In our reformed worship class, Dr. Joseph Pipa made a distiction between symbols and images. He doesn't have a problem with stick figures or symbols such as what you posted. I don't remember nor have time to rehash his reasoning (or principle) for this.
Paul, it's the intent. Was Van Til's intent to draw the divine nature? Of course not, no one would suggest so. But your pictures of Jesus in SS class or your favorite Jesus of Nazareth movie or Micheangelo's chapel ceiling are certainly attempts to draw the real thing.
Anyone who is attempting to put the divine nature into a man made picture or object (Acts 17:29) is presuming upon God.
And I didn't know that the 2c was concerned with intent *alone*. I thought "thou shalt not make ANY IMAGES" went beyind just "intent." If I killed someone in the OT, even if that wasn't my "intent," I could still be punished.
And I don't know what you mean "put the divine nature into a man."
The anti-images position sounds like a broken record.
I had thought this blog defended the faith "which was once for all handed down to the saints." It appears lately certain writers here are more apt to attack the faith.
You can go against the history of the Reformers, the confessions and church fathers if you like, but you need to make a much better case then "Well, Daniel did it, the apostle John did it...see Van Til did it too."
"Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!"
If someone walked up to Jesus, knowing he was God and asked to draw his picture in 28 A.D., what would He say?
If a Moses wanted to draw an image of God in his day, what do you think would have happened?
Have you looked "Pictures of Jesus and the Sovereignty of Divine Revelation: Recent Literature and a Defense of the Confessional Reformed View", by David VanDrunen or Daniel Hyde's Images of Christ and the Means of Grace? These are two of the latest from reformed writers.
"I had thought this blog defended the faith "which was once for all handed down to the saints." It appears lately certain writers here are more apt to attack the faith."
Of course, this issue got started because a co-blogger posted a post that had an image of Christ, there was no intent to get into any of this. After his post was criticized, Steve offered some rejoinders. I started showing up in the comboxes, pointing out that this or that argument for the anti-images conclusion didn't seem to do the work anti-images proponents thought it did. To the best of my recollection, this is the first time I have ever discussed this subject on this blog.
Moreoever, your charge only carries weight if your position is correct, but that's what's in dispute.
This blog gives equal treatment to all. Bad arguments for any position get questioned. We don't give free passes to people who have the letter 'R' stamped on their forehead. Ironically, when we use the same type of areguments and logic in critiquing Arminians and atheists, "confessionalists" laud it. But when that same critical eye gets turned on them, all of a sudden it's somehow improper.
"You can go against the history of the Reformers, the confessions and church fathers if you like, but you need to make a much better case then "Well, Daniel did it, the apostle John did it...see Van Til did it too."
Of course, that massively misrepresents things. Do anti-images proponents defend the 9th commandment with the same zeal they defend the 2nd? Our primary argument has been: Anti-images arguments do not succeed in establishing their conclusioin. they have neither the exegetical or the logical firepower to make their case. Pretending like this post is an "argument" for making images is a misrepresentations. but more than that, you should grant it some weight; after all, it seems your only argument is to count noses and settle on the side with the most Reformed noses.
"If someone walked up to Jesus, knowing he was God and asked to draw his picture in 28 A.D., what would He say?
Well, this is speculation, but propbably something like, "I'd be flattered."
"If a Moses wanted to draw an image of God in his day, what do you think would have happened?
Well, according to your arguments, he could only draw a picture of God's back.
Our primary argument has been: Anti-images arguments do not succeed in establishing their conclusioin. they have neither the exegetical or the logical firepower to make their case. Pretending like this post is an "argument" for making images is a misrepresentations.
Theology is not done in a vacuum. You cannot make an argument that "the Scriptures say nothing on making image of God", then state you're not making an argument for making images. Your conclusions have practical application. Either it's ok to make images of the Lord or it's not. There is no middle ground.
after all, it seems your only argument is to count noses and settle on the side with the most Reformed noses.
Come, come. You're beyond this type of retort. I mean nothing of the sort. If we're determining the winner based on currently counted noses, I would be on the losing side in today's world. Yet you cannot deny the position the reformers held. And frankly I see no justification to try and change that position.
Read DVD's, not Hyde's (the latter seems to write more popular level, introductory material, and I haven't really "jived" with other things I've read by him). DVD didn't interact with any of the objections I've raised, and soem of the objections he did raise have been answered by Hays. DVD does undercut some of the arguments used here by anti-images (what DVD calls the "ontological argument" for functional Nestorianism), and his ethical argument seems to boil down to an intuition or opinion and trades on blurring the distinction between a nature and the properties *had by* the nature. Is there a particular point you find salient about DVDs article?
Theology is not done in a vacuum. You cannot make an argument that "the Scriptures say nothing on making image of God", then state you're not making an argument for making images. Your conclusions have practical application. Either it's ok to make images of the Lord or it's not. There is no middle ground."
I don't think theology is done in a vacuum. The point of the comment, which you missed, was to correct you about the nature of the argument. You mischaracterized ours. Your "either/or" dichotomy needs qualifications, but given them, yes: if it is not immoral or impermissible to make images of Christ, then it is permissible.
"Come, come. You're beyond this type of retort. I mean nothing of the sort. If we're determining the winner based on currently counted noses, I would be on the losing side in today's world. Yet you cannot deny the position the reformers held. And frankly I see no justification to try and change that position.
I said *Reformed* noses, not noses in general. However, it seems my response is correct, your best and only argument seems to be that "Reformers said it; that settles it."
