CORAM DEO SAID:
“The objection at hand is the violation of God's prohibition against human beings' efforts to image Him contra the 2nd Commandment. This crystal-clear position is also echoed by the voice of the Westminster divines, the Three Forms of Unity, the overwhelming consensus of the Reformers and Puritans, and most of the orthodox, confessional, creedal Reformed churches today.”
i) Of course, that’s the last-ditch resort of somebody who doesn’t have a real argument. And it’s interchangeable with the modus operandi of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists. Strange bedfellows.
ii) Triablogue takes sola Scriptura seriously. We don’t use Scripture to rubberstamp our favorite traditions.
iii) To my knowledge, the OPC and PCA don’t enforce the Puritan theory of worship. Not to mention the Reformed Anglican tradition, which is not aniconic.
“God has condescended to express Himself in His Word in many wonderful and glorious ways. His Word is His highest and fullest self-expression to mankind.”
Actually, God expresses himself in many different ways. In his Word. Theophanies. The tabernacle. The Incarnation.
“Thus human efforts to image the 2nd Person of the Triune Godhead is prohibited by the 2nd Commandment.”
So you’re accusing the Apostle John of violating the 2nd Commandment by using picture language to depict Jesus (Rev 1:13-16).
“Any effort to image Christ's ‘divinity’ fails miserably since the ineffable deity of the One True and Living God cannot be imaged.”
So the Incarnation “failed miserably” inasmuch as human observers couldn’t detect the ineffable deity of Christ from his physical appearance.
“Any effort to image Christ's humanity fails miserably since He was a unique human being with unique features, and no one knows what He looked like during His humiliation.”
i) That would only be a miserable failure if a visual representation is supposed to be photographically realistic. And where’s the argument for that assumption?
ii) Is Rev 1:13-16 a photographically realistic depiction of Jesus, or does that include some symbolic details? If the latter, does that make Rev 1:13-16 a miserable failure?
“Furthermore any effort to image Christ's humanity apart from His divinity is to slip into functional Nestorianism since such would be to bifurcate the God-man.”
Well, according to the Fourth Gospel, Jesus’ miracles are divine indicia. And Western art frequently depicts the miracles of Jesus. In so doing it bears witness to the divinity as well as humanity of Christ.
“Therefore any and all representations of any of the Persons of the Godhead are pure speculation, the product of a sinful human being's sinfully corrupted imagination.”
So Daniel’s picturesque description of the Father (Dan 7:9) is pure speculation, the product of a sinful human being's sinfully corrupted imagination.
“With this in mind it becomes clear that all endeavors to defend or offer counterarguments against God's 2nd Commandment prohibition against human efforts to image Him are sinful, and sinfully motivated. Thus those who image God, and their erswhile apologists (or e-pologists), enablers, and defenders are partakers of the same bitter root of sin.”
So we should eject Daniel and Revelation from the canon (not to mention other Scriptures containing sinful and sinfully motivated throne visions).
“With this in mind it becomes obvious that all involved in this type of sinful behavior are to be rebuked and called to repentance for their ungodly perversions.”
With this in mind it becomes obvious that Daniel, John, et al. are to be rebuked and called to repentance for their ungodly perversions.
Daniel and John described what they actually saw, and recorded those descriptions at the direction of God himself. That is not a basis for people today to make up their own representations of God, whether incarnate or not.
ReplyDeleteThat's a false dichotomy. What about artistic depictions of Daniel and John's recorded visions?
ReplyDeleteAnd keep in mind that picturesque descriptions in Daniel and John appeal to the imagination of the reader. So the reader automatically forms a mental image of what text depicts.
ReplyDelete"So the reader automatically forms a mental image of what text depicts."
ReplyDeleteA mental image that God himself communicated to the reader; not one of the reader's own imaginings.
I suppose one could also artistically depict "God" in the appearance of the fire and cloud in the wilderness, or in the burning bush. But those are images that God wanted conveyed. And, like the visions in John and Daniel, they don't depict a visage, so to speak, but suggestions of radiance and glory.
Don't you think it's different when people try to portray Christ with an actual countenance that they've never seen? Seriously, do you see no difference? Or do you think the former simply authorizes the latter?
“Furthermore any effort to image Christ's humanity apart from His divinity is to slip into functional Nestorianism since such would be to bifurcate the God-man.”
ReplyDeleteThis objection is about as good as if I were to say that any attempt to bar images of Christ's humanity is to slip into functional Docetism .
Hebrews doesn't slip into functional Nestoroianism when it speaks of what Christ does according to his humanity, and so bifurcate the God-man.
The confessiona and systematics don't sip into functional Nestorianism when they speak of what Christ does *in respect to* his *human* nature, and so bifurcate the God-man.
Jesus didn't slip into functional Nestorianism when he said, "Who touched me," and so bifurcate the God-man. Or when he said he didn't know the day or hour of his return, and so bifurcate the God-man.
Jesus didn't slip into functional Nestorianism when he got tired, hungry, and weak, and so bifurcate the God-man.
The gospel writers didn't slip into functional Nestorianism when they said Jesus was at one place rather than another---which denies the Son's omnipresence, and so bifurcate the God-man.
These arguments against Coram Deo are flimsy, at best.
ReplyDeleteSteve, are images constructed by man as good as the revelation God use with words conveying images which were designed to display a part of the truth?
These "images" God revealed were contained within a context, making an image strips it from its revelational context and fails to be a display of something passed down but a contextless image each viewer must contextualize himself.
One wonders if Jacob's dream regarding a ladder would somehow legitimize the building of the Tower of Babel.
Other than your weak arguments, you offered no more than ad hominem. So what of Coram Deo appealed to Confessional Reformed orthodoxy? It isn't tantamount to Romish appeals...it simply shows that Triablogue departs from these Confessions on this point. It may serve you well to consider how it is you depart from historic Protestantism.
I'll leave you with an equally valuable argument:
You know, Roman Catholics and EO are okay with images. So is Triablogue.
What about drawings of parts of Jesus' body?
ReplyDeleteLet's say I draw a hand nailed to a cross's beam and I add a caption such as, "No pain, no gain," or something, along with the appropriate Bible reference.
Can I draw Jesus' arm?
It seems if I say instead that this arm isn't actually Jesus', but Edward's, then my attribution of the Bible reference becomes blasphemous.
Am I being clear?
Paul said: This objection is about as good as if I were to say that any attempt to bar images of Christ's humanity is to slip into functional Docetism.
ReplyDeleteOf course not, the second argument would presuppose the eternality of Christ's humanity, which would be a rejection of His incarnation at a specific point in time.
Would your wife be upset if you pictured another woman while you were making love? What if you told her you only pictured the other woman because she made you think of your wife?
I said: This objection is about as good as if I were to say that any attempt to bar images of Christ's humanity is to slip into functional Docetism.
ReplyDeleteCraig French said:
"Of course not, the second argument would presuppose the eternality of Christ's humanity, which would be a rejection of His incarnation at a specific point in time."
I'm afraid I don't follow.
"Would your wife be upset if you pictured another woman while you were making love? What if you told her you only pictured the other woman because she made you think of your wife?"
I'm sure she would.
I'm afraind I'm going to need a little help from you as I don't see how either of your comments undermine anything I said.
