David VanDrunen has written a couple of articles on pictures of Christ. He opposes pictures of Christ. However, as a preliminary exercise in setting forth his own case, he evaluates the pros and cons of the issue. In sifting the arguments, he undercuts some of the traditional objections to pictures of Christ:
********************************
[Quote] To set the stage for my argument, I first consider briefly the sorts of rationales that have traditionally animated Reformed expositions of the second commandment in regard to images of the Deity. In general, a rather straightforward deontological claim has served as foundation for the Reformed position: scripture prohibits making and using images of God, and thus Christians ought to avoid them, including representations of Jesus Christ, since he is himself true and eternal God. However, Reformed theologians were not always agreed on the conclusive value of a simple appeal to the Decalogue,6and thus have searched for rationales to explain why God would impose such a duty and why such a duty still remains. There are five distinct – though certainly related – lines of argument that I identify. I find these rationales of various degrees of persuasiveness, and I cannot address each one specifically. Here I focus on the fifth, however, which has proven especially important and yet, at the same time, rather vulnerable to objection from the perspective of Catholic Christianity.
6 Some scholars have noted that Luther’s early colleague and later opponent, Andreas Karlstadt, based his opposition to images on appeals to the Old Law to a much greater degree than did Swiss Reformers Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin. For example, see Sergiusz Michalski, The Reformation and the Visual Arts: The Protestant Image Question in Western and Eastern Europe(New York: Routledge, 1993), p. 54; and Steinmetz, ‘The Reformation’, pp. 258–60. On Calvin’s analysis of the second commandment, see Michalski, The Reformation, pp. 65–6.
http://www.oceansideurc.org/storage/Van%20Drunen%20Iconoclasm.pdf
"As an ontological argument-namely, that visual representations of a person have to convey attributes that are inherently invisible, or else be false-it seems quite weak...Defenders of pictures of Christ object to traditional arguments that their position is inherently Nestorian (insofar as pictures are unable to communicate Jesus' deity and hence they separate his human and divine natures). I suggested above that if the traditional argument is understood in an ontological sense it is not very effective. Scripture indicates that there was nothing distinctive about Jesus' outward appearance. No one could have picked him out of a police lineup as the eternal Son of God. He could have been photographed or drawn and the product would have naturally and necessarily portrayed ordinary human features."
David VanDrunen, "Pictures of Jesus," The Confessional Presbyterian 5 (2009), 218,225.
"He could have been photographed or drawn and the product would have naturally and necessarily portrayed ordinary human features."
ReplyDeleteThat's quite spot on. And I would have to think back when our Savior walked this earth, that of the tens of thousands of people who saw Him, and loved Him, and even those who didn't love Him, would have sketched a portrait of Him.
maybe not. But if someone did, would that have been wrong?
Yes
ReplyDeleteIn a sense the argument over if someone could have drawn a picture of Jesus who saw Him is irrelevant, because we don't have that problem today. Personally I agree with Dr. VanDrunen that for those who saw Christ it would not have been wrong. However, the question today is, is it ok to devise a picture of Jesus according to our own imagination and invention? For those who say it is where do they draw the line and by what standard are they drawing the line?
ReplyDeleteGuys,
ReplyDelete1. DVD says that a simple appeal to the decalogue hasn't been enough to get you to the conclusion that images of Christ are immoral. This simple appeal to the decalogue is a position we have argued against and the anti-images people have used.
2. DVD didn't say that someone in the 1st century could have drawn a picture of Christ, he says that there's nothing about the *physical* appearance that have to portray the "person" or a "divine nature." Again, this has been what we have said while, if the comboxes are checked, the anti-images folk have used this very argument. Indeed, the very charge of Nestorianism was raised against us based on our argument that picturing physical properties didn't necessarily picture personhood or divine nature.
So nothing DVD says here can get an "amen" by the anti-images folk. DVD is admitting the points we have made vis-a-vis the anti-images proponents. DVD is not making the point Ronnie thinks he is. In fact, DVD thinks the opposite. DVD uses the "ethical" argument (rather than the ontological, as he calls it) to claim that a picture of Christ, any pictute of Christ, either involves one in worship of that picture, or in treating it as common.
So, DVD is basically saying--though he didn't intend to--that the majority of arguments T-blog has used are on spot, while the majority of arguments the anti-images folk at T-blog have used, are bad arguments.
