literally hell-bent on defending that plank at the expense of Christlikeness in your own reply. So you can carry on all you like about stoning blasphemers, but you have a place right here, beside me, with the rest of us. Now. Stone away.
But before you throw it, remember this one thing. For the sake of His Holy Name, which by the way IS synonymous with the kind of love that we can only know a glimpse of this side of heaven, God chose to redeem wicked idolatrous blasphmers and prove Himself holy to the heathen by giving us life and love for Himself AND for His people, who are all redeemed sinners too. He showed MERCY. And in the Beatitudes, what does Jesus say? Blessed are the merciful - why? For they shall receive mercy.
And you seem to forget that the battered reed He will not break off, and the smoldering wick He will not quench, until HE brings justice to victory. Plant seed, lovingly water the seed planted, it is God who gives the growth, not you, and not by your beating people over the head.
There, I'm done. Like I said before, there is room at the cross for you. And for me. And for all the rest. Praise God for that and let's go on thinking on whatever is noble and praiseworthy and commendable and honorable - because love - genuine, true, sacrificial love - covers a multitude of sins.
CD:
This is my last response for a couple days since tomorrow is the Lord's Day and tonight I'm going to spend time with a couple from Church.
First, let's get a definition of "graven image." I want you to get out your NASB Bible or your ESV or your NIV and find the words "graven image" for me. Then when you don't find it, I want you to tell me what the Hebrew word is for "graven image" and tell me what the Hebrew-English dictionary says is the definition of said Hebrew word. After you've done all that, you can lecture me on whether "graven image" does not mean what I said it means: an idol, especially a carved image.
I would think that it might give you pause to be in essential agreement with Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy on this issue, but Iit seems that's not the case.
Oh no! I believe something similar but not quite what Catholics believe? Say it ain't so! You're right though. It wont keep me up at night.
And lastly, I can think of a multitude of purposes and reasons why such images would not only be helpful but glorifying to our Lord.
Y'all ever seen one of those triangle thingies that illustrates the Trinity? Well, be careful; cause it might lead to idolatry. Those dots at the angles represent the persons of the Godhead! Also, those fishy things, avert thine eyes. If thine eye cause thee to offend...
Read an interesting tidbit on Word of the Day: We all know that there is nothing so easy to macerate, percolate, absquatulate and totally busticate as the Ten Commandments.
-- The Pharmaceutical Era (newspaper), 1908
For me, back to the cartoon characterization of the two people purported to be Jesus and Peter, I have nothing ill to say about it.
I appreciate the zeal CD brings in here about it and the boldness with which he undertakes to indulge the other side of this debate.
I am an artist. I can draw. I can think. I can read.
Ironically, a little personal digression now about a picture that caught my eye that ultimately was a part of the basis God used that led me out of this present evil age and into the divine tension I am now living in, between my flesh and His Spirit and the flesh's constant appetites and the nourishments the Spirit feeds my spirit with.
I saw that picture then and see this cartoon now simply as evangelistic tools that can be used to open the hearts of the lost that God wants to save and bring out of darkness into His marvelous Light, turning them from darkness to Light, from the power of Satan to God that they too might receive the forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by Faith in Jesus' work on the Cross.
I was just into college at the time. It was 1969. I was invited to a college friend's house for lunch. On the wall in the dining area just off the open kitchen area where our lunch was prepared there hung a picture on the wall of a little boy and girl and a rendering of one supposedly to be "Jesus". The little girl had a raggedy Anne doll in her hand as she sat in one of the swings next to this rendering of supposedly Jesus. The little boy held a model airplane of a D.C. 3 standing on the other side of the person rendered supposedly to by Jesus, that rendered person sitting in another swing while the boy stood next to him. The odd thing was the little boy's and girl's clothes that they were wearing were from the 40's or latest, 50's, while the supposedly render person, Jesus, was dressed in an era maybe during the days of Jesus around the time He was 30 years old. He wore a gown/robe and leather sandals and he had long hair. The caption, as I recall, and this could be wrong, but as I recall, the caption underneath the picture was this verse:
Luk 12:32 "Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom....".