When you try to make other arguments (e.g., "your argument is fallacious, as Matt has shown"), they don't really do the work you think they do. If you want to claim that the Reformers were wiser men then you, and you accept their judgment, even if you can't argue for it and defend it from criticism, then you are free to do so. But that's not going to help when trying to persuade other people who have looked at the same arguments and have concluded, "No, not impressed, for reasons X, Y, and Z.
if it is not immoral or impermissible to make images of Christ, then it is permissible.
If you are making an argument for it being permissible, are you not therefore arguing for it to be done? No one argues for something to be permissible unless they want to do it (or have others do it.)
the Reformers were wiser men then you
Actually the Reformers were more wise than I am. This does not mean everything they said is infallible. But I need to have a strong case when disagreeing with them, especially if I claim to be protestant.
However, it seems my response is correct, your best and only argument seems to be that "Reformers said it; that settles it."
This is not my only argument, as I have presented numerous others here and at Pyromaniacs. Actually I would claim you only make this argument because of your presuppositions that "images are persmissible since evangelical believers have been doing it for the last century." I'm not so sure you would be making this argument previous to the 19th century without being in a RCC or EO camp. This is not an argument for "counting noses", but again an argument that your presuppositions are based on what you feel is "social proof."
Saint,
Actually, early Christians did draw pictures of Jesus.
Can you provide proof of this?
I still haven't seen anyone deal with Waltke's comments in his OT Theology.
"If you are making an argument for it being permissible, are you not therefore arguing for it to be done? No one argues for something to be permissible unless they want to do it (or have others do it.)"
Not at all. It is permissible to drink and smoke, but there's no argument that "it is to be done." I may permit my son to have a soda, but I don't tell him it is to be done.
"Actually the Reformers were more wise than I am. This does not mean everything they said is infallible. But I need to have a strong case when disagreeing with them, especially if I claim to be protestant."
Which is fine. But I feel we have shown their/your arguments to not do the work claimed for them. I feel the case is strong: neither their exegetical or logical arguments do the job.
I am aware that you and others have given other argument, but when they are shot down, the fall-back seems to always be, "But you're going against the Confessiona and the Reformers." You may feel your argument are good. I think they are bad. I have given my reasons for thinking your, and the other anti-images proponents, arguments are insufficient to do what you want them to. I think we have certainly shown that the case is not as obvious or as knock-down as those arguing against images initially pretended. The arguments didn't match the rhetoric. But you may certainly be concinced by your arguments; so don't make or endorse images. Speaking for myself, I can't accept conclusions upon insufficient exegesis or logical argument, so I just can't accept your conclusion.
It is also interesting to note the surge of pictures of Christ as the doctrine of the incarnation became formalized, a key contention in arguments here.
Actually, early Christians did draw pictures of Jesus", I assumed he was talking about the church fathers drawing images of Christ. To say that a few believers did so does not prove the church fathers themselves did.
It is also interesting to note the surge of pictures of Christ as the doctrine of the incarnation became formalized, a key contention in arguments here.
This is a non sequitur. I could say "it's also interesting that Arianism continued for quite awhile to be the dominant belief in the church after the doctrine of incarnation become formalized by Athanasius.
1. You said "church fathers," S&S said "early Christians."
2. In the other thread you showed a problem with your logical thinking skills, likewise here. I never made an argument but simply noted an interesting factoid that explain a surge in images. In fact, your claim about Arianism wasn't apropos since its continued belief cannot be explained by the creeds, as the creeds came down against it.
But at this point, I see no need to continue. I have seen your arguments, you gave it your best shot, and I am not persuaded. I gave counter arguments, and I am satisfied that they have not been dealt with in any sufficient way. Since there are no interesting claims being put forth by the anti-images side, the value of the discussion is approaching zero.
Also, the DVD arguments contradict Pipa's. Almost everything DVD argues in that paper could also be applied to CVT's diagram. So you can use DVD, or you can use Pipa, but you can't use both.
"The second commandment is a proscription against making images (Heb. pesel). This technical term entails animism and voodoo. Animists do not distinguish between spirit and matter; thus the spirit is in the matter itself. In other words, the pesel has spiritual power inherent in it. Voodoo involves the understanding that similitude provides access for manipulation. Because the image of the deity is of a frozen, static form, it can be manipulated to serve its worshiper.
"Thus, the common practice is to capture the living forces of nature, such as birds, animals, storms, sun, into a concrete, corporeal form. At this point it becomes the living force itself but in a form that can be controlled. That is what the second commandment means by an idol, a living representation of a life-force or a god....
"The Hebrew grammar allows two possible interpretations to the commandment: the ambiguity pertains to the conjunction "and." One may interpret it as a coordinating conjunction: "You shall not make for yourself an idol *and* a similitude of anything in heaven." In this rendering, "and" links two separate and distinct commands: "You shall not make an idol, and you shall not make a similitude of anything." This interpretation entails a proscription against any sort of art that produces an image or form: statues, drawings, and even photographs. Orthodox Jews interpret the commandment in this fashion. It explains why they do not allow picture taking. Similarly, branches of Islam follow this interpretation. Islamic art produces no representational art but is focused on calligraphy, architecture, literature, and geometric designs.
"Others interpret “and” as having an explanatory sense: “and” links two ideas, but the latter is intended to clarify the meaning of the former. Thus, “similitude” helps clarify the meaning “idol.” The TNIV adopts this interpretation, translating the phrase, “an image in the form of anything.” I opt for this interpretation because of other Torah data. It seems inconsistent that God would prohibit the making of a “similitude” of anything in creation and then proceed to command Moses to make shapes of heavenly beings. But he commands the shaping of cherubs as part of the ark of the covenant (Exod. 25:17-20), of cups on the lampstand like almond flowers with buds and blossoms (Exod. 25:31-34), and so on.