It is also interesting to note the difference between Ronnie and Vytautus. One says 1c images would have been acceptable, the other says they would not have.
1. DVD says that a simple appeal to the decalogue hasn't been enough to get you to the conclusion that images of Christ are immoral. This simple appeal to the decalogue is a position we have argued against and the anti-images people have used.
ReplyDeleteI haven’t used that approach.
2. DVD didn't say that someone in the 1st century could have drawn a picture of Christ, he says that there's nothing about the *physical* appearance that have to portray the "person" or a "divine nature." Again, this has been what we have said while, if the comboxes are checked, the anti-images folk have used this very argument. Indeed, the very charge of Nestorianism was raised against us based on our argument that picturing physical properties didn't necessarily picture personhood or divine nature.
I’ve never raised the charge of Nestorianism so that doesn’t apply to me either. However, I did make the point that someone in the 1st century who saw Christ would not be committing an immoral act. As a matter of fact I think this is self evident true, because all those who saw Christ could not do away with the picture of Him in their mind. More Dr VanDrunen's point below.
So nothing DVD says here can get an "amen" by the anti-images folk. DVD is admitting the points we have made vis-a-vis the anti-images proponents. DVD is not making the point Ronnie thinks he is. In fact, DVD thinks the opposite. DVD uses the "ethical" argument (rather than the ontological, as he calls it) to claim that a picture of Christ, any pictute of Christ, either involves one in worship of that picture, or in treating it as common.
On the contrary I can “amen” almost if not everything Dr VanDrunen has said and more specifically the most salient point that images of Christ today are wrong. So for all your supposedly agreement with him you are apart where it really counts, because you believe no image of Christ is wrong, even though you contend some maybe disrespectful.
On your other point about ethical vs ontological. Dr VanDrunen is disagreeing with the ontological argument that an image of Christ is wrong because He is not circumscribable based on His divine nature. I agree with that also. However, Dr VanDrunen does make this point:
“Though I refuse to adopt the iconoclastic line of reasoning that the reality of the incarnation prohibits making an authentic image of Christ on ontological grounds, I do propose that there are other grounds for questioning the possibility of producing such an authentic image. Historical, eschatological reasons exist for questioning the possibility of an authentic image of Christ at the present time. Christology does not need to deny that contemporaries of Jesus – who saw him – could have drawn, sculpted, or photographed him just as they could any other person.” (Dr VanDrunen, emphasis is his)
He goes on to argue that there are two reasons for opposing images of Christ at this time, historical and eschatological. The historical reason is summed up with this statement:
“That an authentic image of Christ is ontologically possible, as the iconophiles argued, is granted; but such an image is authentic only if it attempts to represent Christ’s actual appearance.”( Dr. VanDrunen )
So Dr. VanDrunen is arguing that a 1st century image of Christ by someone who saw Him would not be wrong.
So, DVD is basically saying--though he didn't intend to--that the majority of arguments T-blog has used are on spot, while the majority of arguments the anti-images folk at T-blog have used, are bad arguments.
I haven’t used any of those bad arguments. Go back and read the comments.
It is also interesting to note the difference between Ronnie and Vytautus. One says 1c images would have been acceptable, the other says they would not have.
Why is that interesting? Isn’t it a common thing for people with the same conclusions to disagree on arguments or points used to reach that conclusion?
"So Dr. VanDrunen is arguing that a 1st century image of Christ by someone who saw Him would not be wrong."
ReplyDeleteNo he is not. That such an image is authentic only says that the ontological picture would be accurate, but his *ethical* argument would argue against images even then. You can't get from "X imahe is ontologically possible" to "therefore X image is not wrong." So, you're at cross-purposes with DVD.
As far as what argument you're making, it's so hard to tell now. We getting all manner of argument against images, arguments which are inconsistent with each other.
"Why is that interesting? Isn’t it a common thing for people with the same conclusions to disagree on arguments or points used to reach that conclusion?
'1st century images are not wrong' is not the same conclusion as '1st century images are wrong.'
And when proponents of the same side offer contradictory arguments for the same conclusion, that is interesting since taken together they could be used to prove the opposite of the desired conclusion. Also, it makes it hard to see just what "the argument" is supposed to be against images. It obviously can't be all the arguments presented, since they contradict. It also shows to me that there is nothing like "a case" against images. So, yes, it is very interesting to me.