First: your argument re: docetism was not an equivalent of the accusation that your position on images results in Nestorianism.
ReplyDeleteClearly the accusation of docetism is idiotic...but that didn't underscore why the accusation of nestorianism dies a similar death.
Secondly: I thought this one should be obvious. By picturing other women you're "idealizing"...your making what your wife isn't into what you would desire. Likewise when we make images of Christ, we are necessarily making idealizations of Him. The way we depict His "humanity" necessarily implies something about His divinity.
Craig French said
ReplyDelete"First: your argument re: docetism was not an equivalent of the accusation that your position on images results in Nestorianism.
What do you mean by "equivalent?" Logical equivalence? But I don't need something like logical equivalence,and I never pretended to offer a logically equivalent objection. So I'm afraid I still don't get your objection.
"Clearly the accusation of docetism is idiotic...but that didn't underscore why the accusation of nestorianism dies a similar death."
Idiotic? Why the "tude?" To represent, refer to, highlight, recognize etc., Christ's humanity is not to separate the person, or claim that there's two persons (per my examples). If you think so, please derive the conclusion. My point is, that objection is just as bad as my objection that denying that Christ's humanity can be pictured is to deny that Christ was human. If you think the Nestorian charge sticks, please make the argument (you'll notice that Coram Deo never made that argument, it was asserted).
"Secondly: I thought this one should be obvious"
But I'm not as smart as you. So you'll have to take me by the hand and help me out.
"By picturing other women you're "idealizing"...your making what your wife isn't into what you would desire."
You brought up doing this while having sex. It seems obvious that that is wrong. However, my wife would not be upset if a drew a picture of her that was not 100% accurate but was a representation of her. Indeed, she wouldn't be mad if I made a cartoon of us where we were turtles. Furthermore, suppose all the pictures of my wife and I get destroyed in a fire. My wife would not be upset if in 200 years some descendant of ours read some of our emails about enjoying sitting by our fireplace, and then painted a picture of us sitting at a fireplace---even if these pictures didn't look like us at all. So, your subtle suggestion doesn't seem "obvious" to me at all, not in the least. It seems to me the only force it has is in tying the subtle suggestion to something obviously wrong, which seems to me to be employing question begging epithets.
"Likewise when we make images of Christ, we are necessarily making idealizations of Him. The way we depict His "humanity" necessarily implies something about His divinity."
First, I think I've undercut the appeal to "likewsise" as resting on question begging epithets. Second, I'm afraid (slow me, again) I don't get this point. I don't think the body and features of Jesus is the body and features he had to have. Indeed, he could have been taller, or shorter than he actually was. Slimmer, or heavier. Why think something accidental would necessarily affect his divinity, something necessary?
Moreoever, if what you say is true, and since we know that Jesus had different physical appearances (he was a baby, a todder, a boy, a teenager, a man), and since, according to you, different physical appearance necessarily implies something different about his divinity, then what did baby Jesus "imply" about his divinity relevantly and substantivley different from what teenage or adult Jesus did? Since his humanity was "depicted" differently, and since this "necessarily implies something about his divinity,' then what, pray tell, did these different depictions imply? I have never read anything about this in any of my systematics or other books on Christology.
LOUIS SAID:
ReplyDelete"A mental image that God himself communicated to the reader; not one of the reader's own imaginings."
I've already drawn that distinction.
"I suppose one could also artistically depict 'God' in the appearance of the fire and cloud in the wilderness, or in the burning bush."
So you're suggesting that non-representational depictions (abstract art) are permissible?
Yet a little further down you suggest also suggest that artistic depictions are impermissible unless they closely resembles the subject. But those are opposing objections.
"But those are images that God wanted conveyed."
So if an artist were to do an artistic rendering of an image that God wanted conveyed, is that permissible or impermissible?
"And, like the visions in John and Daniel, they don't depict a visage, so to speak, but suggestions of radiance and glory."
But when a reader reads these picturesque descriptions, he mentally fills in the gaps.
"Don't you think it's different when people try to portray Christ with an actual countenance that they've never seen?"
Why should an artistic depiction exactly resemble the subject? Do viewers expect photographic realism from artistic depictions? Do they think a painting of Moses resembles Moses?
"Seriously, do you see no difference? Or do you think the former simply authorizes the latter?"
With Jesus we have the additional fact that he was not invisible. And we do know what human males look like. We also have some idea of what Palestinian Jews look like.
That's quite different from the situation envisioned (pardon the pun) by the 2nd Commandment.
Craig French said...
ReplyDelete"Steve, are images constructed by man as good as the revelation God use with words conveying images which were designed to display a part of the truth?"
Craig, are sermons constructed by man as good as the Bible?
"These 'images' God revealed were contained within a context, making an image strips it from its revelational context and fails to be a display of something passed down but a contextless image each viewer must contextualize himself."
I notice that you're smuggling qualifications into the discussion that can't be found in the wording of the 2nd Commandment.
So you're no longer debating the permissibility of divine images. You've tacitly conceded that point and shifted to the identification of the conditions under which images of God are permissible.
"One wonders if Jacob's dream regarding a ladder would somehow legitimize the building of the Tower of Babel."
An argument from analogy minus the argument.
"Other than your weak arguments, you offered no more than ad hominem."
I answered him point-by-point. Nothing ad hominem in my response. And the terms I used mirrored the terms he used.
"So what of Coram Deo appealed to Confessional Reformed orthodoxy? It isn't tantamount to Romish appeals...it simply shows that Triablogue departs from these Confessions on this point. It may serve you well to consider how it is you depart from historic Protestantism."
i) Since he doesn't back up his credal appeals with suitable exegesis or logical reasoning, then, yes, it's tantamount to Romish appeals.
ii) Puritanism doesn't have a monopoly on historical Protestantism. There's Lutheranism, Anglicanism, &c.
iii) I'm less concerned with departing from Protestant traditions than departing from the word of God. Sorry if you don't share my priorities.
"I'll leave you with an equally valuable argument: You know, Roman Catholics and EO are okay with images. So is Triablogue."
And I'll leave you with an equally valuable argument: You know, Pope Benedict is okay with pasta. So is Triablogue.
"I've already drawn that distinction."
ReplyDeleteI guess I'm missing your point then.
"So you're suggesting that non-representational depictions (abstract art) are permissible?
Yet a little further down you also suggest that artistic depictions are impermissible unless they closely resembles the subject. But those are opposing objections."
I'm suggesting that at least one reason why we are not to make images of God, is that we do not know what he actually looks like. If he has in fact revealed to us something of His image, then I'm allowing that, at best, you can argue about depicting that image. But that gives you no license to go any further.
"But when a reader reads these picturesque descriptions, he mentally fills in the gaps."
And when a man sees a woman fully dressed, he may mentally fill in the gaps and imagine her naked. That gives him no right actually to undress her. Perhaps that's a bad analogy, but surely you get my point.
Why should an artistic depiction exactly resemble the subject? Do viewers expect photographic realism from artistic depictions? Do they think a painting of Moses resembles Moses?
No, but we are not talking here about the quality or value of artistic depictions. We are talking about a law that bans any artistic depiction of a particular subject.
"With Jesus we have the additional fact that he was not invisible. And we do know what human males look like. We also have some idea of what Palestinian Jews look like.