I was born and raised into a mixture of Roman Catholic and Protestant religious views. By this time of that luncheon I was away from home and feeling pretty good about my independence. But as I sat there eating lunch, there was this thought that just would not leave me alone. It tormented me to look up and see that picture on that wall. I kept thinking, why did the artist depict the man in clothes of a different era than the clothes the boy and girl were wearing?
My life made a drastic turn headlong into the evils of the world and literally I came to my wits end by 20 years of age, desperate, undone, broken, humiliated and sick of mind and heart!
Shortly thereafter I found myself sitting alone reading these Words:
Mat 1:21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."
Cont'd.
The next thing I realize is my sin and just how lost I was! I began crying, crying, crying, crying, weeping deeply over my condition before God.
I had no idea about the 2nd Commandment and what the Holy Spirit taught about it.
All I know and testify today is God used that picture and the caption underneath it and then those Words from Matthew's Gospel, 1:21 to reach my soul and spirit and begin the process of salvation to guide me into Everlasting Life.
Now, I am not so concerned about who is or who is not breaking the 2nd Commandment. I trust the Holy Spirit can convict people of their sins. Now I want to proclaim Christ and Him crucified to anyone listening all the while making sure it is clear it is the work He accomplished already that saves us from our sins, so that that Truth of the Gospel takes out of us any attempts to do a work for God so that we might be saved:
Gal 2:15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners;
Gal 2:16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
Gal 2:17 But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not!
Gal 2:18 For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor.
Gal 2:19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God.
Gal 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
Gal 2:21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.
Now, if someone is offended by something I do or say, I seek to be reconciled to them basis what Phil Johnson pointed too, Romans 14 and I point too, 1 Cor. 10:31-33.
Let's face it brethren, God's Word still stands any assault against it and we should now stand Him with all the defenses of the Faith, as it is written:
Ecc 7:19 Wisdom gives strength to the wise man more than ten rulers who are in a city.
Ecc 7:20 Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.
Barbara,
Are you judging my judging? Hmmmm...
If you want to talk about "divisiveness", then I suggest that you talk to the people who post irreverent, flippant cartoon images of God and then get into a tiff when their sin is pointed out; seeking to justify it instead of humbly repenting and turning away from it in a spirit of contrition.
SA said: "And lastly, I can think of a multitude of purposes and reasons why such images would not only be helpful but glorifying to our Lord."
Name one.
And I noticed that you didn't answer my question, choosing instead to respond with one of your own. Why won't you answer the question? What of flannel jesus, cartoon jesus and crucifix jesus? Are they of the Spirit or are they of the flesh?
Throughout this long thread you've somehow managed to miss the point.
God invokes responses in His human creatures; terror and worship being the primary two attested to in scripture (sometimes a combination of both); of course there are many other responses as well.
When God appeared in OT theophanies, and when He took on flesh as Christ the responses of His human creatures were typically of the same varieties.
People were terrified, or they worshiped.
They hated Him, or they loved Him.
They reviled Him, or they honored Him.
This is because the glorious reality of God's Being causes a response in His human creatures [cause and effect].
If flannel jesus, cartoon jesus, and crucifix jesus fail to move human creatures to worship, then it must be because they fail to adequately represent God, being imperfect man-made images of Him [idols]; thus they fall short of, and denigrate, His glory. As such these images are deeply dishonoring to Him. This is partly why images of God are forbidden in His Word.
If flannel jesus, cartoon jesus, and crucifix jesus do move human creatures to worship, then it must be because they are idolatrous and wicked pagans, because such images fail to adequately represent God, being imperfect man-made images of Him [idols]; thus they fall short of, and denigrate, His glory. As such they are deeply dishonoring to Him. This is also partly why images of God are forbidden in His Word.