“The rest of the Bible is full of art. Solomon’s temple contained numerous shapes: pomegranates (1 Kings 7:18), bulls (v.25), cherubim, lions, and palm trees (v.36), and so on. These texts demonstrate that Israel at the time of King Solomon did not understand the second commandment as a prohibition against art. No prophet ever condemned the Israelites for engaging in artistic pursuits, and other biblical writers made no mention of a proscription against forms and images.”
Bruce Waltke with Charles Yu, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), pp.416-417.
Paul said: Our primary argument has been: Anti-images arguments do not succeed in establishing their conclusioin. they have neither the exegetical or the logical firepower to make their case.
and again: No, but by the same token, those arguing against the anti-images position here are not advocating worshiping pictures of Christ.
I'm trying to work through some of the practical implications of your doctrinal position on images.
Based on your position, would be it correct Paul [and by extension Steve], to conclude that your pro-image arguments [or anti anti-image arguments whichever you prefer] place a tacit seal of approval on Roman Catholic statuary, and Eastern Orthodox iconography insofar as the images themselves are not worshipped?
In your opinion are images of Christ such as Romish statuary and EO icons morally neutral in and of themselves, only becoming potentially problematic or sinful as elements of worship/adoration come into play?
Where do you stand on Rome's distinctions between latria/dulia/hyperdulia as they relate to images and/or the rotten bones and rags of the "saints"?
In your view is some degree of reverence for images potentially permissable insofar as said reverence doesn't cross the line into a representive form of worship that's reserved for God alone?
For example, do you have any opinion of "Piss Christ"? Should a crucifix or other man-made image be given a certain level of respect or honor or dignity insofar as it purports to depict Jesus? Or is it a matter of indifference because no particular level of respect or honor or dignity should be given to any images purporting to depict Christ?
If someone were to draw and publish a detailed but tasteful picture book for use as an aid by parents to help encourage their children with potty training, and the pictures in the book purport to image "Bathroom Buddy Jesus" relieving himself after the manner common to men, but without "showing anything", would you find it offensive/objectionable or would you find it profitable/good? Why or why not?
Were Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy right about the proper and profitable use of images all this time and the majority of the Reformers simply missed the boat?
I'm sorry I can not keep up with your output (if I did I would not be a godly husband, father, student and employee).
Is there a way you can put in one post your objections to the "anti-image" position.
Paul, no I don't believe Dr. Pipa would accept a stick figure on the cross; for him (and I certainly don't mean to speak for him, just trying to remember some things he said in class) there would be different principles at work here, for example, the the use of the crosses - crosses are not for decoration, it was an instrument of death. In one sense it is another issue, but it relates to the reason he would say no to your question.
Sorry, but I don't find it interesting, or worthwhile, to dialogue with you about this. You resort to name calling and well-poisoning without the benefit of arguments for your position and against defeaters to your position. You have many objections, issued by Steve, matt, and myself, which you have not addressed (even when you pretended to "address" them), you don't get to ignore them and continue to lob objections.
I'm sorry I can not keep up with your output (if I did I would not be a godly husband, father, student and employee).
/////////////////
I probably wouldn't even throw out jabs and toss objections out if I weren't prepared to deal with the answers. Seems you view yourself as a wise, wandering sage, tossing bits of advice and other koans to less enlightened individuals. Next time you comment, will you address your post to "Grasshoper"? :-)
"In your opinion are images of Christ such as Romish statuary and EO icons morally neutral in and of themselves, only becoming potentially problematic or sinful as elements of worship/adoration come into play?
Coram Deo is pro-communion. Is the bread and wine used in RCC mass morally neutral in and of themselves, only becoming potentially problematic or sinful as elements of their worship/adoration and doctrine come into play?
"For example, do you have any opinion of "Piss Christ"?
Coram Deo is pro-pastor. What are the practical implications of this. For example, does he have any opinion of child molesting pastors?
You seem conflicted about dialogue on the subject, waffling between being bored, and then selectively re-directing my questions to you.
For example:
Coram Deo is pro-communion. Is the bread and wine used in RCC mass morally neutral in and of themselves, only becoming potentially problematic or sinful as elements of their worship/adoration and doctrine come into play?
The Bible teaches us that the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's table are ordinary means He has proscribed for the church.
Are you equating man-made images which purport to depict Jesus Christ with the elements of the Lord's table?
I agree that insofar as Romanism adores the Eucharist, making it a propitiatory atoning sacrifice for sin that it is an abomination.
Coram Deo is pro-pastor. What are the practical implications of this. For example, does he have any opinion of child molesting pastors?
Again, preaching the Word is commanded by Scripture. Child molesting isn't. Are you equating preaching the Word with a depiction of Piss Christ, or perhaps you mean that preaching is "good" while child molesting is "bad", "hence child molesting preachers are bad", however even though they molest children their preaching can still be pure and good?
Based on the Pope's recent refusal to accept the resignation of pedophile priests I suppose this would seem to be yet another position on which you are in substantial agreement with Rome.
Now would you consider responding to my earlier questions about the practical outworking of your doctrinal position on imagery, or is that too far beneath you?
I'm trying to work through some of the practical implications of your position on the Internet.
Given your status as a blogger, would be it correct to conclude that you place a tacit seal of approval on Internet porn?