That's quite different from the situation envisioned (pardon the pun) by the 2nd Commandment."
I guess I would say:
a) God can sculpt his image in Christ if He wants; again that doesn't give us a license to.
b) You may know what human males look like, but you still don't know what Christ looked like. For you to fashion an image, you have to use your own imagination. That may be okay for art in general, but not for depicting the image of God.
You seem to be suggesting that the incarnation supercedes the 2nd commandment. I'm saying the incarnation has to be read in light of the 2nd commandment.
"That may be okay for art in general, but not for depicting the image of God."
ReplyDeleteWhy not?
You mean Christ, the God-Man? He was God. He was Man. The Father is God. The Holy Spirit is God.
The Holy Spirit, BTW, descended like a dove upon the Lord. There's another image.
LOUIS SAID:
ReplyDelete“I'm suggesting that at least one reason why we are not to make images of God, is that we do not know what he actually looks like. If he has in fact revealed to us something of His image, then I'm allowing that, at best, you can argue about depicting that image. But that gives you no license to go any further.”
Then it’s unclear where your disagreement lies.
“And when a man sees a woman fully dressed, he may mentally fill in the gaps and imagine her naked. That gives him no right actually to undress her. Perhaps that's a bad analogy, but surely you get my point.”
Yes, it’s a bad analogy:
i) There’s a difference between actually seeing something, and seeing a picturesque description of something. In the former case, you don’t need use your imagination since you already see what it’s like. And by the same token, you don’t have to fill in the blanks.
But it’s not possible to see a blank. If a picturesque description is incomplete, then we have to fill in the blanks to visualize the description.
ii) And if we’re dealing with an inspired picturesque description, are we not authorized to visualize what the writer describes for the benefit of the reader? Why draw a verbal picture for the reader if the reader ought to suppress his imagination?
“We are talking about a law that bans any artistic depiction of a particular subject.”
But that has to be harmonized with other passages of Scripture. In the course of progressive revelation, God himself inspires “self-portraits.”
“…again that doesn't give us a license to.”
Which assumes we need express license for whatever we do. But some things are permissible rather than prescriptive.
“You may know what human males look like, but you still don't know what Christ looked like. For you to fashion an image, you have to use your own imagination. That may be okay for art in general, but not for depicting the image of God.”
i) That simply begs the question.
ii) Moreover, it’s self-contradictory inasmuch as human males are also the image of God.
“You seem to be suggesting that the incarnation supercedes the 2nd commandment.”
No. I’m suggesting the 2nd commandment deals with a different type of case.
“I'm saying the incarnation has to be read in light of the 2nd commandment.”
On the face of it that’s quite anachronistic.
I really don't get this argument that we can't paint a picture of Jesus because we don't know what he looks like.
ReplyDeleteI am having trouble getting from here:
[1] We do not know 100% what Jesus looked liked.
to here
_________________
[C] Therefore, it is a violation of the second commandment to paint a picture of Jesus.
Could someone fill in the missing premises. I think a successful derivation of the above argument will need to invoke some pretty controversial and questionable assumptions.
The premise that is lacking is if making pictures of Jesus is an act of worship. If the 2nd commandment is going to be applied, the major premise, then it has to be related to the minor premise, making pictures of Jesus is an act of worship, since the 2nd commandment is about worship.
ReplyDeletePaul, I think the argument is:
ReplyDeleteGod prohibits us from making an image of Him.
Jesus is God.
Therefore God prohibits us from making an image of Jesus.
The response is normally something like, "well, God revealed to us His image in Jesus, therefore the prohibition does not extend to him."
One response to that is, "well, actually He didn't reveal Jesus' image to you, because you really don't know what he looks like." Therefore the objection fails.
At least that's the gist of it.
Beyond that, I'll just say that I respectfully disagree with you guys on this issue and leave it at that. Thanks for all your good work in defending the faith.
Louis
Vytautus,
ReplyDeleteThe premise that is lacking is if making pictures of Jesus is an act of worship. If the 2nd commandment is going to be applied, the major premise, then it has to be related to the minor premise, making pictures of Jesus is an act of worship, since the 2nd commandment is about worship."
No, that's not it. That argument would go through without relying on the "we don't know for 100% what Jesus looked like" premise. So that can't be it, and so therefore it doesn't answer my question. (BTW, you're gonna need a more powerful logic than Aristotelian major premise, minor premise, conclusion, to derive what you need.)
Lous,
God prohibits us from making an image of Him.
Jesus is God.
Therefore God prohibits us from making an image of Jesus."
Well, that's not the question I have. I thought there was some argument from not knowing what Christ looked like to the conclusion we shouldn't make a picture of him because it violates the 2nd commandment. You seem to say that that response is used as a defeater-defeater, though I can't say that I've seen people employing that argument you claim pro-image people typically make.
Besides that, the above argument is subject to at least a few responses. Like
1. God does not prohibit us from making images of humans.
2. Jesus is a human.
3. Therefore God does not prohibit us from making pictures of Jesus.
Or,
1* God prohibits us from making pictures of God, but not God-men.
2* Jesus is God-man.
3* Therefore, God does not prohibit us from making pictures of Jesus.
Or,
1** God prohibits us from making images him for worship.
2** Not all images of Christ as images for worship.
3** Therefore, not all images of Christ are prohibited.
Or,
1*** God prohibits us from making pictures of God's person.
2*** Picturing created properties *had by* persons is not creating pictures of God's person.
3*** Pictures of Christ are just pictures of created properties *had by* Christ.
4**** Therefore, pictures of Christ are not pictures of God's person.
5**** Therefore, pictures of Christ are not prohibited.
VYTAUTAS SAID:
ReplyDelete"The premise that is lacking is if making pictures of Jesus is an act of worship."
Why assume that's the all-purpose motive for making pictures of Jesus?
For instance, many great European painters did religious art. And it wasn't necessarily because they were pious. In some cases they were commissioned to do an altar painting or some such. They did it for the money.
Likewise, when I see a painting of Jesus by Da Vinci or Rembrandt or El Greco, I don't worship the painting, or the painter's conception of Jesus.
Rather, I see the painting for exactly what it is: one man's artistic depiction of Jesus. His interpretation of Jesus.
I don't view it any differently than a Monet painting of lilies.
Two contradictory objections to picturing Jesus:
ReplyDelete1. It's wrong to depict Jesus because we don't know what he looked like.
2. It's wrong to depict Jesus because no picture can represent his deity.
But the logic of (1) is that it would be permissible to depict Jesus if we knew what he looked like.
Yet, according to (2), even if we did know what Jesus looked like, it would still be impermissible. So (1) is disingenuous.
The obvious difference between the theopneustos inscripturated media communicating information about the various physical manifestations through which God has been pleased to reveal Himself by employing things such as anthropomorphisms, theophanies, and illustrative descriptions made by inspired authors, and man-made media [e.g. "artistic images"] which purport to communicate this selfsame information visually is that one of these two forms of media is forbidden by the 2nd Commandment and one isn't.
ReplyDeleteTaking things a step further Scipture also commands the preaching of the Word thus divinely sanctioning verbal media as God's divinely authorized means of conveying His Self-revelation among the nations.