While you're at church tomorrow ask your pastor-teacher about this subject; better yet ask him what he thinks of placing a crucifix in your living room to act as a conversation starter, and for didactic purposes as a teaching aid to help emphasize Christ's suffering upon the cross, and see what he says.
If he says that's a bad idea ask him what he thinks about flannel-graph jesus, cartoon jesus, or t-shirt jesus.
If he says that's a bad idea too, then throw down on him like you have with me here. Demand that he show you from scripture why he thinks it's a bad idea.
If he says he thinks flannel-graph jesus, cartoon jesus, and t-shirt jesus are okie-dokie, but thinks crucifix jesus shouldn't be allowed in the club, please ask him why, and ask him to show you the distinctions from scripture.
I look forward to your report.
In Christ,
CD
CD,
Are you judging my judging? Hmmmm
No, I am not.
I do not wish to engage in argumentation and will not engage with you further. Other more articulate men have made sound arguments and if you won't address them with some degree of brotherly charity and mercy, then I can't expect that you will extend the same to me. As I said before, we are speaking on two different planes.
Have a blessed Lord's Day.
Seriously CD, your casual rebuff of Barbara’s thoughtful comments are jaw-dropping. In fact, even though it was YOU she was talking to I found myself feeling convicted by some of what she said. How you could just ignore her comments is really beyond me.
Further more, it’s even more amazing that you continue to argue about the drawing (or whatever else you’ve blown this into) without even noticing that you have lost the respect (assuming you ever had it) necessary for someone to care about what you are saying.
Finally, your comments have reached a point where they don’t even make sense within themselves. For example, “If flannel jesus, cartoon jesus, and crucifix jesus fail to move human creatures to worship, then it must be because they fail to adequately represent God”. Huh? What? The drawing in question DID move some people to worship by moving them to do a better job of REALLY following Christ. That was one of the points I made right off the bat. The drawing made me stop and think about how I follow Christ, which it what it was meant to do. IOW, it worked! BTW, this doesn’t mean I printed out a copy of it and built an altar around it. I didn’t get confused about which is Which. The drawing isn’t meant to move humans to worship it and THAT’S WHY IT’S NOT A PROBLEM! That’s why it’s not blasphemous! Duh! How at this point in the conversation you could still be missing this while at the same time actually saying it is simply astounding!
Anyway, I was done with you, but your response to Barbara just really ticks me off. Barbara certainly doesn’t need me defending her, as it is obvious that I can learn from her, but your response to her should be of great concern to you. I suggest you print out what she said to you and your response back and give them both some serious thought.
CD,
My wife uses the felt board in teaching her pre-K SS class. She prays and seeks out the Word of God as she prepares her lessons. Are you questioning her faith or faithfulness? Are you saying that she is working by means of an evil spirit? Because I'd think about the people who said the same thing about Jesus because they were all hung up on thinking they were righteous and correct about everything.
As for naming a good use, it helps the children understand that Jesus is God in the flesh...that He endured all the sufferings that we endure everyday (as well as the suffering He took in our place). It helps them to see a depiction of the storm that He calmed and how He just spoke and the storm was quieted. They know that ordinary people can't do that.
Lastly, as several other people have noted, there is a lack of grace in the comments you have made. I will once again make the appeal to Romans 14. And since you are so quick to burden people to prove their Scriptural basis, then I'd like you to show how you are in line with Romans 14...especially verse 10. I've been convicted of this many times in my life, and my hope is that you (along with the rest of us) will read the verses there and ask God to search your heart.
Grace and peace,
robert
Robert,
Why not suggest your wife use a crucifix next time with the kiddos to demonstrate how greatly Christ suffered in His flesh upon the cross?
In Christ,
CD
Robert wrote: "She prays and seeks out the Word of God as she prepares her lessons. Are you questioning her faith or faithfulness?"