What about cars and cellphones? If drug-dealers use cellphones, would it be correct to conclude that you place a tacit seal of approval on crack cocaine?
If gang-bangers engage in drive-by shootings, would it be correct to conclude that you place a tacit seal of approval on gangland slayings?
There there's the whole question of compact discs...
"Is there a way you can put in one post your objections to the "anti-image" position."
Hi, Jeff. Always nice to hear from you.
If we wanted to spend a lot of time editing our responses into one post, we probably could. But there's an asymmetry between our position and the opposing position.
Since you and some others vigorously oppose it, it means more to you than Paul or me. It's far more important to you than it is to us.
Manata and I don't have a comparable stake in the issue. So that's not a priority for us.
Based on your reply above is it fair to conclude that your position on the use of images in a religioius context - specifically within a Christian context - is: it depends on the use?
In other words a crucifix or statuary, or an icon may be "good and useful" if handled in an appropriate manner, but if used inappropriatly then they may be "bad and harmful", similar to tools like the Internet, guns, or money for example.
Would it be a misunderstanding to conclude, based on your previous response, that your position on the use of images in a Christian context could be fairly summarized as follows?
In our liberty in Christ, religious images such as crucifixes, statuary, and icons are morally neutral tools at the disposal of Christians which may, if fashioned, be employed to the glory of God, but which in no wise be employed in a manner which should cause harm to the cause of Christ, the body of Christ, or bring dishonor or disrepute to His Name.
Please feel free to correct my misunderstanding and/or misapprehension of your last rejoinder.
"The Bible teaches us that the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's table are ordinary means He has proscribed for the church.
Are you equating man-made images which purport to depict Jesus Christ with the elements of the Lord's table?
I agree that insofar as Romanism adores the Eucharist, making it a propitiatory atoning sacrifice for sin that it is an abomination
The argument was that your being pro-X isn't negated by the missuse or otherwise bad consequences that might be brought about via X. Here's another example: do you think that I'm persuaded by those who argue that outlawing abortion would result in back alley abortions? And, if you're trying to find the exact line of demarcation, why think there is one? There seem to be obvious, paradigm cases. Likewsie, there are clear cases of heaps of sand, and non-heaps of sand. But where, exactly, is that line of demarcation?
I also wouldn't confuse my using your posts for fodder with wanting to interact with you. Being told that holding your arguments to the standard of Scripture and reason are not good qualities to have on judgment day isn't really inviting.
Paul said:Being told that holding your arguments to the standard of Scripture and reason are not good qualities to have on judgment day isn't really inviting.
Perhaps your reading comprehension is suffering a bit, or maybe you have a jaundiced eye towards me, I'm not sure, but the comment you referenced is from another thread and was directed to Matt, not you.
Furthermore the context wasn't holding my argument to scripture, but to his flaccid attempt at reductio ad absurdum.
And I'm not asking for a line of demarcation, I'm asking for a general principle of faith, piety and practice that ought to be the natural outworking of one's doctrine; hence I'll simply ask you the same thing I asked Steve since you seem more willing to answer plainly that your blog-mate:
Would it be a misunderstanding to conclude, based on your previous responses, that your position on the use of images in a Christian context could be fairly summarized as follows?
In our liberty in Christ, religious images such as crucifixes, statuary, and icons are morally neutral tools at the disposal of Christians which may, if fashioned, be employed to the glory of God, but which in no wise be employed in a manner which should cause harm to the cause of Christ, the body of Christ, or bring dishonor or disrepute to His Name.
"Perhaps your reading comprehension is suffering a bit, or maybe you have a jaundiced eye towards me, I'm not sure, but the comment you referenced is from another thread and was directed to Matt, not you."
I know it was, but it would be arbitrary to not expand it to the exact same type of critiques to your position given by someone other than Matt.
In the other thread you had arguments given to you. Rather than deal with them, you pulled some "oooo, oooo, they're not confessional" card. That was shot down and your reasoning to use that lame argument was shown to be bunk. I have debated enough confessionalists to know to stay away. Exegesis and reasoning are not what they're known for.
Your question is ambiguous and jumbles together things I would object to on other grounds.
Anyway, at this point, I have seen your arguments as well as the other anti-image arguments used here. I have given my reasons for whay they fail. Either you can deal with those objections or you cannot. There's really nothing else to discuss that I can see.
LOL
ReplyDeleteAre you saying he worshipped this image?
ReplyDeleteIn our reformed worship class, Dr. Joseph Pipa made a distiction between symbols and images. He doesn't have a problem with stick figures or symbols such as what you posted. I don't remember nor have time to rehash his reasoning (or principle) for this.
ReplyDeleteMikeb,
ReplyDeleteNo, but by the same token, those arguing against the anti-images position here are not advocating worshiping pictures of Christ.
Jeff,
So if I have a stick-figure on a cross in my house, then that's not a problem? I'm sure he has his reasoning, but it is prima facie arbitrary.
Paul, it's the intent. Was Van Til's intent to draw the divine nature? Of course not, no one would suggest so. But your pictures of Jesus in SS class or your favorite Jesus of Nazareth movie or Micheangelo's chapel ceiling are certainly attempts to draw the real thing.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who is attempting to put the divine nature into a man made picture or object (Acts 17:29) is presuming upon God.
Mikeb,
ReplyDeleteAlready dealt with Acts.
And I didn't know that the 2c was concerned with intent *alone*. I thought "thou shalt not make ANY IMAGES" went beyind just "intent." If I killed someone in the OT, even if that wasn't my "intent," I could still be punished.