One must wonder what Paul Manata's agenda is to push this issue so hard lately. Alas, here we go again:
ReplyDelete1. It's interesting you pull out DVD's statements that support your argument, even though he says he disagrees overall with you. Where are his statements showing why he thinks we should not picture Christ?
2. Paul I'm still amazed that in light of text like Deut. 4:15-18, you (and Steve) still insist images of Yahweh are acceptable. God says since they did not see any form, they should not make any form of Him. The word for form there is not for "idol" but is tĕmuwnah "form, image, likeness, representation, semblance."
"It should be stressed that the warning in this verse was not against the worshipping of other gods in the form of images, but against any attempt to represent God in wood or stone, but like the Israelistes we are constatly tempted to think we can contain and limit God." - Cragie, Deut. p. 135, NICOT
I spoke with OT scholar Daniel Block of Wheaton today and he confirmed this is the correct view of this text.
Mikeb,
ReplyDeleteOne must wonder why you begin by putting on your psychologists hat. Alas,
1. I did not pull anything out, this is Steve's post. In any event, some of the arguments used by the anti-image folk are the same as the ones DVD eschews. Since people didn't want to take our word for it, maybe they would take DVDs? If so, we could drop those bad arguments and move on to other ones. Really, it's not that hard to come up with the reasons DVDs comments were invoked. If there are, say, 5 arguments against images, and those using the arguments drop three of them (because they are convinced by DVD), then we only have two left. This is called tightening the noose.
2. Where did I saw images of Yahweh were acceptable? Quote me. (Indeed, in more than one of these comboxes I made the exact same point as Cragie. The point is in trying to contain the creator. It's not as if the reason they could not image Yahweh is because they didn't see him. He's invisible. On your interpretation, Moses would be allowed to run around Israel hawking sculptures of Yahweh's back.).
So again, Milkeb comes in, guns a blazing, only to be scolding for shooting the adults with his water pistols.
ReplyDelete"So Dr. VanDrunen is arguing that a 1st century image of Christ by someone who saw Him would not be wrong."
No he is not. That such an image is authentic only says that the ontological picture would be accurate, but his *ethical* argument would argue against images even then. You can't get from "X imahe is ontologically possible" to "therefore X image is not wrong." So, you're at cross-purposes with DVD.
You keep asserting this, but you haven’t provided any argument from VanDrunen that proves you are reading him correctly. So maybe I’m missing something, could you please quote him and explain his argument?
As far as what argument you're making, it's so hard to tell now. We getting all manner of argument against images, arguments which are inconsistent with each other.
OK, sorry you are getting things mixed I just wanted to clarify, because you were making those charges against all who are against images of Christ.
"Why is that interesting? Isn’t it a common thing for people with the same conclusions to disagree on arguments or points used to reach that conclusion?
'1st century images are not wrong' is not the same conclusion as '1st century images are wrong.'
And when proponents of the same side offer contradictory arguments for the same conclusion, that is interesting since taken together they could be used to prove the opposite of the desired conclusion. Also, it makes it hard to see just what "the argument" is supposed to be against images. It obviously can't be all the arguments presented, since they contradict. It also shows to me that there is nothing like "a case" against images. So, yes, it is very interesting to me.
Of course the conclusion that images are wrong today is the point, since we are not living in the 1st century.
So let me get your straight. You are saying if two individuals agree on a theological conclusion and both presents their argument, but they don’t agree that each individual argument presented by other proves the point they are trying to make then that is something interesting? Doesn’t this happen all the time with theological issues, even amongst those of the same theological camp?
In reference to you seeing what “the argument” is supposed to be against images I’ve presented what my argument and the others have presented theirs. You should judge and interact with the argument I put forth when discussing the issue with me, and likewise when discussing the issue with the others.
To piggyback on Manata's point, we have Puritan commenters who treat their stock arguments as self-evidently true. That's where VanDrunen's observations supply a useful corrective and counterbalance. These are not obvious, knockdown arguments.
ReplyDeletemikeb said...
ReplyDelete"One must wonder what Paul Manata's agenda is to push this issue so hard lately."
It's really pretty obvious: when you attack, we counterattack. That's the cycle.
mikeb said...
ReplyDelete"It's interesting you pull out DVD's statements that support your argument, even though he says he disagrees overall with you."
What's interesting is that you ignore the second sentence of my post: "He opposes pictures of Christ."
This shows that you're not arguing in good faith.
And concessions from an opponent are all the more significant coming from an opponent. That's a perfectly legitimate argumentative move.