No, I think he's questioning her obedience to the second commandment, and perhaps the third as well. He's saying she's doing something that is against the moral law.
I wish folks wouldn't try to change CD's accusations - they are serious enough the way he puts them.
-TurretinFan
CD,
Did you skip over the reading of Romans 14? Or just refuse to comment on it? It is like you just find one part that you can try to make a clever comeback with and just type it in and...zing! I agree with Barbara, I don't see much love there.
The problem with your crucifix comment is that we exercise discernment. I say that without mention of the fact that I converted out of Catholicism and understand the trappings of that type of depiction (once again, discernment). There is a huge leap from felt boards to crucifixes...just like there is a huge leap from stick people drawings to a portrait or photograph. All Christians should seek to be discerning...I would consider it before you try to type the next witty retort without considering the judgement you are placing on a fellow Christian's convictions.
Turretin,
Are you serious? Do you not think that we don't take idolatry seriously? Or blasphemy? Do you think we don't know the commandments? Because that is the assumption that has to be made if you think CD is not questioning our faith and faithfulness. Especially in light of the fact that she is in prayer as she prepares the lessons. Do you not think that if she is praying to God about her lessons and how she presents the Word of God to the children, that He would not somehow convict her about this if she needed to be? I would think that you and CD either believe this or that she must not be praying to God. In that case, reference the question you quoted.
I am not going to go back and forth on this...read Romans 14. For that matter, how about Ephesians 4:29-32? Show some grace.
"Are you serious? Do you not think that we don't take idolatry seriously? Or blasphemy? Do you think we don't know the commandments?"
Did I say any of that? Why is there a disconnect between what I write and what you read?
There is a disconnect between the argument that CD puts forth and what you think you are defending. I am saying you should really look at the implications of what he is saying before you become his apologist.
This is the thread that does not end
It just goes on and on my friend
Some people started commenting
Not knowing what it was
And they'll continue commenting FOREVER
Just because
This is the thread that does not end
It just goes on and on my friend....
LOL DJP
Robert: You're welcome to disagree with CD, and you're welcome to disagree with me about whether I correctly discerned CD's argument (I'd appreciate CD letting me know if I misunderstood him). I just ask that you not attribute to me arguments I haven't made.
I don't draw the inference that you don't take idolatry seriously (in general) from your failure to recognize that making images of God (of any person of the Trinity) is idolatry.
I guess I might draw that inference if you said, "you're just hung up on following God's law," but you haven't said that - as far as I can tell.
Turretin,
Sorry if I put words into your mouth. I just think that your assertion that I was changing CD's accusation is incorrect. I am trying to get him to look at what the implications of his accusation are.
Robert:
Thanks for clarifying (for me) what you were doing. I withdraw my earlier comment about changing CD's arguments, now that I understand you are just trying to state what you see as the implications of what he's saying.
-TurretinFan
TF - you didn't misunderstand my point.
DJP - funny and catchy!
Robert,
Other than God's 2nd Commandment prohibition against fashioning images purporting to depict Him, which of the other 10 Commandments do you believe are "Romans 14" matters?
I'll grant you Sabbath observance out of the gate given the inspired NT commentary on that particular Commandment.
In Him,
CD
“There is a huge leap from felt boards to crucifixes...”
Actually, there isn’t. The same spirit of being holier than God leads to using both.
“I know how difficult it is to persuade the world that God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by his word. The opposite persuasion which cleaves to them, being seated, as it were, in their very bones and marrow, is, that whatever they do has in itself a sufficient sanction, provided it exhibits some kind of zeal for the honor of God. But since God not only regards as fruitless, but also plainly abominates, whatever we undertake from zeal to his worship, if at variance with his command, what do we gain by a contrary course? The words of God are clear and distinct, "Obedience is better than sacrifice." "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men," (1 Sam. 15:22; Matt. 15:9). Every addition to his word, especially in this matter, is a lie. Mere "will worship" (ethelothreeskeia) is vanity. This is the decision, and when once the judge has decided, it is no longer time to debate.” (John Calvin, The Necessity of Reforming the Church)
And Zacharius Ursinus anticipated this very argument when he wrote in the Heidelberg Catechism:
Question 98. But may not images be tolerated in the churches, as books to the laity?