And I don't know what you mean "put the divine nature into a man."
The anti-images position sounds like a broken record.
I had thought this blog defended the faith "which was once for all handed down to the saints." It appears lately certain writers here are more apt to attack the faith.
ReplyDeleteYou can go against the history of the Reformers, the confessions and church fathers if you like, but you need to make a much better case then "Well, Daniel did it, the apostle John did it...see Van Til did it too."
"Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!"
If someone walked up to Jesus, knowing he was God and asked to draw his picture in 28 A.D., what would He say?
If a Moses wanted to draw an image of God in his day, what do you think would have happened?
Let's be honest and quick grasping at straws.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteHave you looked "Pictures of Jesus and the Sovereignty of Divine Revelation: Recent Literature and a Defense of the Confessional Reformed View", by David VanDrunen or Daniel Hyde's Images of Christ and the Means of Grace? These are two of the latest from reformed writers.
"I had thought this blog defended the faith "which was once for all handed down to the saints." It appears lately certain writers here are more apt to attack the faith."
ReplyDeleteOf course, this issue got started because a co-blogger posted a post that had an image of Christ, there was no intent to get into any of this. After his post was criticized, Steve offered some rejoinders. I started showing up in the comboxes, pointing out that this or that argument for the anti-images conclusion didn't seem to do the work anti-images proponents thought it did. To the best of my recollection, this is the first time I have ever discussed this subject on this blog.
Moreoever, your charge only carries weight if your position is correct, but that's what's in dispute.
This blog gives equal treatment to all. Bad arguments for any position get questioned. We don't give free passes to people who have the letter 'R' stamped on their forehead. Ironically, when we use the same type of areguments and logic in critiquing Arminians and atheists, "confessionalists" laud it. But when that same critical eye gets turned on them, all of a sudden it's somehow improper.
"You can go against the history of the Reformers, the confessions and church fathers if you like, but you need to make a much better case then "Well, Daniel did it, the apostle John did it...see Van Til did it too."
Of course, that massively misrepresents things. Do anti-images proponents defend the 9th commandment with the same zeal they defend the 2nd? Our primary argument has been: Anti-images arguments do not succeed in establishing their conclusioin. they have neither the exegetical or the logical firepower to make their case. Pretending like this post is an "argument" for making images is a misrepresentations. but more than that, you should grant it some weight; after all, it seems your only argument is to count noses and settle on the side with the most Reformed noses.
"If someone walked up to Jesus, knowing he was God and asked to draw his picture in 28 A.D., what would He say?
Well, this is speculation, but propbably something like, "I'd be flattered."
"If a Moses wanted to draw an image of God in his day, what do you think would have happened?
Well, according to your arguments, he could only draw a picture of God's back.
Our primary argument has been: Anti-images arguments do not succeed in establishing their conclusioin. they have neither the exegetical or the logical firepower to make their case. Pretending like this post is an "argument" for making images is a misrepresentations.
ReplyDeleteTheology is not done in a vacuum. You cannot make an argument that "the Scriptures say nothing on making image of God", then state you're not making an argument for making images. Your conclusions have practical application. Either it's ok to make images of the Lord or it's not. There is no middle ground.
after all, it seems your only argument is to count noses and settle on the side with the most Reformed noses.
Come, come. You're beyond this type of retort. I mean nothing of the sort. If we're determining the winner based on currently counted noses, I would be on the losing side in today's world. Yet you cannot deny the position the reformers held. And frankly I see no justification to try and change that position.
Hi Jeff,
ReplyDeleteRead DVD's, not Hyde's (the latter seems to write more popular level, introductory material, and I haven't really "jived" with other things I've read by him). DVD didn't interact with any of the objections I've raised, and soem of the objections he did raise have been answered by Hays. DVD does undercut some of the arguments used here by anti-images (what DVD calls the "ontological argument" for functional Nestorianism), and his ethical argument seems to boil down to an intuition or opinion and trades on blurring the distinction between a nature and the properties *had by* the nature. Is there a particular point you find salient about DVDs article?
Mikeb,
ReplyDeleteTheology is not done in a vacuum. You cannot make an argument that "the Scriptures say nothing on making image of God", then state you're not making an argument for making images. Your conclusions have practical application. Either it's ok to make images of the Lord or it's not. There is no middle ground."
I don't think theology is done in a vacuum. The point of the comment, which you missed, was to correct you about the nature of the argument. You mischaracterized ours. Your "either/or" dichotomy needs qualifications, but given them, yes: if it is not immoral or impermissible to make images of Christ, then it is permissible.
"Come, come. You're beyond this type of retort. I mean nothing of the sort. If we're determining the winner based on currently counted noses, I would be on the losing side in today's world. Yet you cannot deny the position the reformers held. And frankly I see no justification to try and change that position.
I said *Reformed* noses, not noses in general. However, it seems my response is correct, your best and only argument seems to be that "Reformers said it; that settles it."
When you try to make other arguments (e.g., "your argument is fallacious, as Matt has shown"), they don't really do the work you think they do. If you want to claim that the Reformers were wiser men then you, and you accept their judgment, even if you can't argue for it and defend it from criticism, then you are free to do so. But that's not going to help when trying to persuade other people who have looked at the same arguments and have concluded, "No, not impressed, for reasons X, Y, and Z.
"church fathers"
ReplyDeleteActually, early Christians did draw pictures of Jesus.
I still haven't seen anyone deal with Waltke's comments in his OT Theology.
if it is not immoral or impermissible to make images of Christ, then it is permissible.