One would think the overwhelming preponderance of Biblical admonitions, exhortations, warnings and threatenings against idolatry/images, and the pathetically sad spiritual reality of man's natural bent towards this abominable sin ought to give the local graven image e-pologists here at Triablogue pause, but evidently it doesn't.
Craig French said: it simply shows that Triablogue departs from these Confessions on this point. It may serve you well to consider how it is you depart from historic Protestantism.
Precisely. And I think people are beginning to catching on to this unfortunate fact...better late than never I suppose.
In Christ,
CD
Craig French said: it simply shows that Triablogue departs from these Confessions on this point. It may serve you well to consider how it is you depart from historic Protestantism.
ReplyDeleteCoram Deo said: Precisely. And I think people are beginning to catching on to this unfortunate fact...better late than never I suppose.
In Christ,
CD
8/12/2010 8:17 PM
Which rings hallow considering the blog team Coram Deo is a member of. Notice some of his team members: four-pointers, baptists, etc (not that I have anything against baptists, but "confessionalists" sure do). Another co-blogger writes, "Not that I hold to every facet of Reformed theology, but certainly most of the tenets including but not limited to salvation by grace through faith alone, election, predestination, perseverance of the saints, historical understanding of prophecy, and the regulative principle of worship. I also have become a proponent of the free NT church which is not bound to “Caesar” via the 501c3 corporate shackle that is controlled and regulated by the IRS."
http://defendingcontending.com/meet-the-defcon-team/
We take the confession seriously, like here:
I.
9. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.
10. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.
Ch. XXXI
3. All synods or councils, since the Apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.
Your strawman is on fire, Paul.
ReplyDeleteTriablogue, as you triumphantly demonstrate, self-defines as conscientiously and tenaciously Reformed and confessional, DefCon doesn't, and I've made no such claim.
Given these facts my pointing to Triablogue's inconsistency on upholding the confessions isn't, as you seem to wish to insinuate, hypocritical.
I wish to point out the delicious irony of your citation of a confession [and a very good one!], which points to the rule of Sola Scriptura, as a not so subtle maneuver to undermine the crystal-clear position of the selfsame confession on the content of the 2nd Commandment.
That's rich!
Perhaps this time you'll answer the question that Steve carefully evaded when I posed it to him previously, and which you avoided altogether:
Do you uphold the Westminster Standards and/or the Three Forms of Unity with respect to their confessional positions on the 2nd Commandment?
Inquiring minds want to know.
In Him,
CD
Coram Deo,
ReplyDeleteWhat straw man?
Triablogue, as you triumphantly demonstrate, self-defines as conscientiously and tenaciously Reformed and confessional, DefCon doesn't, and I've made no such claim."
Of course that's false in the sense you mean it, even with your over the top and emoitive langauge.
First, your statement is ambiguous. Are you speaking of quia or quatenus subscription?
Second, it is well known that Jason Engwer is not a Calvinist, and most/many of the team members here are Reformed baptists.
So, you're wrong there. Secondly, I just wonder where French is in chastising your blog. Notice that TriaBLOG was targeted, not specific triablogERS. So if the inclusion of some blogERS in a position is sufficient to indict the BLOG in that position, then by the same logic, so is your blog indicted.
"Given these facts my pointing to Triablogue's inconsistency on upholding the confessions isn't, as you seem to wish to insinuate, hypocritical."
Apart from the fatal ambiguity in your comments (as pointed out above), this statement is false (also pointed out above).
"I wish to point out the delicious irony of your citation of a confession [and a very good one!], which points to the rule of Sola Scriptura, as a not so subtle maneuver to undermine the crystal-clear position of the selfsame confession on the content of the 2nd Commandment.
What is ironic with my citation? What's funny is that you grant the citation and then appeal to the opinions of men---men whose arguments we've argued down. The Confession itself allows me to part ways with those men, just as it allowed the American Presbyterian church to part ways with the Old(er) confessions statements on the civil magistrate.
"That's rich!
What is, the egg on your face?
"Do you uphold the Westminster Standards and/or the Three Forms of Unity with respect to their confessional positions on the 2nd Commandment?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Presently, I agree with parts of it, not all of it. I simply don;t think the anti-images case has been made---not exegetically, and not logically. As Luther said,
"Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen."
"Hier stehe ich"
This is taken from Tabletalk Mag. Aug. 12-10; very Reformed ministry of RC Sproul and company (Thought it may help):
ReplyDeleteThe Second Commandment
“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” (v. 4).
- Exodus 20:4–6
Paul in Romans 1:18–32 tells us that fallen humanity’s tendency is not toward atheism but rather to idolatry. Having rejected the God who does exist, sinners are prone not to abandon worship altogether; rather, we make up all manner of other gods to “take the place” of the Creator of heaven and earth. Apart from grace, we remain in Adam, hating the One who has revealed Himself in nature and in the Bible, and we fashion other deities in our own image. Some people make statues to represent these gods — consider the many deities of Hinduism, for example. Others create mental ideas about the god they want to worship — “my God would certainly never condemn anyone to hell.” The fallen human heart, John Calvin reminds us, is an idol factory that is ever coming up with new ways to image false gods.
This is the context in which we should consider the second commandment, which prohibits the fashioning of idols (Ex. 20:4–6). Due to our proclivity toward idolatry, we are to shun any attempt to imagine God apart from His revealed Word. The Lord has the absolute right to reveal Himself as He chooses, and He has chosen not to reveal His Spirit in visible form (Deut. 4:15–31). To attempt to depict the divine apart from Jesus the Christ, however well-intentioned, is to craft an idol and violate God’s prerogative to reveal Himself in whatever manner He so chooses. It also undermines His commands as to how He will be worshiped.
Many within the Reformed tradition have interpreted the second commandment as prohibiting all art within the worship setting, but imagery of every kind cannot be what this stipulation proscribes. God commands Israel to craft images of cherubim only a few chapters after He prohibits them from fashioning a depiction of Himself (Ex. 26:1). The Lord would certainly never contradict Himself; therefore, many scholars have concluded that the only thing prohibited in the second commandment is a picture or other image of that which has not been visibly revealed of the Godhead — the divine essence. Depictions of that which has been revealed, including all of creation, are allowed. To be sure, there may be some contexts where the introduction of such images may not be wise, as they might prompt the people to worship falsely. Still, there is no universal rule against art in our places of worship.
Coram Deo
Some people will disagree, saying that there is to be no art in the worship setting. While these opinions should be respected, we believe that to prohibit art is to neglect the fact that God is the fountainhead of all beauty. Whatever art is in our places of corporate worship, may we not forget that the Lord is indeed beautiful (Ps. 27:4) and is to be worshiped according to His unsurpassable loveliness."
Louis,
ReplyDeleteGod prohibits us from making an image of Him.
Jesus is God.
Therefore God prohibits us from making an image of Jesus.
Using this same pattern of reasoning, I could also make the following arguments:
1) Jesus is God.
2) Jesus was tempted.
3) Therefore God was tempted. (This contradicts Jas. 1:13)
1) Jesus is God.
2) Jesus died.
3) Therefore, God died.
Or even more absurdly:
1) Jesus has a body.
2) Jesus is God.
3) Therefore, God has a body.
1) Jesus is human.
2) Jesus is God.
3) Therefore, God is human.
1) Jesus is God.
