How good of God to give you the victory in this matter. I would surmise that faced with the great confessions of the faith all pointing to the Word of Life as the final authority, in the hands of the Blessed Spirit, perhaps they felt they were on less than solid ground?
And in these times of shallow teaching and little or no emphasis on obedience to the clear commands of Holy Writ it is little wonder that these folks took their initial position and somewhat of a pleasant wonder that they reversed course 180 degrees!
I praise Him for this outcome and with you pray that some will be further convicted to follow Him in obedience to the faith.
I'm curious, and I don't mean to be absurd here, but given this particular argument, would it have been wrong to photograph Christ or to take video of Him when He was on earth, had those devices existed?
Jason,how do you know that Christs image could be recorded on film ? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]
Christ is the God-Man! Can you literally draw Christ's glory? Do you know of a video tape (et. al) that can record the Divinity of God? We have made allot of advancements in technology, but this device has not come to the forefront yet--only when we see Him face to face will we see His magnificent glory "fully", which is beyond imagination (and a Polaroid).
God also guarded against this as Christ came in the fullness of time. If He had desired a Polaroid He could have come in the 20th century.
Galatians 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
In reply to: Christ is the God-Man! Can you literally draw Christ's glory? Do you know of a video tape (et. al) that can record the Divinity of God?
I don't believe that any medium of communication can adequately capture the divine nature of Christ, that is not an especial challenge to images. Jesus did say, however, that whoever had seen Him had seen the Father, so apparently whatever sense perceptory information His followers had was sufficient to communicate His divine nature to them.
In reply to: We have made allot of advancements in technology, but this device has not come to the forefront yet--only when we see Him face to face will we see His magnificent glory "fully", which is beyond imagination (and a Polaroid).
But can you speak His glory fully? If not, should you refrain from speaking about Him? My point in addressing this argument, is that I don't believe a particular form of linguistic expression is necessarily wrong simply because it does not present Christ in all His fullness. There is no linguistic medium that can do that.
In reply to: God also guarded against this as Christ came in the fullness of time. If He had desired a Polaroid He could have come in the 20th century.
Galatians 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
Well, now that kind of reasoning would result in an abundance of problems. Surely you would not exegete Galatians 4:4 to say that Jesus came when He did in order to avoid cameras, would you? I of course agree that the world in that day was perfectly prepared for the ministry of Christ, but to reason from there that anything of later development would have been inherently problematic, I believe would result in manifold applications that you would not be willing to accept (i.e., this is begging the question).
So your position is, that if someone had video-taped the Sermon on the Mount, it would be a sin to have done so and to show it to someone saying, "This is Christ as He appeared to us and taught us while preaching the Sermon on the Mount."? Why was it okay to view images of Christ firsthand, but not secondhand?
FYI - A couple of notes for you. I agree with your end conclusion about pictures of Christ, I just don't think this particular argument is compelling. Secondly, I actually don't necessarily disagree with the opinion that the fullness of time intentionally occurred prior to videography. However, my reason would not be because it would have been sinful to record how Jesus appeared to us as the incarnate Word, but because it is better suited to the glory of God in bringing people to faith by His sovereign grace apart from sight, as Jesus said to Thomas, "because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20:29)
I would say that I don't know as to whether Jesus would have allowed it, but I can't see how it would have been ontologically impossible without denying His human nature.<br><br>~Jason<br>
In reply to:Jesus did say, however, that whoever had seen Him had seen the Father, so apparently whatever sense perceptory information His followers had was sufficient to communicate His divine nature to them.
Seeing and drawing are TWO different things. Does a picture capture the complete person of the person? If you have seen a picture of Christ, have you really seen Christ?--NO, merely an image made with a "imperfect" device that was man made.
In reply to:But can you speak His glory fully? If not, should you refrain from speaking about Him?
We can SPEAK about Him and His glory, because HE has given us His Word to do so and commands such. He did not give us His portrait.
In reply to:FYI - A couple of notes for you. I agree with your end conclusion about pictures of Christ, I just don't think this particular argument is compelling. Secondly, I actually don't necessarily disagree with the opinion that the fullness of time intentionally occurred prior to videography. However, [color:red]my reason would not be because it would have been sinful to record how Jesus appeared to us as the incarnate Word, but because it is better suited to the glory of God in bringing people to faith by His sovereign grace apart from sight, as Jesus said to Thomas, "because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20:29)
I agree that God does not want all to be Thomas' and thus He did come in the fullness of time (Boston's quote in the original post applies here, "if it do stir up devotion, it is a worshiping by an image or picture," thus NOT by faith). Of course, I disagree with the statement of yours that says, "my reason would not be because it would have been sinful to record how Jesus appeared to us as the incarnate Word," because a photo (1) is made with an imperfect device, (2) could never properly and fully capture the incarnate Word, and (3) simply, but more importantly, against God's Holy Word (Exodus 20:15-16, ..."any likeness of any thing"...; Deuteronomy 4:15-16, ..."the similitude of any figure"...).
In reply to:[color:"blue"]Jesus did say, however, that whoever had seen Him had seen the Father, so apparently whatever sense perceptory information His followers had was sufficient to communicate His divine nature to them.
And in this statement lies the confusion. Every one who saw The Christ had the same natural or physical "sense perceptory" apparatus and yet most rejected Him, never having seen Him spiritually. "Those who worship Him worship Him in spirit and in truth." To see Christ's Glory, or rather to get a glimpse of it in this life and in our current state, we must be given, by the opperation of the Spirit, "spiritual eyes". And the effectivness or clarity with which those eyes perceive spiritual things tends to come and go as the Spirit sovereignly desires.