ReplyDeleteIf you are making an argument for it being permissible, are you not therefore arguing for it to be done? No one argues for something to be permissible unless they want to do it (or have others do it.)
the Reformers were wiser men then you
Actually the Reformers were more wise than I am. This does not mean everything they said is infallible. But I need to have a strong case when disagreeing with them, especially if I claim to be protestant.
However, it seems my response is correct, your best and only argument seems to be that "Reformers said it; that settles it."
This is not my only argument, as I have presented numerous others here and at Pyromaniacs. Actually I would claim you only make this argument because of your presuppositions that "images are persmissible since evangelical believers have been doing it for the last century." I'm not so sure you would be making this argument previous to the 19th century without being in a RCC or EO camp. This is not an argument for "counting noses", but again an argument that your presuppositions are based on what you feel is "social proof."
Saint,
Actually, early Christians did draw pictures of Jesus.
Can you provide proof of this?
I still haven't seen anyone deal with Waltke's comments in his OT Theology.
Can you enlighten us to what his comments where?
Mikeb,
ReplyDelete"If you are making an argument for it being permissible, are you not therefore arguing for it to be done? No one argues for something to be permissible unless they want to do it (or have others do it.)"
Not at all. It is permissible to drink and smoke, but there's no argument that "it is to be done." I may permit my son to have a soda, but I don't tell him it is to be done.
"Actually the Reformers were more wise than I am. This does not mean everything they said is infallible. But I need to have a strong case when disagreeing with them, especially if I claim to be protestant."
Which is fine. But I feel we have shown their/your arguments to not do the work claimed for them. I feel the case is strong: neither their exegetical or logical arguments do the job.
I am aware that you and others have given other argument, but when they are shot down, the fall-back seems to always be, "But you're going against the Confessiona and the Reformers." You may feel your argument are good. I think they are bad. I have given my reasons for thinking your, and the other anti-images proponents, arguments are insufficient to do what you want them to. I think we have certainly shown that the case is not as obvious or as knock-down as those arguing against images initially pretended. The arguments didn't match the rhetoric. But you may certainly be concinced by your arguments; so don't make or endorse images. Speaking for myself, I can't accept conclusions upon insufficient exegesis or logical argument, so I just can't accept your conclusion.
"Can you provide proof of this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depiction_of_Jesus
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc06/htm/iii.lvii.iv.htm
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_1_17?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=early+christian+art&sprefix=early+christian+a&ih=13_0_2_2_0_0_0_0_0_1.94_210&fsc=16
It is also interesting to note the surge of pictures of Christ as the doctrine of the incarnation became formalized, a key contention in arguments here.
When Saint said ""church fathers"
ReplyDeleteActually, early Christians did draw pictures of Jesus", I assumed he was talking about the church fathers drawing images of Christ. To say that a few believers did so does not prove the church fathers themselves did.
It is also interesting to note the surge of pictures of Christ as the doctrine of the incarnation became formalized, a key contention in arguments here.
This is a non sequitur. I could say "it's also interesting that Arianism continued for quite awhile to be the dominant belief in the church after the doctrine of incarnation become formalized by Athanasius.
Mike,
ReplyDelete1. You said "church fathers," S&S said "early Christians."
2. In the other thread you showed a problem with your logical thinking skills, likewise here. I never made an argument but simply noted an interesting factoid that explain a surge in images. In fact, your claim about Arianism wasn't apropos since its continued belief cannot be explained by the creeds, as the creeds came down against it.
But at this point, I see no need to continue. I have seen your arguments, you gave it your best shot, and I am not persuaded. I gave counter arguments, and I am satisfied that they have not been dealt with in any sufficient way. Since there are no interesting claims being put forth by the anti-images side, the value of the discussion is approaching zero.
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteAlso, the DVD arguments contradict Pipa's. Almost everything DVD argues in that paper could also be applied to CVT's diagram. So you can use DVD, or you can use Pipa, but you can't use both.
"The second commandment is a proscription against making images (Heb. pesel). This technical term entails animism and voodoo. Animists do not distinguish between spirit and matter; thus the spirit is in the matter itself. In other words, the pesel has spiritual power inherent in it. Voodoo involves the understanding that similitude provides access for manipulation. Because the image of the deity is of a frozen, static form, it can be manipulated to serve its worshiper.
ReplyDelete"Thus, the common practice is to capture the living forces of nature, such as birds, animals, storms, sun, into a concrete, corporeal form. At this point it becomes the living force itself but in a form that can be controlled. That is what the second commandment means by an idol, a living representation of a life-force or a god....
"The Hebrew grammar allows two possible interpretations to the commandment: the ambiguity pertains to the conjunction "and." One may interpret it as a coordinating conjunction: "You shall not make for yourself an idol *and* a similitude of anything in heaven." In this rendering, "and" links two separate and distinct commands: "You shall not make an idol, and you shall not make a similitude of anything." This interpretation entails a proscription against any sort of art that produces an image or form: statues, drawings, and even photographs. Orthodox Jews interpret the commandment in this fashion. It explains why they do not allow picture taking. Similarly, branches of Islam follow this interpretation. Islamic art produces no representational art but is focused on calligraphy, architecture, literature, and geometric designs.