If, for instance, Stephen Jay Gould admits some weaknesses in the case for evolution, that's all the more significant coming from a leading proponent of evolution.
If you weren't thinking with your glands, you could see the eminent logic of that tactic.
Ronnie,
ReplyDelete"You keep asserting this, but you haven’t provided any argument from VanDrunen that proves you are reading him correctly. So maybe I’m missing something, could you please quote him and explain his argument?"
Yes, the comments are in The Confessional Presbyterian article, "Pictures of Jesus And the Sovereignty of Divine Revelation: Recent Literature and a Defense of the Confessional View" (v.5, 2009).
On p. 218, DVD makes the argument that the ontological argument is not good. He then says that there is another argument, one he calls a "practical-ethical argument." he claims this argument puts those who allow images on the horns of an impossible dilemma. The dilemma is that any person confronted by a picture of Christ has two possible options in responding to that picture: (1) worship it or (2) not worhip it, treating it as common. So, if in the 1c, someone were to come across a picture of Christ then, per DVDs argument, they would have two options: worship it or treat it as common. DVD sasy that both (1) and (2) are improper. This argument is unaffected by history. The dilemma, as DVD expresses it, would still be there in the 1st century or the 21st centrury.
As you can see by my representation of DVD, this practical-ethical argument does not allow for any images at any time. You can either accept this representation as fair, or read the article yourself. But the above is my reasoning for saying what I keep saying to you.
"OK, sorry you are getting things mixed I just wanted to clarify, because you were making those charges against all who are against images of Christ."
That's right, your arguments are different from Jones's which are different from Smith's which are different from DVDs, etc. It's like, "Okay, what is the argument against images."
anti-image 1: It is X.
anti-image 2: It is Y (which conntradicts X).
anti-image 3: No, no, it is Z (which contradicts X and Y).
and so on . . .
"Of course the conclusion that images are wrong today is the point, since we are not living in the 1st century."
Not according to DVD or Vytautus.
"So let me get your straight. You are saying if two individuals agree on a theological conclusion and both presents their argument, but they don’t agree that each individual argument presented by other proves the point they are trying to make then that is something interesting? Doesn’t this happen all the time with theological issues, even amongst those of the same theological camp?"
Two contradictory arguments cannot both be correct, so it's hard to tell just what the argument is. not pointing this out gives the impression that there are more arguments against a position than there really are. This is even more interesting, in our circumstance, when one of the arguments would rule out the other as violating the 2nd commandment. Vytautus &c think your position allows for violations of the 2nd commandment. You don't think so. And how you view Vytautus' argument is how I view yours.
I apologize Paul, I confused you and Steve. Steve is the one who's saying it is permissible to draw/make images of God. Paul's does not appear to go that far, but thinks that images of Christ are fair game.
ReplyDeleteMikeb,
ReplyDeleteDo you claim Moses could have put on a beret, grabbed a palette, shaved his face all except for a think French handle-bar moustache, and painted a picture of God's back?
Paul, did you not just say "Indeed, in more than one of these comboxes I made the exact same point as Cragie."
ReplyDeleteDeut. 4:15 clearly says to not make a form of God. Why must we continue this point any further if you agree? What's this nonsense about Moses making images? He wrote Deut. 4:15 and knew what it meant.
Mikeb,
ReplyDeleteWhy can't you see the implications of your own argument.
You claimed that the command not to make images was because "they had not seen Him," and so THAT is why they shouldn't make the images.
"God says since they did not see any form, they should not make any form of Him. The word for form there is not for "idol" but is tĕmuwnah "form, image, likeness, representation, semblance."
Notice your premise ["since"]: "they did not see God," and your conclusion: so "they should not make any form of Him."
Based on your argument, Moses could make an image of God's back. Your pointing out that Moses wrote Deut 4:15 is irrelevant because if he thought according to you, he meant it to apply to those who hadn't seen God.