Answer: No: for we must not pretend to be wiser than God, who will have his people taught, not by dump images, but by the lively preaching of his word.
I think it is hilarious that a bunch of Protestants who claim to believe in Sola Scriptura would quote more from catechisms and theologians than they would from actual Scripture.
I also think it's humorous that those who would advocate no worship outside "expressly sanctioned in His Word" tolerate musical instruments in their worship services (or the use of projectors or speakers or Sunday School).
This past weekend I unfortunately heard a snippet of some Catholic teaching, wherein the dude several times referred to Mary as the "Mother of God". Good Protestant that I am, of course it was grating and offensive. But it also made me think of this thread. So here's my question:
Those of you who object to drawings of Jesus-in-the-flesh specifically because it's drawing the divine, do you object to referring to the mother of Jesus as the "Mother of God"? If so, how do you reconcile the two positions?
Tom,
“Actually, there isn’t. The same spirit of being holier than God leads to using both”
So… just to clarify… a person using a felt board, like Roberts wife to teach Pre-K kids, has a spirit of being holier than God?
“So… just to clarify… a person using a felt board, like Roberts wife to teach Pre-K kids, has a spirit of being holier than God?”
RC,
Let me rephrase the question slightly.
“… a person making images on Jesus using a felt board has the same spirit as a person making images of Jesus on a wooden little cross?”
The answer is “yes.”
“Those of you who object to drawings of Jesus-in-the-flesh specifically because it's drawing the divine, do you object to referring to the mother of Jesus as the "Mother of God"? If so, how do you reconcile the two positions?”
No objection to that phrase here, properly understood (that is, not to puff up Mary but to fully affirm Christ’s full divinity and full humanity). See the Council of Chalcedon and Charles Hodge’s Systematic Theology where he discusses the matter.
“I think it is hilarious that a bunch of Protestants who claim to believe in Sola Scriptura …”
Then either you are not a true Protestant (in the Reformation sense) or don’t understand the real meaning of sola Scriptura (as put forward by the Reformers). Google "A Critique of the Evangelical Doctrine of Solo Scriptura" by Keith Mathison for the Reformational view.
Ok, I'm struggling with temptation now, having to constantly resist giving a snarky response. The only solution is probably to quit the thread altogether.
“Ok, I'm struggling with temptation now, having to constantly resist giving a snarky response”
That's because it's the only kind of response that makes any sense. lol
Tom,
No objection to that phrase here, properly understood (that is, not to puff up Mary but to fully affirm Christ’s full divinity and full humanity).
I would argue that there is no grammatically valid, logically coherent, Biblical way to understand this phrase. People assert that "Mary is the mother of God" because of the truth that "Jesus is God." Mary is the mother of Jesus, therefore Mary is the mother of God. However, the fundamental misunderstanding is with the phase "Jesus is God" - this phrase is either an instance of essential predication, or a statement of identity. If the latter, then "Jesus" is identical to "God", and we can apply substitution of identicals in the following way:
1) Jesus is God
2) Mary is the mother of Jesus
3) Therefore, Mary is the mother of God (substitution of identicals)
However, this also leads to absurdities, such as:
1) Jesus is God
2) God is the Trinity
3) Therefore, Jesus is the Trinity (substitution of identicals)
4) Mary is the mother of Jesus
5) Therefore, Mary is the mother of the Trinity (substitution of identicals)
The reasoning process for this latter argument is the same as above, but the conclusions are clearly absurd. The problem is that "Jesus is God" is not a statement of identity, because the term "Jesus" is not identical to the term "God". The term "God" involves more than just the Son, but also the Father and the Spirit as well. Thus, the phrase "Jesus is God" is an instance of essential predication, stating that Jesus is God in essence. In this same sense, the Father is God and the Spirit is God.