2) Jesus was born of a virgin.
3) Therefore, God was born of a virgin.
1) Jesus is God.
2) Jesus is one person.
3) Therefore, God is one person.
1) Jesus is God.
2) God is the Trinity.
3) Therefore, Jesus is the Trinity.
1) Jesus is God.
2) The Father is God.
3) Therefore, Jesus is the Father.
These arguments, like the one you presented above, all fail in step (3), because they fallaciously attempt a substitution of identicals on terms that are not identical. The term "Jesus" is not identical to the term "God", since the latter term encompasses the Trinity and its Persons, and not just the Second Person. Thus, this argument against making images of Christ is fallacious, for the same reasons that the latter eight arguments are also fallacious. If image-making of Christ is to be proved sinful, a better argument than this needs to be made.
"No one has seen God" (John 1:18)and ""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
ReplyDeleteIn light of these 2 scriptures, it is amazing there is even a discussion on the subject of picturing God. Picturing Christ is one discussion, but to picture God has only been held by the RCC and never by Protestants until the recent liberalization of evangelicalism.
Paul Manata, your reasoning is fallacious as Matt has shown.
ReplyDeleteYour reasoning should go like this: 1. Jesus is God. We know he was also man.
2. There are no restrictions to depicting man, but there are restrictions to depicting God.
3. Therefore we should go with the higher standard, which is not depicting Jesus because He is God.
Steve, if God sends you a revelation of prophesy and tells you to depict it like Daniel and John did, then go ahead. But I doubt most protestants would make this argument for why they depict Christ. To say that "Daniel and John did it so we can do it too" is to say "Peter raised the dead and we can do it to."
Sticks and stones...
ReplyDeleteSo we have Triablogger Paul Manata on the record as a functional icono-pologist.
Although I'm saddened by your embrace of gross error, at least you're man enough to come clean as to where you stand.
Steve,
Your posts on the subject would indicate that you are you in substantial, if not complete agreement with Paul's articulated position herein, is this accurate?
In Him,
CD
donsands,
ReplyDeleteThe Lord would certainly never contradict Himself; therefore, many scholars have concluded that the only thing prohibited in the second commandment is a picture or other image of that which has not been visibly revealed of the Godhead — the divine essence.
LOL! How absurd! This only serves to demonstrate the decline of allegedly Reformed theology.
I'd like R.C. and his boys at Table Talk to tell that to the Israelites who experienced God's burning wrath due to their idolatry/imagery.
Are we really to believe that the idolatry/imagery that God abominates, and judged severely in the OT was an "image of that which has not been visibly revealed of the Godhead — the divine essence."
Such is an insipidly stupid and scripturally unsupportable claim.
In Christ,
CD
If image-making of Christ is to be proved sinful, a better argument than this needs to be made.
ReplyDeleteHow about the 2nd Commandment which expressly forbids human efforts to image God via visual media [i.e. graven images]? God exists in three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
Therefore God implicitly forbids human efforts to image His divine Being by representing any of the divine Persons via visual media [i.e. graven images].
The 2nd Commandment is expression of God's eternally unchanging and unchangable holy character and will, therefore to violate its prohibitions against human efforts to image His divine Being by representing any of the divine Persons via visual media [i.e. graven images] is sinful.
However forgiveness for violating God's law is available to all those who repent, turning away from their sin with a contrite and humble heart, and placing their trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the end of the law for all those who believe.
In Christ,
CD
mikeb,
ReplyDeletePaul Manata, your reasoning is fallacious as Matt has shown.
Just for the record, I do not believe that this is the case - at least in the arguments above. For instance, consider Paul's first argument:
1. God does not prohibit us from making images of humans.
2. Jesus is a human.
3. Therefore God does not prohibit us from making pictures of Jesus.
This does not rely upon a fallacious substitution of identicals, as do the arguments I dealt with. In fact, it doesn't rely upon the substitution of identicals at all.
CD,
ReplyDeleteHow about the 2nd Commandment which expressly forbids human efforts to image God via visual media [i.e. graven images]? God exists in three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
Therefore God implicitly forbids human efforts to image His divine Being by representing any of the divine Persons via visual media [i.e. graven images].
I) Perhaps you ought to read Steve's post a little more carefully. The 2nd Commandment does not "expressly" forbid human efforts to image God, because that is not what the commandment expressly states. One can claim that it does forbid such efforts, as a logical consequence of what it expressly states, but what you claim that 2nd Commandment "expressly" states is not what is therein expressly stated.
II) Your argument itself is either a non sequitur, or a straw man. If by "human efforts to image His divine Being by representing any of the divine Persons via visual media" you mean that every effort to image any of the divine Persons is an effort to image God, then your argument is a non-sequitur. From
1) The 2nd commandment forbids X concerning God,
and
2) God exists in three persons,
it does not follow that
3) The 2nd commandment forbids X concerning the divine persons.
What is true of God is not necessarily true of the individual divine Persons, and vice versa. Morevoer, if this is the intended sense of that statement, then it is an implausible assertion. In general, it is not true that "if X is true of a divine person, then X is true of God." For instance:
1) A divine person (Jesus) died, therefore God died.
2) A divine person (Jesus) was tempted, therefore God was tempted.
3) A divine person (Jesus) was born of a virgin, therefore God was born of a virgin.
4) A divine person (Jesus) is human, therefore God is human.
5) A divine person (Jesus) has a body, therefore God has a body.
Given that the principle "if X is true of a divine person, then X is true of God" fails in general, upon what grounds do you assert that it holds in the case that X refers to "attempted imaging"? What is your argument?
On the other hand, if by "human efforts to image His divine Being by representing any of the divine Persons via visual media" you are referring to efforts to image God by imaging Jesus (as though there were possibly methods of imaging Jesus that didn't entail an attempt to image God), then your argument is a straw man, as none of the Christians that I am aware of are trying to image God by imaging Jesus. Imaging a divine person incarnate, yes. Imaging God, in "His divine Being", no. So, if this is the intended sense of that statement, your argument is inapplicable. Either way, it fails to establish that imaging Christ is a sin.
CD,
ReplyDeleteHow about the 2nd Commandment which expressly forbids human efforts to image God via visual media [i.e. graven images]? God exists in three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
Therefore God implicitly forbids human efforts to image His divine Being by representing any of the divine Persons via visual media [i.e. graven images].
A couple of comments:
I) The 2nd Commandment does not "expressly" forbid human efforts to image God, because that is not what the commandment expressly states. One can claim that it does forbid such efforts, as a logical consequence of what it expressly states, but what you claim that 2nd Commandment "expressly" states is not what is therein expressly stated.
II) Your argument itself is either a non sequitur, or inapplicable. If by "human efforts to image His divine Being by representing any of the divine Persons via visual media" you mean that every effort to image any of the divine Persons is an effort to image God, then your argument is a non-sequitur. From
1) The 2nd commandment forbids X concerning God,
and
2) God exists in three persons,
it does not follow that
3) The 2nd commandment forbids X concerning the divine persons.
What is true of God is not necessarily true of the individual divine Persons, and vice versa. Morevoer, if this is the intended sense of that statement, it is an implausible assertion. In general, it is not true that "if X is true of a divine person, then X is true of God." For instance:
1) A divine person (Jesus) died, therefore God died.