If even Moses, having seen [part of?] God could not make an image, then the argument from "they didn't see God" to the conclusion "and for that reason they are not to image him" has been defeated.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteI thought we were commenting on the article that Steve posted where it seems clear that Dr VanDrunen is making the argument I proposed. I provided some quotes earlier, but here is another:
“Christology does not need to deny that contemporaries of Jesus – who saw him – could have drawn, sculpted, or photographed him just as they could any other person. Nor should it question the Christian hope of seeing Christ again. But it does, I argue, present serious objections to those wishing to portray Christ visibly now, when he is no longer physically present. That an authentic image of Christ is ontologically possible, as the iconophiles argued, is granted; but such an image is authentic only if it attempts to represent Christ’s actual appearance.”( Dr VanDrunen, emphasis mine )
On p. 218, DVD makes the argument that the ontological argument is not good. He then says that there is another argument, one he calls a "practical-ethical argument." he claims this argument puts those who allow images on the horns of an impossible dilemma. The dilemma is that any person confronted by a picture of Christ has two possible options in responding to that picture: (1) worship it or (2) not worhip it, treating it as common. So, if in the 1c, someone were to come across a picture of Christ then, per DVDs argument, they would have two options: worship it or treat it as common. DVD sasy that both (1) and (2) are improper. This argument is unaffected by history. The dilemma, as DVD expresses it, would still be there in the 1st century or the 21st centrury.
I don’t have the article and I couldn’t find it on the web. However, if your reading is correct, and it seems to be unless there is something in the context of the article that makes a difference, it seems that Dr VanDrunen is arguing differently than in the article that Steve is referencing.
That's right, your arguments are different from Jones's which are different from Smith's which are different from DVDs, etc. It's like, "Okay, what is the argument against images."
anti-image 1: It is X.
anti-image 2: It is Y (which conntradicts X).
anti-image 3: No, no, it is Z (which contradicts X and Y).
and so on . . .
That is easy. All are arguments against images, but that doesn’t mean everyone agrees on the validity of every argument. I’m still confused as to why you think this is something so interesting. When you argue against atheist about the existence of God. Do you agree with every argument presented by other theist for the existence of God? If not, do you find that interesting? Or better yet, do you agree with every argument by icon lovers in support of it? Is that interesting?
"Of course the conclusion that images are wrong today is the point, since we are not living in the 1st century."
Not according to DVD or Vytautus.
Of course that is the point now even if their argument applies to all ages, because no one is making the claim that they have an authentic image of how Jesus looked.
Two contradictory arguments cannot both be correct, so it's hard to tell just what the argument is. not pointing this out gives the impression that there are more arguments against a position than there really are. This is even more interesting, in our circumstance, when one of the arguments would rule out the other as violating the 2nd commandment. Vytautus &c think your position allows for violations of the 2nd commandment. You don't think so. And how you view Vytautus' argument is how I view yours.
Of course no one is saying we are both correct where we disagree, but my point is that this is common in theological discussion. You have to address each argument depending on who you are discussion the issue with. So regardless of how “you view” my argument you have to show that it is unsound based on a critique of it and not just that well someone else who believes images are wrong disagrees with that argument and this is interesting.
Ronnie,
ReplyDelete"“Christology does not need to deny that contemporaries of Jesus – who saw him – could have drawn, sculpted, or photographed him just as they could any other person."
You're readingt he "could" as moral permissability, but that's not certain from the text and you've not argued for it. I say the consistent interpretation is that he is claiming here what you later bold him as saying: it is ontologically possible to picture Christ. That doesn't get you to moral permissability. So, DVD is commenting on those who argue that because of who Christ is, one could not (i.e., it is not possible) picture him. My interpretation makes both statements DVD makes consistent, yours makes him contradict himself. According to the principle of charity, my interpretation is the best.
So, I argue that you're still at odds with DVD. But, the worst case is that he's contradicting himself.
As far as why I find it interesting to see all the contradictory arguments against images, I have no wish to continue on that. I have given my reasons, to continue on is a waste of time since it's not a substantive point. It just shows that not all the arguments could be correct. It shows that there is nothing like "a Reformed case" against images. So, some anti-images guys are wrong. You are humbly claiming that you're not one of them :-)
"You have to address each argument depending on who you are discussion the issue with. So regardless of how “you view” my argument you have to show that it is unsound based on a critique of it and not just that well someone else who believes images are wrong disagrees with that argument and this is interesting."
Of course I've done that in the other threads in which you've dropped by, and where others have used similar arguments.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete"“Christology does not need to deny that contemporaries of Jesus – who saw him – could have drawn, sculpted, or photographed him just as they could any other person."
You're readingt he "could" as moral permissability, but that's not certain from the text and you've not argued for it. I say the consistent interpretation is that he is claiming here what you later bold him as saying: it is ontologically possible to picture Christ. That doesn't get you to moral permissability. So, DVD is commenting on those who argue that because of who Christ is, one could not (i.e., it is not possible) picture him. My interpretation makes both statements DVD makes consistent, yours makes him contradict himself. According to the principle of charity, my interpretation is the best.