However, if "Jesus is God" is an instance of essential predication, then it cannot be inferred that "Mary is the mother of God". This conclusion comes only through the substitution of identicals, but because "Jesus is God" is not a statement of identity, this inference rule cannot be applied. One can coherently say that "Mary is the mother of One who is in essence God", but not that "Mary is the mother of God". Now, of these two statements, I would posit that whenever evangelicals say the latter, they really mean the former. However, this does not mean the the latter is any more coherent, simply because we assign a foreign, ungrammatical meaning to it that happens to be coherent.
To bring the point of this comment home, consider also that "Jesus is human" is another instance of essential predication - it states that Jesus is in essence human. However, no one would say "Mary is the mother of human", for such would be an incoherent statement. So also is it incoherent to say that "Mary is the mother of God."
Tom,
Then either you are not a true Protestant (in the Reformation sense) or don’t understand the real meaning of sola Scriptura (as put forward by the Reformers). Google "A Critique of the Evangelical Doctrine of Solo Scriptura" by Keith Mathison for the Reformational view.
Perhaps some uses of the term sola Scriptura are not consistent with the usage of the terms by the Reformers. If that is the case, then disambiguation is called for, so that we can all understand each other. What I mean by the term (and what I suspect that others here mean by it as well) in part is that Scripture is the final authority of all matters of faith and practice. If anyone denies this, then I would say that we have a much more fundamental matter of disagreement than simply the precise meaning of an historical term.
As for the issue of quoting Scripture vs. catechisms and theologians, it is important to note the difference between quoting for the purpose of ease of explanation, as opposed to quoting for the purpose of establishing an authoritative claim. The true, consistent adherent of sola Scriptura only quotes catechisms and theologians in the former sense, and only quotes Scripture in the latter sense. That is, Scripture, and Scripture alone, is used to establish authoritative claims regarding Christian faith and practice. Many theologians and catechisms speak Scriptural truths in a clear and succint manner, and it is easier to quote their explanation of the Scriptures than to go and do the exegetical groundwork all over again. That said, if truth of a doctrinal matter comes into question, the consistent adherent of sola Scriptura will go to the text and do the exegetical groundwork, while the non-adherent will be content with the imprimatur of a particular catechism or theologian.
So, the issue comes down to why one ultimately accepts a certain conclusion concerning a matter of doctrine. Is it because the text of Scripture entails that conclusion, or is it simply because some theologian or group of theologians declared that conclusion to be true? If the latter, then that particular individual is not a true, consistent adherent of sola Scriptura, no matter how many asseverations he may make to the contrary. What we accept as justification for a claim reveals what our authority concerning a matter is, and if the word of a theologian or catechism is sufficient for an individual's acceptance of a claim, then that individual is not adhering to sola Scriptura, at least not with respect to that particular matter.
This is why “intent” matters. Not because it gives some “get-out-hell-free-card”, but because intent is what’s going on behind what we do… or, even more accurately, “why” we do it. It points to our state of mind and even further to our state of heart.
That’s why saying what Robert’s wife does on a felt board and someone does with a wooden cross is the same, is not only wrong, but lazy. What’s going on inside each persons heart will decide whether wrong has been done or not.
Thankfully our true Judge is not so lazy. He not only has the ability to look where we cannot look but He’s not too lazy to do so.
"intent"
RC,
What was wrong with Nadab and Abihu's "intent" in the way they approached God? See Lev. 10:1.
“What was wrong with Nadab and Abihu's "intent" in the way they approached God? See Lev. 10:1.”
Well geez, let’s see.
The short answer is, I don’t know… I’m not God.
The snarky answer is, they didn’t use a feltboard?!?
