<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I didn't think our discussion centered around whether or not an unregenerate man could keep the 2nd commandment, but rather, could an unregenerate person respectfully act in a film depicting the earthly life of Jesus Christ.</font><hr></blockquote><p> Fredman if he can't keep the 2nd Commandment then he can not fully and truly respect God? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/drop.gif" alt="drop" title="drop[/img] Even the elect cannot fully do this and thus it would be sin for them as well! <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I appreciate the quotations from the WCF and the Heidlberg Confessions, but honestly, I think they go a little too far in applying the second commandment in the manner they do. ...Though I respect their intentions, and their desire to protect the character of God, I believe they are adding to the law in their zeal. Compare the simple rendering given in Exodus and Deuteronomy, to how the framers of the WCF go beyond what God told Moses. Note further that God's issue is the "bowing down" to the image in worship.</font><hr></blockquote><p> Where did you get the idea that the WCF or the HC used only 2 verses to support their statements? Here are some others that Pilgrim already provided:<br><br>1. Num. 15:39<br>2. Deut. 13:6-8<br>3. Hosea 5:11; Micah 6:16<br>4. I Kings 11:33; 12:33<br>5. Deut. 12:30-32<br>6. Deut. 13:6-12; Zech. 13:2-3; Rev. 2:2, 14-15, 20, Rev. 17:12, 16-17<br>7. Deut. 4:15-19; Acts 17:29; Rom. 1:21-23, 25<br>8. Dan. 3:18; Gal. 4:8<br>9. Exod. 32:5<br>10. Exod. 32:8<br>11. I Kings 18:26, 28; Isa. 65:11<br>12. Acts 17:22; Col. 2:21-23<br>13. Mal. 1:7-8, 14<br>14. Deut. 4:2<br>15. Psa. 106:39<br>16. Matt. 15:9<br>17. I Peter 1:18<br>18. Jer. 44:17<br>19. Isa. 65:3-5; Gal. 1:13-14<br>20. I Sam. 13:11-12; 15:21<br>21. Acts 8:18<br>22. Rom. 2:22; Mal. 3:8<br>23. Exod. 4:24-26<br>24. Matt. 22:5; Mal. 1:7, 13<br>25. Matt. 23:13<br>26. Acts 13:44-45; I Thess. 2:15-16<br><br>Following Calvin and the Reformed tradition, Puritan exegesis insists that the first commandment fixes Jehovah alone as the object of worship. The second establishes the proper means of worship. Consequently, the prohibition of idols applies both to images of other gods and to images of the true God. Images of the Lord are rejected because they obscure the spirituality, sovereignty, and glory of God. They also minimize the value of his word.<br><br>The kinds of images rejected by Puritan exegetes are summarized by James Durham:<br><br><ul>1. We simply condemn any delineating of God, or the Godhead, or Trinity; such as some have upon their buildings, or books, like a sun shining with beams, and the Lord’s name, Jehovah, in it or any other way….<br><br>2. All representing of the persons as distinct, as to set out the Father (personally considered) by the image of an old man, as if he were a creature, the Son under the image of a lamb or young man, the Holy Ghost under the image of a dove, all which wrongeth the Godhead exceedingly.[/LIST]Durham’s list is given in almost the same words by Thomas Boston, and elements of it appear in other works. The list suggests at least two particularly significant applications of the second commandment in Puritan thought: (1) to Christ; (2) to types and symbols. In addition, another must be added, (3) to mental images.<br><br>Although images are forbidden in the OT, it might be argued that they are now acceptable because of the incarnation. Surely now that the Lord has taken on a body, his human form may be pictured. As plausible as this argument seems, it is consistently rejected by the Puritans. Because the point is so important, it bears some repetition. Thomas Boston said:<br><br><ul>1. It is not lawful to have pictures of Jesus Christ, because his divine nature cannot be pictured at all, and because his body, as it is now glorified, cannot be pictured as it is; and because, [color:red]if it do not stir up devotion, it is in vain; if it do stir up devotion, it is a worshipping by an image or picture</font color=red>, and so a palpable breach of the second commandment.<br><br>2. And if it be said man’s soul cannot be painted, but his body may, and yet that picture representeth a man; I answer, it cloth so, because he has but one nature, and what representeth that representeth the person; but it is not so with Christ: his Godhead is not a distinct part of the human nature, as the soul of man is (which is necessarily supposed in every living man), but a distinct nature, only united with the manhood in that one person, Christ, who has no fellow; therefore what representeth him must not represent a man only, but must represent Christ, Immanuel, God-man, otherwise it is not his image. Beside, there is no warrant for representing him in his manhood; nor any colourable possibility of it, but as men fancy; and shall that be called Christ’s portraiture? would that be called any other man’s portraiture which were drawn at men’s pleasure, without regard to the pattern? Again, there is no use of it; for either that image behoved to have but common estimation with other images, and that would wrong Christ, or a peculiar respect and reverence, and so it sinneth against this commandment that forbiddeth all religious reverence to images, but he being God and so the object of worship, we must either divide his natures, or say, that image or picture representeth not Christ.[/LIST]It is noteworthy that Scripture condemns “an image made like to corruptible man” along with other kinds of images (Rom 1:23), and that the apostle makes no mention of a change in principle based on the incarnation. As a matter of fact, images would appear to be a gross form of the fleshly estimation of Christ rejected elsewhere by Paul (2 Cor 5:16). Paul’s attitude parallels the utter disregard for Christ’s physical appearance which is evident in the Gospels and which continues on into the early church. Calvin notes that images in churches are rejected by the Council of Elvira in Spain (ca. AD 305), by Augustine, and in general during the first five hundred years of the Christian era.<br><br>Thus, theological, Scriptural, and historical considerations are presented by Reformed authors as evidence that pictures of Christ are idolatrous.

Reformed and Always Reforming,