So, I argue that you're still at odds with DVD. But, the worst case is that he's contradicting himself.
Paul,
When you read the article it is fairly apparent that Dr VanDrunen is making the argument I’m proposing. It starts with his interpretation of Deut. 4:15 where he argues that could not image God, because they had not seen Him. Of course all this changes with Christ, but even an image of Christ has to be an authentic one, because Christ is a real man with real distinct features not a generic man. He even uses the analogous argument of a picture of one’s wife. What would your wife think of you carrying around a generic picture of a woman and claiming that it is a representation of her instead of the real authentic picture?
With that being said it is commendable that you offer the principle of charity, but my having not read the other article makes it a bit more difficult for me to say if the charitable principle is more apt. Could it be your denying of major points he is making in the article Steve referenced is not charitable, but a distortion? Maybe Dr VanDrunen has adjusted his argument over time and would not embrace everything he said at one point. The two articles have a few years difference between them. Maybe he has a better way to reconcile his arguments instead of denying one of them? Also, it is a traditional Reformed argument that the reason the images of Christ are wrong is that they are based on the imagination and invention of men and not an authentic image.
As far as why I find it interesting to see all the contradictory arguments against images, I have no wish to continue on that. I have given my reasons, to continue on is a waste of time since it's not a substantive point. It just shows that not all the arguments could be correct. It shows that there is nothing like "a Reformed case" against images. So, some anti-images guys are wrong. You are humbly claiming that you're not one of them :-)
Likewise all the arguments of icon lovers and theist cannot be correct since they contradict each other at certain points. I’m sure you humbly claim all your arguments are correct otherwise you wouldn’t be arguing for them, right? ;)
BTW, by “Reformed case” against images I would mean there are a number of arguments that various Reformed theologians and confessions have consistently used, not that everyone who agrees with the conclusion agrees with the validity of all the arguments. .
"You have to address each argument depending on who you are discussion the issue with. So regardless of how “you view” my argument you have to show that it is unsound based on a critique of it and not just that well someone else who believes images are wrong disagrees with that argument and this is interesting."
Of course I've done that in the other threads in which you've dropped by, and where others have used similar arguments.
I don’t think you have answered sufficiently in the threads I participated in. Your always tend to start pointing out that all who disagree with images don’t agree with each other on every argument. total agreement on all arguments ;)
Ronnie,
ReplyDeleteIt is not apparent DVD is making the argument you say he is making.
"It starts with his interpretation of Deut. 4:15 where he argues that could not image God, because they had not seen Him."
That's stupid insofar as God is invisible. Nevertheless, could Moses draw his back?
" Of course all this changes with Christ, but even an image of Christ has to be an authentic one, because Christ is a real man with real distinct features not a generic man."
That's an assertion, not an argument.
" He even uses the analogous argument of a picture of one’s wife. What would your wife think of you carrying around a generic picture of a woman and claiming that it is a representation of her instead of the real authentic picture?"
I've already addressed this in another combox.
"With that being said it is commendable that you offer the principle of charity, but my having not read the other article makes it a bit more difficult for me to say if the charitable principle is more apt."
Then it's rather pointless for us to continue.
"Could it be your denying of major points he is making in the article Steve referenced is not charitable, but a distortion?"
I've given my interpretation and justification of his comments, argue them down.
"Maybe Dr VanDrunen has adjusted his argument over time and would not embrace everything he said at one point."
Maybe, but my interpretation saves both. So until I have better reason to think otherwise, principles of hermeneutics are on my side.
"Also, it is a traditional Reformed argument that the reason the images of Christ are wrong is that they are based on the imagination and invention of men and not an authentic image."
Right. But some Reformers, as DVD points out, argue that NO IMAGES "could" be made insofar as it would not be POSSIBLE to image Christ. For example, some have said that to image his humanity would be to slip into functional Nestorianism. Or that imaging his human features per se would be to image something divine. Those arguements are not based on knowing or not knowing what Jesus looked like. DVD argues that this is a bad argument, he says one "could" (it would be possible) make an image of his humanity back in the day without being subject to those kinds of arguments. But nowhere does he says that first century Christians SHOULD or are PERMITTED to do so. You need to argue this from DVD's text and so far you have not been able to do so.