The long answer is, the fact that you point to this verse demonstrates the laziness that I was referring to. If I were to think too much of my ability to know Gods thoughts and just looked at the verse in a shallow way, I might conclude that they had good intentions but simply did “it” wrong.
Fortunately, I’m not so sure of myself and my ability to know with such confidence exactly what their intentions were and what God thought of them. IOW, I can’t look into someone’s heart and truly know their intentions and therefore I can’t judge as God judges.
In MacArthur’s study bible he suggest that “they violated the prescription for offering incense, probably because they were drunk” but interesting he first says something that is of key importance to this issue, “the exact infraction is not detailed”. IOW, as learned as John is about these matters, he realizes his limitations to know “specifically” what went wrong. IOW, unlike YOU, he doesn’t assume that he fully knows their “intent”.
Just realized this post is still going. All I can say is "Wow."
My thoughts exactly, Tom.
Who knew there were so many functional iconophiles hiding in broad daylight within "conservative" evangelicalism?
At least we know who several of them are now so we can pray for them, call them to repentance, and mark them out if they continue to obstinately refuse correction.
BTW - off topic - I followed your link the other day and was overjoyed to see current posts by Jim Bublitz.
I was so glad to see that he's still active somewhere in the blogosphere. After Old Truth went down with the report of Jim's liver ailment a gaping hole was left in the Christian blogosphere; yet even years later Old Truth remains a treasure trove of solid, mature spiritual meat.
I pray Jim's condition has improved or is at least stabilized.
In Him,
CD
“Ok, I'm struggling with temptation now, having to constantly resist giving a snarky response. The only solution is probably to quit the thread altogether.”
You’re a better man than I Sir Aaron.
CD,
I was thinking that you should start a business. You could call it IconNix or ExtermIcon. Then you could create a clever ad describing how, using your special abilities to look into someone’s heart, you’re able to uncover those nasty “hidden in broad daylight” inconophiles. While others just pray and call for repentance, you’d be the kind of superhero that goes the extra mile to “mark them out”. (Do you use like some kind of special ink for that or something?)
Anyway, being a person that likes icons like I do, I can just picture you as the latest “caped crusader” saying something like, “why NOT so serious”. A camera crew could follow you like on Cops and show you rummaging around in a persons trunk to capture the moment when you find that hidden felt board. Just think of all those pre-k kids (aka kiddos) that you could lead to safety.
Call me a dreamer, but just thinking about it, brings tears to my eyes. I’d like to say more, but I’m overcome with emotion.
RC,
Here's a simple three step plan for you. It'll take a little time and effort [and a few dollars] on your part, but I believe God will richly reward you, and that afterward you will find that it was time and effort [and money] well spent.
Make certain you do these things in the order they are given.
1) Get out your Bible, and then carefully and prayerfully listen to Phil Johnson's sermon series on the 10 Commandments (not just the 2nd Commandment, but the whole series). It can be found here.
2) Purchase this book by Al Mohler, get out your Bible, and study through the material presented.
3) Purchase this book by Danny Hyde, get out your Bible, and study through the material presented.
To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. - 1 Tim. 1:17
In Him,
CD
CD,
So let me get this straight… I make a snarky remark because, quite frankly, I think it’s all you deserve and you respond with what seems to be another effort to get me to believe what you believe. IOW, 382 messages later, and YOU still don’t get it. YOU apparently are still oblivious to the fact that the real message of the original post wasn’t about the drawing but how ridiculous people can be in their reaction to such drawings. And catch this… YOU were the one that Frank pointed to as the example of such over-reaction. What did Frank say?...
“But the line drawing here elicited what I would call the classic tempest in a tea pot when one particular tea pot with more than one crack (the infamous Coram Deo) began accusing all involved of blasphemy because – now get this – it’s a cartoon of Jesus.”
How did you react to such a statement? By proving it accurate by proceeding to accuse those that didn’t agree with you of blasphemy. Talk about none so blind as those that will not see! But wait… it gets worse.