2) A divine person (Jesus) was tempted, therefore God was tempted.
3) A divine person (Jesus) was born of a virgin, therefore God was born of a virgin.
4) A divine person (Jesus) is human, therefore God is human.
5) A divine person (Jesus) has a body, therefore God has a body.
6) A divine person is a single person, therefore God is a single person.
Given that the principle "if X is true of a divine person, then X is true of God" fails in general, upon what grounds do you assert that it holds in the case that X refers to "attempted imaging"? What is your argument?
On the other hand, if by "human efforts to image His divine Being by representing any of the divine Persons via visual media" you are referring to efforts to image God by imaging Jesus (as though there were possibly methods of imaging Jesus that didn't entail an attempt to image God), then your argument is inapplicable, as none of the Christians that I am aware of are trying to image God by imaging Jesus. Imaging a divine person incarnate, yes. Imaging God, in "His divine Being", no. So, if this is the intended sense of that statement, your argument is inapplicable to such people (which covers those evangelicals who image Jesus). Either way, it fails to establish that imaging Christ is necessarily a sin.
matt,
ReplyDeleteJesus was [and is] the God-man. As I've pointed out elsewhere, attempting to image His humanity apart from His divinity via visual media is to fall into functional Nestorianism by effectively bifurcating His two inseparable natures.
The sophistry you employ to defend wanton violation of the 2nd Commandment might have been interesting if you were a Jew explaining your reasoning to Moses in the desert of Sinai a few thousand years ago as you died in a hail of stones, but here it simply comes across as obstinate, stubborn, willful pride and presumption.
I'm pretty sure that character trait won't serve you very well on judgment day.
In Christ,
CD
CD,
ReplyDeleteHow about the sentence before the one you quoted:
"Many within the Reformed tradition have interpreted the second commandment as prohibiting all art within the worship setting, but imagery of every kind cannot be what this stipulation proscribes. God commands Israel to craft images of cherubim only a few chapters after He prohibits them from fashioning a depiction of Himself (Ex. 26:1)."
God told His people to not make any images. Then God told them to make images.
What do you think about all the graven images in the Tabernacle?
Matt, I was not attempting to make a syllogistic case for prohibiting images of Christ. I was simply showing Paul where his question fit into the overall picture. It was very loosely drawn.
ReplyDeleteLouis,
ReplyDeleteMy argument was not fallacious, and the purpose of my argument was to show you that your little syllogism gets us nowhere. I asked for someone to show me how they were getting to the conclusion, since now you have said you have not presented that argument, are you seriously asking people to accept the view that images of Christ is a violation of the second commandment when you admit the conclusion has not been supported by premises which truth-preservingly lead to the conclusion?
Coram Deo,
ReplyDeleteSo we have Triablogger Paul Manata on the record as a functional icono-pologist.
Although I'm saddened by your embrace of gross error, at least you're man enough to come clean as to where you stand.
You should be saddened by the fact that your best (and only) "argument" for your position is: "But a bunch of Reformed guys are against it."
Paul,
ReplyDeleteI did not say your argument was fallacious. I said I did not draw my syllogism as an attempt to make an air-tight logical argument. You asked where a particular issue fit in; I outlined the flow of argument in very loose terms to show you. You seemed to understand that in your previous response to me. I'm not sure what's got under your craw this time around.
I'm not interested in debating this issue with you guys. I said my piece and respectfully bowed out, giving you the last word. I only popped back in to keep someone from misinterpreting what I said previously.
Louis, I'm sorry, you're right, that was Mikeb.
ReplyDeletek, no prob. :)
ReplyDeleteCORAM DEO SAID:
ReplyDelete“The obvious difference between the theopneustos inscripturated media communicating information about the various physical manifestations through which God has been pleased to reveal Himself by employing things such as anthropomorphisms, theophanies, and illustrative descriptions made by inspired authors, and man-made media [e.g. ‘artistic images’] which purport to communicate this selfsame information visually is that one of these two forms of media is forbidden by the 2nd Commandment and one isn't.”
Several problems:
i) The 2nd commandment doesn’t draw that distinction. The 2nd commandment doesn’t distinguish between permissible inspired depictions of God and impermissible uninspired depictions of God. Therefore, you are once again departing from your prooftext by interpolating qualifications which are not contained in the actual wording of your prooftext.
ii) In addition, your reply is a bait-and-switch. You originally said: “The objection at hand is the violation of God's prohibition against human beings' efforts to image Him contra the 2nd Commandment…Thus human efforts to image the 2nd Person of the Triune Godhead is prohibited by the 2nd Commandment.”
Well, Daniel and John (to take two examples) saw visions of God/Christ, and they wrote down what they saw. So, unless you deny the dual authorship of Scripture, you can’t exclude “human effort” from their picturesque descriptions of God/Christ.
iii) You can belatedly distinguish between inspired and uninspired human efforts, but that represents another ex post facto qualification that you didn’t include in the statement of yousr I was responding to.
And, what is more, you can’t find that distinction in the wording of the 2nd commandment. Every time you defend your position, you have to tack on yet another caveat which takes you one more step away from your prooftext.
Cont. The problem you have is that you’re starting with your conclusion, then casting about for supporting arguments. As a result, you’re making things up on the fly.
ReplyDelete“Taking things a step further Scipture also commands the preaching of the Word thus divinely sanctioning verbal media as God's divinely authorized means of conveying His Self-revelation among the nations.”
Which is not the argument that Craig French actually used. He appealed to what’s better or worse (“are images constructed by man as good as the revelation God…”).
“One would think the overwhelming preponderance of Biblical admonitions, exhortations, warnings and threatenings against idolatry/images, and the pathetically sad spiritual reality of man's natural bent towards this abominable sin ought to give the local graven image e-pologists here at Triablogue pause, but evidently it doesn't.”
That’s just rhetorical bluff and bluster to dodge the exegetical arguments that I’ve presented.
“Precisely. And I think people are beginning to catching on to this unfortunate fact...better late than never I suppose.”
We’re holding you to the same standards we use on Catholics, Arminians, &c. Sound exegesis. Sound reasoning.
MIKEB SAID:
“Steve, if God sends you a revelation of prophesy and tells you to depict it like Daniel and John did, then go ahead.”
That’s simplistic because it fails to distinguish between what is prescribed, proscribed, and permissible.
“But I doubt most protestants would make this argument for why they depict Christ. To say that ‘Daniel and John did it so we can do it too’ is to say "Peter raised the dead and we can do it to.’”
That comparison is intellectually confused, for the question at issue is not what we are able to do, but what we are permitted to do.
CORAM DEO SAID:
“In contrast to offering plausible counterarguments and qualifications in defense of man's liberty to image any [or all?] of the three Persons of God contra the Bible, the Reformed confessions, and the overwhelming exegetical consensus of Reformed churchmen throughout church history perhaps you'd be interested in setting forth a positive case for God-honoring and Biblically sanctioned visual-media depictions of various members of the Godhead?”
Since I presented a point-by-point rebuttal of your arguments, I take it that this is your tacit concession speech; since you can’t refute my rebuttal, you’re now attempting to shift the burden of proof.
However, I don’t need to make a positive case for pictures of Jesus to show that your case is fatally flawed. And I only got into this debate in the first place because you and some others took issue with an innocuous little cartoon posted by a team member.
