Yuku free message boards

Here's the link: Images of Christ

My point was that seeing the movie is not a form of idolatry and not a violation of the second commandment. Webb's article does not successfully refute that point. Besides, I never endorsed the movie. I just said that it is not idolatrous to portray Christ in a movie. If you personally would not say that it is unlawful to see the movie, then don't we agree?

Incidentally, I had already read that article, and I think it makes some interesting points. Nevertheless, I was not persuaded that Webb provided any good ground for me to avoid seeing it. I still plan to go to it. His main objection (first three points) is that the story is presented with a Roman slant. That's not a big deal to me. I am not in the least inclined to become a Roman Catholic, and seeing a movie will not change that.

His fourth point is just plain silly, in my opinion. So far as I know, no one has suggested that movies should replace preaching. And if someone has suggested it, it certainly is not the mainstream view, and certainly people who see the film will not respond by rejecting preaching in favor of movies. A case might also be made that some movies constitute preaching (like videos of sermons, etc.).

His fifth objection ("Every visual representation of Jesus is inevitably a lie" and a violation of the second commandment) is invalid because the things he warns of do not constitute idolatry/lies.

It has always struck me as odd that, on the one hand, we condemn images for being incapable of comprehending God, but we affirm many other representations (like preaching) that are similarly incapable. Equally applied, the same principles that supposedly condemn images would also condemn preaching and evangelizing, thinking about God, writing about God, talking about God, etc.

The question pertained to the basis on which God condemned images. God did condemn at least some images. The question is, as you pointed out in another post, "Why?" It was then suggested that the answer cannot be "because they are not full revelations." One reason the traditional answer does not seem sufficient is that it would tend to condemn preaching along with images. In light of this apparent problem, the question became "Must images meet a different standard of revelation than words must meet?"

Quote:

---

What bugged me most about what you said was most Reformed folks blah blah blah but "I hold a different view." Another thing Richard taught us is when the church and tradition hold one view and you hold another you might want to re-think your position.

---

Actually, most of the church and most of ecclesiastical tradition affirm the use of images. The Reformers were in the minority. But be that as it may, I'm not sure why it would bother you that I would admit that I differ from my tradition and then explain why I differ. Not to appeal to Richard as Scripture, but he also insists that we must continually question our traditions. Semper Reformanda and all that. Simply to echo the past without evaluating the legitimacy of their arguments is not the Reformed way. And I did not belittle their arguments ("blah blah..."). I merely said that I found them insufficient.

Prior to the Reformation, many images were used wrongly. In response, the Refomers came down hard on images -- too hard, if you ask me. In their zeal to correct true errors, they overstepped Scripture by forbidding even lawful uses of images. Traditional Reformed arguments against the use of icons simply don't carry over directly to every other use of images. Each must be evaluated on its own merits.

I am not saying that images are no big deal. On the contrary, I admitted that there are idolatrous ways in which they might be used. But I also believe that the second commandment is not primarily about images. It is, rather, primarily about idolatry.

In contrast to the bulk of the Reformed tradition (Here I go again, pushing your buttons!), I don't believe that the first commandment is about "who" we worship while the second is about "how" we worship. I actually think the emphasis is the other way around.

That we are not to have other God's "before" the Lord does not mean that we are not to have other gods that we rank more highly than him, or that we are not to have other gods in addition to him. Rather, it means that we are not to have other gods in his presence. That is, we are not to bring other gods into his holy place(s). This is primarily a commandment that pertains to "how" we worship the true God: we keep God's worship pure, undefiled by pagan idols.

On the other hand, the second commandment is mostly about "who" we worship. We are not to have other gods in addition to the true one (don't bow down to idols, etc.). This is the force of the argument against images. It is not that images are dangerous. It is rather that idols are dangerous. Not every image is prone to becoming an idol. Those that are must be handled carefully. But this does not mean that we are to avoid them altogether. Again, God put images in his tabernacle and temple. By reasoning of the regulative principle, images ought then to be required in our own churches, not forbidden. In short, just as I believe that the general term "kill" specifically means "murder" in the Ten Commandments, I also believe that the general term "image" specifically means "idol."

At any rate, even when images were abused, it did not invalidate them on the whole. Consider Moses' serpent (Num. 21:8-9) that became an idol (2 Kings 18:4). God commanded it to be crafted, Moses obeyed, and the image was used properly and for God's glory when people looked to it for healing. But later, they made it into an idol and it had to be destroyed. From the arguments of the Reformers, one would get the impression that the serpent never should have been constructed in the first place in light of the idolatry that was sure to follow. But such a conclusion would be contrary to Scripture and to explicit divine command.

In other words, "WHY WHY WHY?" is precisely what we ought to be asking. The problem I see is that the "because" offered by our tradition doesn't sufficiently account for all the biblical data.

Quote:

---

Whoa Matt I don't think even Ra would agree with you on that one. By the way if you read what Ra wrote he used the word idol to refer to an image so I used it in a simliar fashion.

---

Actually, I do agree with Matt's statement. I have a painting of Jesus on my wall at home (a remake of Dali's Crucifixion: Hypercubic Body), if that is any clarification of my views. With regard to "idol" vs. "image," I probably wasn't clear enough. I have offered another post where I try to define "idol" more carefully: pub89.ezboard.com/fthirdmillennium49091frm1.showMessage?topicID=277.topic&index=29.