After I noticed that you were stubborn, arrogant and rude (and hypocritical with that sign-off of yours, which I commented on) I also noticed that you just kept right on talking about the drawing. I said this…
“Further more, it’s even more amazing that you continue to argue about the drawing (or whatever else you’ve blown this into) without even noticing that you have lost the respect (assuming you ever had it) necessary for someone to care about what you are saying.”
Guess what? You’re still doing it! Would I be interested in listening to those messages by Phil? Absolutely… but not because YOU recommended them, but despite the fact that YOU recommended them. Same with Mohler’s book, which I think I already read. Speaking of Phil… he was comment 77, and after saying he agreed with Tom Chantry (who’s earned my respect here), he said, “I wouldn't be the type to loudly scold someone for not conforming to my conscience on a question such as this.” and also, “There are some people who seem to aspire to be professional, full-time finger-waggers. Y'know?” Do you seriously not see that you are pointing to a guy to make your point who wouldn’t go about making your point the way you’ve been making it?
And this is exactly what drew me to you in the first place. Ya see, I’m not as smart as these other guys and certainly not as articulate but I’m really good at noticing when something just isn’t what it’s pretending to be… and that’s you bud. That’s why I went looking and wasn’t a bit surprised to find a previous post by Frank entitled, "No one expects the spanish inquisiton" where he is all over this. Did you get that? I went looking for such a post because I could just tell, by the way you act, that ‘it” had to be out there… and it was! People should read the whole thing at:
http://centuri0n.blogspot.com/2010/06/no-one-expects-spanish-inquisition.html
but here’s one paragraph that sums it all up…
“There is a vast difference between being a minister of discernment (a la James White, Greg Koukl, Mike Horton, etc.) and being a loose cannon who simply cannot engage anyone in a way which really is meant for correction rather than self-aggrandization. Because you and your cohorts don’t understand that, it should be the first sign that what you do is not actually very discerning.”
Bingo!
So here's a simple ONE step plan for you... for free... and it will only take a few seconds… ready… stand facing a mirror and ask yourself, “who am I really trying to glorify?” If you get the answer right… you’ll immediately feel obligated to stop signing off with “In Christ” until the way you actually conduct yourself matches that statement.
Wow...thanks RealityCheck. I'd like to add for CD that Phil was also recommending looking to Romans 14.
Just saying...
Thanks for the thanks Robert and yes that recommendation by Phil of Romans 14 is a good one.
RC / Robert,
Perhaps one of you would care to respond to a question that I posed to Robert previously re: Romans 14, but to which no reply has been forthcoming thus far:
10:44 AM, August 02, 2010
Other than God's 2nd Commandment prohibition against fashioning images purporting to depict Him, which of the other 10 Commandments do you believe are "Romans 14" matters?
I'll grant you Sabbath observance out of the gate given the inspired NT commentary on that particular Commandment.
In Christ,
CD
You know what? It just dawned on me what is going on here… I don’t think you ever read the original post. I think you saw the drawing and immediately went nuts over it and started to do exactly what Frank accused you of doing in the post. It’s really the only way your actions and now this Romans 14 question make any sense. You’re like a guy wearing a certain color glasses who only sees that color wherever he looks.
Here’s where Phil mentions Romans 14…
“What I don't quite understand is some people's apparent eagerness to publish long, scolding accusations every time they encounter a brother or sister whose own conscience doesn't condemn every single thing that might make me cringe. Is Romans 14 not in their Bibles?”
Scolding, accusations, questioning another’s conscience, I sense a pattern here. Hmmmm, I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that he’s not referring Romans 14 here to make a point about the drawing being o.k. or not, but to make a point about being judgmental. IOW, it’s not about the 10 Commandments… it’s about YOU and how YOU react to such a drawing… and YOU can’t (or more accurately, won’t) see that.
Of course there’s one other possibility… that I’m being punk’d. Is that a camera over there?
Post a Comment