"Maybe Dr VanDrunen has adjusted his argument over time and would not embrace everything he said at one point."
Even if I grant this, all this means is that you are at odds with DVD's current position. Do you know better than DVD?
I said I won't comment on the contradictory nature of the arguments for the anti-image side, so I won't. You are correct that not all image-permissible arguments can be correct, if they employ contradictory premises.
" I don’t think you have answered sufficiently in the threads I participated in. Your always tend to start pointing out that all who disagree with images don’t agree with each other on every argument. total agreement on all arguments ;)"
Well, all we can do is make our case. So, you don't think I've sufficiently answered you, I don't think you've sufficiently defended your arguments against my counter-arguments, and so we can only point fingers at each other and yell "Heretic!" and then go home. (I believe this is the first thread I have pointed out the contradictory nature of the arguments. So . . .).
ReplyDelete"Also, it is a traditional Reformed argument that the reason the images of Christ are wrong is that they are based on the imagination and invention of men and not an authentic image."
Right. But some Reformers, as DVD points out, argue that NO IMAGES "could" be made insofar as it would not be POSSIBLE to image Christ. For example, some have said that to image his humanity would be to slip into functional Nestorianism. Or that imaging his human features per se would be to image something divine. Those arguements are not based on knowing or not knowing what Jesus looked like. DVD argues that this is a bad argument, he says one "could" (it would be possible) make an image of his humanity back in the day without being subject to those kinds of arguments.
Exactly, I completely agree with what you said above. So we have no need to revisit this point. The point of discussion is what follows next and I will address it.
But nowhere does he says that first century Christians SHOULD or are PERMITTED to do so. You need to argue this from DVD's text and so far you have not been able to do so.
In the article under debate Dr VanDrunen says the following:
“Though I refuse to adopt the iconoclastic line of reasoning that the reality of the incarnation prohibits making an authentic image of Christ on ontological grounds, I do propose that there are other grounds for questioning the possibility of producing such an authentic image. Historical, eschatological reasons exist for questioning the possibility of an authentic image of Christ at the present time.”(emphasis is Dr VanDrunen’s )
Dr VanDrunen is making the argument that an “authentic” image cannot be made *at the present time*, not because of ontological grounds as you pointed out above, but because of other grounds. The other grounds are Historical and eschatological! It is important to note that he does not use the ethical argument that he uses in the other article you are referencing. For the point we are discussing it is the historical argument that Dr VanDrunen believes invalidate the use of images *at the present time*, which implicitly teaches that there was a time when an authentic image could be made. Now I think you agree he is arguing for this, but your point is that just because Dr VanDrunen argues that an authentic image can be made it doesn’t mean that he believes it is permissible to make one. I respond that the tenor of his entire argument in this paper on this issue is that it is wrong because an authentic image is no longer possible, therefore it doesn’t make sense for him to be arguing that it is still wrong even if the image is authentic.
… continue in next post
Dr. VanDrunen continues in the following quote:
ReplyDelete“Christology does not need to deny that contemporaries of Jesus – who saw him – could have drawn, sculpted, or photographed him just as they could any other person. Nor should it question the Christian hope of seeing Christ again.” (emphasis mine )
In the point above Dr VanDrunen links the contemporaries of Jesus imaging Him with the Christian hope of seeing Christ again at the eschaton! So logically if he is arguing that it is wrong for the contempories to image Christ and see Him then it must be wrong for them to have the hope of seeing Him again, which is ludicrous. Both of these instances of seeing Christ is valid is the point being made. One last quote from Dr VanDrunen as he continues the argument even though there are others:
“That an authentic image of Christ is ontologically possible, as the iconophiles argued, is granted; but such an image is authentic only if it attempts to represent Christ’s actual appearance.. As the great iconophile John of Damascus argued long ago, the reason that no image of God was permitted under the Old Testament was because only in the incarnation of Christ was humanity presented with a genuine and accurate similitude of God(Dr VanDrunen )
Here Dr VanDrunen agrees with the iconophiles that an image of God was not permitted under the OT because it was not authentic, however because of the incarnation an accurate image is possible if it “represents Christ’s actual appearance”.
So I don’t see how you can interpret this as Dr VanDrunen arguing that authentic images are wrong without doing violence to his entire argument.
They are hypocrites, and their position is self-defeating, because they DON'T demand that the souls of humans be painted in their images, as they stupidly demand of Christ.
ReplyDelete