"Others interpret “and” as having an explanatory sense: “and” links two ideas, but the latter is intended to clarify the meaning of the former. Thus, “similitude” helps clarify the meaning “idol.” The TNIV adopts this interpretation, translating the phrase, “an image in the form of anything.” I opt for this interpretation because of other Torah data. It seems inconsistent that God would prohibit the making of a “similitude” of anything in creation and then proceed to command Moses to make shapes of heavenly beings. But he commands the shaping of cherubs as part of the ark of the covenant (Exod. 25:17-20), of cups on the lampstand like almond flowers with buds and blossoms (Exod. 25:31-34), and so on.
“The rest of the Bible is full of art. Solomon’s temple contained numerous shapes: pomegranates (1 Kings 7:18), bulls (v.25), cherubim, lions, and palm trees (v.36), and so on. These texts demonstrate that Israel at the time of King Solomon did not understand the second commandment as a prohibition against art. No prophet ever condemned the Israelites for engaging in artistic pursuits, and other biblical writers made no mention of a proscription against forms and images.”
Bruce Waltke with Charles Yu, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), pp.416-417.
Paul said: Our primary argument has been: Anti-images arguments do not succeed in establishing their conclusioin. they have neither the exegetical or the logical firepower to make their case.
ReplyDeleteand again: No, but by the same token, those arguing against the anti-images position here are not advocating worshiping pictures of Christ.
I'm trying to work through some of the practical implications of your doctrinal position on images.
Based on your position, would be it correct Paul [and by extension Steve], to conclude that your pro-image arguments [or anti anti-image arguments whichever you prefer] place a tacit seal of approval on Roman Catholic statuary, and Eastern Orthodox iconography insofar as the images themselves are not worshipped?
In your opinion are images of Christ such as Romish statuary and EO icons morally neutral in and of themselves, only becoming potentially problematic or sinful as elements of worship/adoration come into play?
Where do you stand on Rome's distinctions between latria/dulia/hyperdulia as they relate to images and/or the rotten bones and rags of the "saints"?
In your view is some degree of reverence for images potentially permissable insofar as said reverence doesn't cross the line into a representive form of worship that's reserved for God alone?
For example, do you have any opinion of "Piss Christ"? Should a crucifix or other man-made image be given a certain level of respect or honor or dignity insofar as it purports to depict Jesus? Or is it a matter of indifference because no particular level of respect or honor or dignity should be given to any images purporting to depict Christ?
If someone were to draw and publish a detailed but tasteful picture book for use as an aid by parents to help encourage their children with potty training, and the pictures in the book purport to image "Bathroom Buddy Jesus" relieving himself after the manner common to men, but without "showing anything", would you find it offensive/objectionable or would you find it profitable/good? Why or why not?
Were Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy right about the proper and profitable use of images all this time and the majority of the Reformers simply missed the boat?
In Christ,
CD
Steve and Paul:
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry I can not keep up with your output (if I did I would not be a godly husband, father, student and employee).
Is there a way you can put in one post your objections to the "anti-image" position.
Paul, no I don't believe Dr. Pipa would accept a stick figure on the cross; for him (and I certainly don't mean to speak for him, just trying to remember some things he said in class) there would be different principles at work here, for example, the the use of the crosses - crosses are not for decoration, it was an instrument of death. In one sense it is another issue, but it relates to the reason he would say no to your question.
Thanks,
Jeff Downs
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteThat answer objects for reasons *other than* a violation of the second commandment.
CD,
ReplyDeleteSorry, but I don't find it interesting, or worthwhile, to dialogue with you about this. You resort to name calling and well-poisoning without the benefit of arguments for your position and against defeaters to your position. You have many objections, issued by Steve, matt, and myself, which you have not addressed (even when you pretended to "address" them), you don't get to ignore them and continue to lob objections.
Jeff said...
ReplyDeleteSteve and Paul:
I'm sorry I can not keep up with your output (if I did I would not be a godly husband, father, student and employee).
/////////////////
I probably wouldn't even throw out jabs and toss objections out if I weren't prepared to deal with the answers. Seems you view yourself as a wise, wandering sage, tossing bits of advice and other koans to less enlightened individuals. Next time you comment, will you address your post to "Grasshoper"? :-)
grasshopper
ReplyDeleteNo big deal Paul.
ReplyDeleteYou all posted about 6 (probably more and probably hundreds of comments) on the issue, I'm simply asking you bring all your thoughts together.
But please, forget that I even asked.
"In your opinion are images of Christ such as Romish statuary and EO icons morally neutral in and of themselves, only becoming potentially problematic or sinful as elements of worship/adoration come into play?
ReplyDeleteCoram Deo is pro-communion. Is the bread and wine used in RCC mass morally neutral in and of themselves, only becoming potentially problematic or sinful as elements of their worship/adoration and doctrine come into play?
"For example, do you have any opinion of "Piss Christ"?
Coram Deo is pro-pastor. What are the practical implications of this. For example, does he have any opinion of child molesting pastors?
Jeff said...
ReplyDeleteNo big deal Paul.
You all posted about 6 (probably more and probably hundreds of comments) on the issue, I'm simply asking you bring all your thoughts together.
But please, forget that I even asked.
8/14/2010 1:20 PM
Would you have the time to read it?
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteHave you read Frame on the matter in his Doctrine of the Christian Life? I'm in agreement with much in there.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteYou seem conflicted about dialogue on the subject, waffling between being bored, and then selectively re-directing my questions to you.
For example:
Coram Deo is pro-communion. Is the bread and wine used in RCC mass morally neutral in and of themselves, only becoming potentially problematic or sinful as elements of their worship/adoration and doctrine come into play?
The Bible teaches us that the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's table are ordinary means He has proscribed for the church.