“Steve, Your posts on the subject would indicate that you are you in substantial, if not complete agreement with Paul's articulated position herein, is this accurate?”
Affirmative.
Louis,
ReplyDeleteMatt, I was not attempting to make a syllogistic case for prohibiting images of Christ. I was simply showing Paul where his question fit into the overall picture. It was very loosely drawn.
I simply responded to the argument you presented, as did Paul. In my comment, I made no assumptions as to whether or not you actually accepted the argument that you presented.
CD,
ReplyDeleteJesus was [and is] the God-man. As I've pointed out elsewhere, attempting to image His humanity apart from His divinity via visual media is to fall into functional Nestorianism by effectively bifurcating His two inseparable natures.
Making a claim is not the same as demonstrating a claim. What is your argument for this assertion? On the other hand, I can also claim that Paul has elsewhere thoroughly refuted your assertions in this regard.
The sophistry you employ to defend wanton violation of the 2nd Commandment...
This might actually mean something to me if you could demonstrate how my argument was fallacious. In my experience, you are long on claim, but short on argument, so this is a good opportunity to prove me wrong.
but here it simply comes across as obstinate, stubborn, willful pride and presumption.
I would humbly point out that your refusal to engage in exegesis and sound argumentation and to interact with my arguments in any meaningful fashion also "comes across" this way.
I'm pretty sure that character trait won't serve you very well on judgment day.
Then I'm not the only person who won't be doing too well.
James 2:13: "judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful."
Matt. 7:2: "in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
"That's a false dichotomy. What about artistic depictions of Daniel and John's recorded visions?"
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't really address what louis said. Louis said: "That is not a basis for people today to make up their own representations of God, whether incarnate or not."
Does anyone seriously contend that artists are merely painting what Daniel and/or John describe?
- TurretinFan
"You should be saddened by the fact that your best (and only) 'argument' for your position is: 'But a bunch of Reformed guys are against it.'"
ReplyDeleteThat's very far from a fair representation of Coram Deo's position. Even Steve's post identifies and attempts to respond to other aspects of Coram Deo's argument.
And it is not just a bunch of Reformed guys - as you probably know.
- TurretinFan
TF,
ReplyDeleteThat was his position after I got through with it. Also notice that he just calls arguments against his view "sophistry." You can agree with his conclusion, but as any objective person can see, his *reasons for* his conclusion are not sufficient to warrant the conclusion.
Steve wrote: Two contradictory objections to picturing Jesus:
ReplyDelete1. It's wrong to depict Jesus because we don't know what he looked like.
2. It's wrong to depict Jesus because no picture can represent his deity.
But the logic of (1) is that it would be permissible to depict Jesus if we knew what he looked like.
Yet, according to (2), even if we did know what Jesus looked like, it would still be impermissible. So (1) is disingenuous.
This is not a valid critique. Not every objection has to be the last objection. For example, one could object to the Superbowl on the grounds that it violates the sabbath and is a blood sport. Even if they rescheduled it for another day, the blood sport objection would remain. That doesn't make the sabbath violation objection "disingenuous."
The same is - at least in theory - true of the two objections you've identified. There's actually no contradiction between the two objections - and there is nothing disingenuous about posing objections that are not the last objection.
- TurretinFan
"Also notice that he just calls arguments against his view 'sophistry.'"
ReplyDeleteI certainly don't approve him using that approach, and I can understand that it might provoke a response in kind.
I sense that he's getting frustrated by the responses he's hearing.
"You can agree with his conclusion, but as any objective person can see, his *reasons for* his conclusion are not sufficient to warrant the conclusion."
I do agree with his conclusion, and consequently there is some danger that I won't pay as much attention to his arguments as to those of his opponents.
- TurretinFan
TF,
ReplyDelete"I sense that he's getting frustrated by the responses he's hearing."
I find that is common when someone is just so sure of their conclusion, testing it mainly in friendly territory, and then they find that others who don't see things his way won't let him get away with the assertions and grantings he is used to getting. All of a sudden he finds it is harder to *make* his case than it is to *state* his case. Then, if he is shown that the reasons he thought were good are actually not good, and his argument is not battle tested and is actually held more on emotional grounds than rational grounds, it is very easy to get frustrated. You want people to "just see it your way," but you don't know how to get them to see it your way.
Paul said: I find that is common when someone is just so sure of their conclusion, testing it mainly in friendly territory
ReplyDeleteStrange, this doesn't seem like "mainly friendly territory" for those who are "anti-image", in fact it seems rather hostile in the main.
Or perhaps that's just more of my emotionalism.
What do you believe the 2nd Commandment prohibits? Are all images acceptable so long as they're not used for any religious purpose that would invoke some form of worship/adoration? Are man-made visual images which purport to depict the Father and the Holy Spirit also acceptable alongside a visual image purporting to depict Jesus Christ?
In Him,
CD
TURRETINFAN SAID:
ReplyDelete"Does anyone seriously contend that artists are merely painting what Daniel and/or John describe?"
i) Since that's not a thesis I've undertaken to defend, that's not my concern.
ii) Moreover, it's logical to establish one thing at a time. Is there a basic principle which we can establish, before we discuss possible extensions of the principle?
Turretinfan said...
ReplyDelete"This is not a valid critique. Not every objection has to be the last objection. For example, one could object to the Superbowl on the grounds that it violates the sabbath and is a blood sport. Even if they rescheduled it for another day, the blood sport objection would remain."
You propose a comparison, but you don't take the next step and show that your illustration is directly comparable to my objection.
"You want people to 'just see it your way,' but you don't know how to get them to see it your way."
ReplyDeleteThere may be some amount of that going on, but I think he's frankly shocked by lines like: "Actually, God expresses himself in many different ways. In his Word. Theophanies. The tabernacle. The Incarnation." as a response to “God has condescended to express Himself in His Word in many wonderful and glorious ways. His Word is His highest and fullest self-expression to mankind.”
or the attempted reductio "With this in mind it becomes obvious that Daniel, John, et al. are to be rebuked and called to repentance for their ungodly perversions."
It's a serious topic and CD doesn't get the sense that you all are taking it seriously.
-TurretinFan
Steve wrote: i) Since that's not a thesis I've undertaken to defend, that's not my concern.
ReplyDeletea) Your apparent thesis was that it would be proper for artists to merely paint what Daniel and/or John describe.
b) But since that's wrong (I guess) what thesis have you undertaken to defend?
Steve continued: ii) Moreover, it's logical to establish one thing at a time. Is there a basic principle which we can establish, before we discuss possible extensions of the principle?
What is the basic principle you are trying to establish? (see (a) above for the apparent basic principle)
- TurretinFan
"You propose a comparison, but you don't take the next step and show that your illustration is directly comparable to my objection."
ReplyDeleteSince I compared my illustration to your objection, it's clearly comparable at least on that level. If you think there's some reason that it can't or shouldn't be compared, I'm open to such counter-objections.
TURRETINFAN SAID:
ReplyDeletea) Your apparent thesis was that it would be proper for artists to merely paint what Daniel and/or John describe.
b) But since that's wrong (I guess) what thesis have you undertaken to defend?
