The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Rejoicing Under Fire

Hi Gerry,

In reply to:

---

[color:"blue"]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

---

I don't think we're that far apart here. As I said in a post to Joe, I think it is impossible to construct an image (or sequence of images) of Christ that would not communicate things that are untrue about Him, but that is different than arguing that images are inherently wrong because they fail to communicate all that is true about Him, which I would argue is the case regardless of the medium through which we communicate.

Sincerely in Christ,

~Jason

Dear Jason:

If I read you correctly I'd say that we are very close on this. Sorry, but I hadn't read the Post to Joe so I was going on our communications alone, so forgive me if I overlooked and obvious "statement in the conversation".

In Him,

Gerry

Gerry, I say AMEN! to that. Although it would surely be possible to have taken a picture or video of the Lord Christ, should such techo-gadgets have existed at that time, they would only have captured his physical appearance. The true identity, beauty, power, excellence and all the other magnificent attributes which the Lord Jesus possessed would be invisible to the unbelieving eye. Yet, the extraordinary truth of this entire matter is that even "we", who are living over 2000 years later and cannot observe Him with the physical eye, "we" can truly SEE Him in all His glory with the eye of faith. The WLC states this truth succinctly in Q & A #109 and so does the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 35:

Q96: What does God require in the second Commandment?
A96: That we in no way make any image of God,[1] nor worship Him in any other way than He has commanded us in His Word.[2]

1. Deut. 4:15-19; Isa. 40:18, 25; Rom. 1:22-24; Acts 17:29
2. I Sam. 15:23; Deut. 4:23-24; 12:30-32; Matt. 15:9; John 4:24

Q97: May we not make any image at all?
A97: God may not and cannot be imaged in any way; as for creatures, though they may indeed be imaged, yet God forbids the making or keeping of any likeness of them, either to worship them or to serve God by them.[1]

1. Exod. 23:24-25; 34:13-14; Deut. 7:5; 12:3; 16:22; II Kings 18:4; John 1:18

Q98: But may not pictures be tolerated in churches as books for the people?
A98: No, for we should not be wiser than God, who will not have His people taught by dumb idols,[1] but by the lively preaching of His Word.[2]

1. Jer. 10:8; Hab. 2:18-19
2. II Peter 1:19; II Tim. 3:16-17; Rom. 10:17

Luke 10:23 (KJV) "And he turned him unto [his] disciples, and said privately, Blessed [are] the eyes which see the things that ye see:"

John 20:29 (KJV) "Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed."

It is my deep conviction, that no man is able to portray Christ in any physical way, apart from the preaching/teaching of the Word, the fullness of the Lord Christ, nor effect any spiritual virtue desired or needed. It is Christ in the Gospel which men are to focus their minds and hearts, and not from the vain "artistry" of the hand of man.

In His Grace,

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] If I read you correctly I'd say that we are very close on this. </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Yup. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/cheers.gif" alt="cheers" title="cheers[/img]<br><br>~Jason<br>

Pilgrim;

In reply to:

---

The WLC states this truth succinctly in Q & A #109 and so does the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 35:

---

and I just "discovered this wonderful document and have been reading sermons preached from it. Though like all things human, these old confessions are not perfect, still they have such depth and wisdom in them, and I am so enjoying them. And to think that Ursinus who I believe was the primary author of the Heidelberg Cat. was only 27 yrs old when he wrote it. It will be something to see these brothers and sisters in heaven and banquet at the supper of the lamb with them in that incomperable Light!!

In Him,

Gerry

Jason,<br><br>Simply, God GAVE us the Bible to communicate to us. He did not give us His picture. A picture of God does not properly represent Him (as explained before) and thus is blasphemy! John 1:1 speaks of the Person of Christ and not His Polaroid. If you understood anything differently, I am sorry I failed to communicate it to you better.<br><br>Thank you for clearing up and cleaning up the rest of your statement(s). With over 1/2 million viewers per month it is important to explain such-statements.<br><br>

What would you say about Christmas cards portraying Christ? How about nativity scenes? If they are okay, how would you argue for why they are exceptions? What about a group of people doing a presentation of the Christmas story? The ones I have seen have not used an actual baby but used a rolled up blanket and recorded baby coos.<br><br>I have heard that Big Idea has come out with a Veggietales nativity scene. They have different characters portraying diferent poeple, and they have baby Jesus as one of the peas. Comments on this? If I had children, I don't think I would buy it for them.

In the church I grew up in, a presentation of the "Living Last Supper" would occur during Holy Week. This was done in the sanctuary, and a painting of Da Vinci's Last Supper was placed behind a table. Those in the play sat at the table in the arrangment in the picture, and one person portrayed Jesus (who sat still the whole time and did not speak). Each of the "disciples" had a monologue, telling about how they met Christ and saying what might have been going on their heads when Christ said one of them would betray Him.

I actually found the script online! Here it is:

http://christianpages.org/waymaker/special/lls/lsupper.htm

A Pea?

Marie:

I just bought some Christmas cards yesterday and avoided all that had any protrayal of Christ at all. There are quite a few that glorify God without stepping over these boundaries. The one I chose had scripture concerning Christ as the centerpiece.

In Him,

Gerry

Yes...

I always have thought Veggie Tales was a little odd. For instance, there was this one show called "Tach, Shach, and Benny" which was a version of the account of Meshach, Shadrach, and Abednego. They had this song about a big chocolate bunny that the people worshipped (it was set in a chocolate factory). Much to my surprise and chagrin, the people I watched it with later started singing the "Bunny Song."

Also, I recently read a very good article found here: http://www.geocities.com/lvegh/veggietales.html

Here is the author's website. It's supported by all the right people [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img] (MacArthur, Sproul, Lutzer)
http://www.spiritualjunkfood.com/

Gerry,

Yes indeed, I agree, "there are quite a few that glorify God without stepping over these boundaries," of sinning. My wife and I always purchase cards after Christmas for the following year (much more economical). We are very careful to insure that the ones we are purchasing do not have (1) an alleged picture of Christ on them (2) a picture of Santa (3) three wise men at the stable (4) well, anything that just is plain not glorifying.

Actually, I did the same this year. The front has a picture of Bethlehem in a shiny gold color and at the top it says "We see Jesus... (Hebrews 2:9)." On the inside it says, "This Christmas may we gaze anew upon the beauty of His glory and grace." I hope people take the time to read Hebrews 2- it's awesome

Thanks for the article. I do not keep up with Veggie-ology, but it looks like another blunder of teaching. It is indeed sad: we battle Santa, the Easter Bunny, and now a Veggie whatever [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/drop.gif" alt="drop" title="drop[/img]<br><br>

Dr. Russ Moore of the Carl F. H. Henry Institute for Evangelical Engagement (at Southern Baptist Seminary) said the following:

"Whatever evangelical scholars [may] think, these days an evangelical is not defined by whether one agrees with Millard Erickson or Stanley Grenz on the nature of divine revelation. Increasingly, an evangelical is defined as one who knows whether Bob is a talking tomato or a talking cucumber." http://www.henryinstitute.org/weblog/read.php?article=20031126

Sad, sad, sad...