I believe the second part of the following verse clearly states how we now see Christ, that is "after the flesh... no more", the incarnation now being finished:
2Cor5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.
It would by my contention that in view of these things that devices designed to capture images within that range of the electromagnetic spectrum that we call visible light would have no ability to capture the full range of the "Light of the World" and thus would miss that divine light which so uniquely belongs to God, "who is light" and "dwells in Light", nor in my view is that light described by the electromagnetic spectrum likely to contain all (if it contains any) of His Light because of course He is infinate and the EMS is not.
In reply to:[color:"blue"] Seeing and drawing are TWO different things. Does a picture capture the complete person of the person? If you have seen a picture of Christ, have you really seen Christ?--NO, merely an image made with a "imperfect" device that was man made.
But the same can be said about the written Word. It does not capture the complete person of Christ either, but that “imperfection” (used in all reverence) does not abrogate its propriety.
In reply to:[color:"blue"] We can SPEAK about Him and His glory, because HE has given us His Word to do so and commands such. He did not give us His portrait.
Precisely, and that is the way that I would argue it. The problem is not so much that images, in themselves, would have necessarily been a breach of the second commandment due to their non-comprehensive ability to present the whole person (including His divinity), but rather that it is impossible to construct an image that does not misrepresent Christ, since we have no such images available to us. Any image constructed today will inescapably communicate things that are positively untrue about Christ, and that is the problem IMHO.
In reply to:[color:"blue"] I disagree with the statement of yours that says, "my reason would not be because it would have been sinful to record how Jesus appeared to us as the incarnate Word," because a photo (1) is made with an imperfect device, (2) could never properly and fully capture the incarnate Word, and (3) simply, but more importantly, against God's Holy Word (Exodus 20:15-16, ..."any likeness of any thing"...; Deuteronomy 4:15-16, ..."the similitude of any figure"...).
In response:
1. All rhetorical devices are imperfect.
2. Ah, I’ll have to split this one. The Scriptures cannot “fully capture” the incarnate Word either. As to whether or not an image could “properly” capture the Incarnate Word, it obviously could when He was alive, but anyone intending to do so now, without access to Him, could not properly do so.
3. Begging the question, that’s what we’re discussing here. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]
Oh, one other reason why it is good that we do not have images of Christ, and perhaps a reason why He came at such a time, is because it would undoubtedly lead to mystical idolatry by worshipping the images themselves. Case in point, the bronze serpent (2 Kings 18:4), and just look at what happened with relics in the Roman Catholic Church.
Again, my point here is that I believe the argument against images of Christ is sound on the basis of the fact that one cannot create an image that does not communicate untrue things about Christ, not so much that it will invariably fall short of communicating all that is true about Christ.
Greetings Gerry,<br><br>I believe the same spiritual tensions exist today with the written Word of God or the preached Word of God (we all need spiritual ears too). What's more, none of these media can capture the full range of His voice, His light, His truth, etc., but they are accurate in so far as they go. A linguistic token does not have to be comprehensive or infinite in order to be accurate and effective (else, we could not communicate).<br><br>Blessings,<br><br>~Jason<br>
In reply to:[color:"blue"]But the same can be said about the written Word. It does not capture the complete person of Christ either, but that “imperfection” (used in all reverence) does not abrogate its propriety.
Jason,
The Bible does NOT say, "In the beginning was the picture, and the picture was with God, and the picture was God, but it does say, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Christ is perfect and He gave us the His Word which is perfect, we just do not understand it perfectly. An imperfect picture cannot bring forth a true worship of God, which God's Word can and does in His elect. One is inspired and ministered by the Holy Spirit the other is condemned, by the same. See the other posts.
How in the world do you use “imperfection” (used in all reverence) and apply it to Scripture?
In reply to:[color:"blue"]I believe the same spiritual tensions exist today with the written Word of God or the preached Word of God (we all need spiritual ears too). What's more, none of these media can capture the full range of His voice, His light, His truth, etc., but they are accurate in so far as they go. A linguistic token does not have to be comprehensive or infinite in order to be accurate and effective (else, we could not communicate).
While it is true that some of the same spiritual tensions exist in other forms of communication, the seeing sense is set apart in scripture as the "queen" of the senses. We are not told for example that "to hear Him is to know Him", nor are we told that "He is sound", thus the secondary senses have communicative power but not the same power given them by scripture.
Jn12:45 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me. Jn14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Jn 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. Jn14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
It would seem to me that this is the key to your question about the unique prohibition with respect to images in scripture which we don't find with respect to these other senses. Because seeing has a unigue capability to convey a more full comprehension of the object beheld, as the above freferenced scriptures clearly imply, it would seem that the mode of conveying that comprehension has been singled out as the most potentially damaging as it alone would have the greatest potential for abuse.
Thus, we are not flatly prohibited from speaking of Him, unless it be falsely as in taking His name in vain, as we are prohibited from making an image of Him
In reply to:[color:"blue"] The Bible does NOT say, "In the beginning was the picture, and the picture was with God, and the picture was God, but it does say, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Nor does it say in the beginning was the Bible ... you're equivocating here, for neither is the Bible that which was in the beginning, yet you believe it accurately communicates the divine Word to us, as you should.
In reply to:[color:"blue"] How in the world do you use “imperfection” (used in all reverence) and apply it to Scripture?
The same way in which Paul used it in 1 Corinthians 13:10:
9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.
The "imperfection" is the sense in which the Bible is in part. Even as the inerrant and inspired Word of God, through it we still only see in a mirror dimly. Even if we understood the Word perfectly, would you not agree that we would not come to know Christ exhaustively? That was my only point.