***************************
The question is not whether you correct identified my thesis. Rather, you said: "Does anyone seriously contend that artists are merely painting what Daniel and/or John describe?"
I've not been defending the thesis that artists should go beyond "merely painting what Daniel and/or John describe."
It looked that way. I'm glad that wasn't your thesis. What was your thesis?
ReplyDeleteCoram Deo,
ReplyDelete"I'd like R.C. and his boys at Table Talk to tell that to the Israelites who experienced God's burning wrath due to their idolatry/imagery."
Here's RC's following day devotional teaching, which I thought was fitting:
"“All who fashion idols are nothing, and the things they delight in do not profit. Their witnesses neither see nor know, that they may be put to shame” (v. 9).
- Isaiah 44:9–20
Despite his questionable Christian orthodoxy and lifestyle, the British poet W.H. Auden was able to capture something of the attitude of fallen humanity toward the Creator. In his long poem For the Time Being, Auden puts into verse the unspoken prayers that sinners would offer to the Almighty if given half the chance: “O God, put away justice and truth for we cannot understand them and we do not want them… . Be interesting and weak like us, and we will love you as we love ourselves.” Apart from the intervention of the Lord’s sovereign grace, we detest the God who has revealed Himself and His character, preferring a tame, manageable god unworthy of worship.
The first commandment deals with our proclivity to choose other deities to worship besides the one, true creator God, while the second commandment addresses the sin of making God after our own image and likeness (Ex. 20:1–6). This was a perennial problem for the Israelites, who created visual representations of Yahweh throughout the centuries. It remains a problem for the church today, not so much in the construction of artwork that depicts the divine essence but in our proclivity to water down or ignore God’s wrath or pervert His love to make Him an indulgent grandfather, passing this idol off as Yahweh, the covenant Lord of Israel and the only true God. Within the visible covenant community, too many men and women are calling for us to deny the faith of our fathers and mothers because they find God’s holiness offensive, His grace cheap, and His Word worthless.
Such idol-making is foolish at best, as Isaiah reveals in today’s passage. The prophet mocks those people who from the same block of wood make their idols but also procure fuel for the fire. Though the craftsman should see that these dual uses for the wood render the constructed deity lifeless and impotent to save, the artisan misses this fact because His heart is deluded. Instead of seeking to worship the One who is able to redeem, he would rather turn from this Savior to a god that is more to his liking, even if this god is in fact no god at all (Isa. 44:9–20).
God forbids us to depict Him according to a pattern we find to be more palatable than how He is described in Scripture. If we would know Him, then we must look to the one image of Himself that He has approved — Jesus Christ, “the image of the invisible God” in whom “all the fullness of God” is “pleased to dwell” (Col. 1:15–20).
coram deo
The Creator has indeed revealed His express image in the Lord Jesus Christ; therefore, may we look to Him in order to understand who God is. Do you want to understand God’s kindness? Look to Jesus. Do you want to know God’s righteous anger? Look to Jesus. Everything that God is we can see in the person of Christ Jesus, and to conceive of Him in any way beyond what He has revealed in His Word is speculative and potentially idolatrous."
CORAM DEO SAID:
ReplyDelete"matt, The sophistry you employ to defend wanton violation of the 2nd Commandment might have been interesting if you were a Jew explaining your reasoning to Moses in the desert of Sinai a few thousand years ago as you died in a hail of stones, but here it simply comes across as obstinate, stubborn, willful pride and presumption. I'm pretty sure that character trait won't serve you very well on judgment day."
Your scarecrow costume is getting pretty tattered.
Your scarecrow costume is getting pretty tattered.
ReplyDeleteAs is your fancy dancing, Steve.
I couldn't help noticing that you fell uncharacteristically silent when your characteristic vagaries began to be carefully challenged by TF.
I for one would guess that you're pretty good at recognizing scarecrows and other men made of straw since you're manifestly talented at manufacturing and setting them ablaze here at Triablogue.
I think it will be most interesting to see how long your fancy footwork can hold up under more careful scrutiny over time.
On that note, do the trustees at RTS know you repudiate the Westminster Larger Catechism on this point?
Presumably you've notified them in writing of your position as required in the by-laws.
From the RTS Statement of Beliefs:
To ensure that the original purpose and doctrinal distinctives of the seminary are maintained, each member of the board of trustees, faculty, and ministerial advisors is required initially and annually to subscribe to the following Statement of Belief and Covenant as set forth in the seminary's by-laws:
"Believing that there is but one only, the living and true God, and that there are three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost; and that these three are one and the same in substance, equal in power and glory, and with solemn awareness of accountability to Him in all that we feel, think, say and do, the undersigned engages in and subscribes to this declaration:
1. All Scripture is self-attesting and, being truth, requires the human mind wholeheartedly to subject itself in all its activities to the authority of Scripture complete as the Word of God, standing written in the sixty-six books of the Holy Bible, all therein being verbally inspired by Almighty God and therefore without error.
2. Reformed theology as set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms as originally adopted by the Presbyterian Church in the United States is the system of doctrine taught in Scripture; and, therefore, it is to be learned, taught and proclaimed for the edification and government of Christian people, for the propagation of the faith and for the evangelization of the world by the power of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
3. And I do solemnly promise and engage not to inculcate, sanction, teach or insinuate anything that appears to me to contradict or contravene, either directly or implicitly, any element of that system of doctrine.
4. NOW THEREFORE, the undersigned in the presence of God, states and signifies that he consents, agrees, and binds himself to all of the foregoing without any reservation whatsoever, and that he further obligates himself immediately to notify in writing the trustees should a change of any kind take place in his belief and feeling not in accord with this statement. Amen."
In Christ,
CD
CORAM DEO SAID:
ReplyDelete"I couldn't help noticing that you fell uncharacteristically silent when your characteristic vagaries began to be carefully challenged by TF."
Then you need a hearing-aid since I've been responding to all of his inquiries.
Moreover, I've also communicated with him via email. Your ignorance is not the measure of knowledge.
As for RTS:
i) I'm not on the staff or faculty.
ii) RTS is affiliated with the PCA, which doesn't enforce the Puritan theory of worship.
iii) It's well-known that not all RTS faculty subscribe to the Puritan theory of worship.
iv) Strict subscription is not even a requirement for ordination.
So you're shooting blanks. Having lost the argument, you resort to empty threats.
As I said, your scarecrow costume is pretty tattered.
So then,
ReplyDeletea) RTS doesn't practice what they preach, or
b) at a minimum they don't believe it's important to actually uphold the distinctives they claim, and;
c) this is a well-known fact, and everybody it cool with it.
Does that about sum things up?
This has been a very profitable and instructive discussion, and I'm beginning to understand more clearly now; see I was under the apparently false impression that it actually mattered to you what one believed, why one believed it, and how those beliefs worked out in day to day life before the Lord.
I guess this isn't the case after all, at least not at RTS nor here at Trialogue, which thing helps to explain the strange and unscriptural position you've undertaken to defend re: man-made visual images purporting to depict God; at least God the Son in His humiliation.
If Sola Scriptura is truly your authority then I don't expect it will take too much longer to dismantle your lego-land facade, even for an ignorant, tattered scarecrow like me.
In Christ,
CD
A compilation of most if not all our posts on the topic of graven images and the second commandment can be found here.
ReplyDelete