Are you equating man-made images which purport to depict Jesus Christ with the elements of the Lord's table?
I agree that insofar as Romanism adores the Eucharist, making it a propitiatory atoning sacrifice for sin that it is an abomination.
Coram Deo is pro-pastor. What are the practical implications of this. For example, does he have any opinion of child molesting pastors?
Again, preaching the Word is commanded by Scripture. Child molesting isn't. Are you equating preaching the Word with a depiction of Piss Christ, or perhaps you mean that preaching is "good" while child molesting is "bad", "hence child molesting preachers are bad", however even though they molest children their preaching can still be pure and good?
Based on the Pope's recent refusal to accept the resignation of pedophile priests I suppose this would seem to be yet another position on which you are in substantial agreement with Rome.
Now would you consider responding to my earlier questions about the practical outworking of your doctrinal position on imagery, or is that too far beneath you?
In Christ,
CD
CD,
ReplyDeleteI'm trying to work through some of the practical implications of your position on the Internet.
Given your status as a blogger, would be it correct to conclude that you place a tacit seal of approval on Internet porn?
What about cars and cellphones? If drug-dealers use cellphones, would it be correct to conclude that you place a tacit seal of approval on crack cocaine?
If gang-bangers engage in drive-by shootings, would it be correct to conclude that you place a tacit seal of approval on gangland slayings?
There there's the whole question of compact discs...
Jeff said...
ReplyDelete"Is there a way you can put in one post your objections to the "anti-image" position."
Hi, Jeff. Always nice to hear from you.
If we wanted to spend a lot of time editing our responses into one post, we probably could. But there's an asymmetry between our position and the opposing position.
Since you and some others vigorously oppose it, it means more to you than Paul or me. It's far more important to you than it is to us.
Manata and I don't have a comparable stake in the issue. So that's not a priority for us.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteBased on your reply above is it fair to conclude that your position on the use of images in a religioius context - specifically within a Christian context - is: it depends on the use?
In other words a crucifix or statuary, or an icon may be "good and useful" if handled in an appropriate manner, but if used inappropriatly then they may be "bad and harmful", similar to tools like the Internet, guns, or money for example.
Would it be a misunderstanding to conclude, based on your previous response, that your position on the use of images in a Christian context could be fairly summarized as follows?
In our liberty in Christ, religious images such as crucifixes, statuary, and icons are morally neutral tools at the disposal of Christians which may, if fashioned, be employed to the glory of God, but which in no wise be employed in a manner which should cause harm to the cause of Christ, the body of Christ, or bring dishonor or disrepute to His Name.
Please feel free to correct my misunderstanding and/or misapprehension of your last rejoinder.
In Christ,
CD
CD,
ReplyDelete"The Bible teaches us that the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's table are ordinary means He has proscribed for the church.
Are you equating man-made images which purport to depict Jesus Christ with the elements of the Lord's table?
I agree that insofar as Romanism adores the Eucharist, making it a propitiatory atoning sacrifice for sin that it is an abomination
The argument was that your being pro-X isn't negated by the missuse or otherwise bad consequences that might be brought about via X. Here's another example: do you think that I'm persuaded by those who argue that outlawing abortion would result in back alley abortions? And, if you're trying to find the exact line of demarcation, why think there is one? There seem to be obvious, paradigm cases. Likewsie, there are clear cases of heaps of sand, and non-heaps of sand. But where, exactly, is that line of demarcation?
I also wouldn't confuse my using your posts for fodder with wanting to interact with you. Being told that holding your arguments to the standard of Scripture and reason are not good qualities to have on judgment day isn't really inviting.
Paul said:Being told that holding your arguments to the standard of Scripture and reason are not good qualities to have on judgment day isn't really inviting.
ReplyDeletePerhaps your reading comprehension is suffering a bit, or maybe you have a jaundiced eye towards me, I'm not sure, but the comment you referenced is from another thread and was directed to Matt, not you.
Furthermore the context wasn't holding my argument to scripture, but to his flaccid attempt at reductio ad absurdum.
And I'm not asking for a line of demarcation, I'm asking for a general principle of faith, piety and practice that ought to be the natural outworking of one's doctrine; hence I'll simply ask you the same thing I asked Steve since you seem more willing to answer plainly that your blog-mate:
Would it be a misunderstanding to conclude, based on your previous responses, that your position on the use of images in a Christian context could be fairly summarized as follows?
In our liberty in Christ, religious images such as crucifixes, statuary, and icons are morally neutral tools at the disposal of Christians which may, if fashioned, be employed to the glory of God, but which in no wise be employed in a manner which should cause harm to the cause of Christ, the body of Christ, or bring dishonor or disrepute to His Name.
In Christ,
CD
"Perhaps your reading comprehension is suffering a bit, or maybe you have a jaundiced eye towards me, I'm not sure, but the comment you referenced is from another thread and was directed to Matt, not you."
ReplyDeleteI know it was, but it would be arbitrary to not expand it to the exact same type of critiques to your position given by someone other than Matt.
In the other thread you had arguments given to you. Rather than deal with them, you pulled some "oooo, oooo, they're not confessional" card. That was shot down and your reasoning to use that lame argument was shown to be bunk. I have debated enough confessionalists to know to stay away. Exegesis and reasoning are not what they're known for.
Your question is ambiguous and jumbles together things I would object to on other grounds.
Anyway, at this point, I have seen your arguments as well as the other anti-image arguments used here. I have given my reasons for whay they fail. Either you can deal with those objections or you cannot. There's really nothing else to discuss that I can see.