The PuritanBoard - View Single Post

Daniel Ritchie · #8 (**permalink**) 05-04-2008, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gryphonette

.....RCSR obviously has no quarrel with fictional artistic representations of Christ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

I don't have Sproul's three volumes on the WCF; anyone who does, does he address "pictures" of Christ at WCF 21.1?

Well, the problem is, while there might be superficial support for his view if we were ignorant of nothing but WCF 21.1, Sproul misrepresents the intent of the divines; I'm not sure how one can argue that WCF 21.1 applies only to God the Father when LC 109 makes it very clear the Assembly intended all three persons of the Trinity. This is one of my pet peeves (hold on, let me rant

); those who atomize the productions of the Westminster Assembly and either ignore or refuse to interpret them consistent with the common Puritan view at the time let alone the Westminster documents as a whole. And, (since I'm

ing) I'm a little feed up with folks who take the occasion of commenting on the Westminster Standards to impose their own views that fly in the face of the Assembly's original intent. Fine if they want to disagree with the common Puritan position, but don't distort the original teaching intended. Commenting on the Confessional standards should be done by those who are well equipped to accurately represent their teaching and will honestly make clear what is their own position if they think the Westminster Divines got it wrong.

In light of what Chris said there, I cannot think of one Puritan who held that pictures of Christ were legitimate. Can anyone else? So the WCF 21:1 must clearly rule it out. While there may be some parts of the Confession where there may be legitimate disagreement over precisely what the author's intended, I do not believe this is one of them.