From The Glory of Christ:

In this way Roman Catholics are deceived. They delight outwardly in images of Christ depicting his sufferings, resurrection and glory. By these images they think their love for him grows more and more strong. But no man-made image can truly represent the person of Christ and his glory. Only the gospel can do that.

John writes not only of himself but of his fellow apostles also, 'We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth' (John 1:14). Now what was his glory of Christ which they saw, and how did they see it?

It was not the glory of Christ's outward condition for he had no earthly glory or grandeur. He kept no court, nor did he entertain people to parties in a great house. He had nowhere to lay his head, even though he created all things. There was nothing about his outward appearance that would attract the eys of the world (Isa. 53:14; 53:2-3). He appeared to others as a 'man or sorrows'.

Neither was it the eternal essential glory of his divine nature that is meant, for this no man can see while in this world. What we shall see in heaven we cannot conceive.

What the apostles witnessed was the glory of 'grace and truth'. They saw the glory of Christ's person and office in the administration of grace and truth. And how did they see this glory? It was by faith and in no other way, for this privilege was given only to those who 'received him' and believe on his name (John 1:12). This was the glory which the Baptist saw when he pointed to Christ and said, 'Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!' (John 1:29).

So, let no one decieve himself. He that has no sight of Christ's glory here shall never see it hereafter. The beholding of Christ's glory is too high, glorious and marvellous for us in our present condition. The splendour of Christ's glory is too much for our physical eyes just as is the sun shining in all its strength. So while we are here on earth we can behold his glory only by faith.

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Daddy
Member of TRBC. My Blog
The Puritan Pub (Team Blog)
Board Rules-Signature Requirements-Suggestions?

Another:

No man ought to look for anything in heaven if he has not by faith first had some experience of it in this life. If men were convinced of this, they would spend more time in the exercise of faith and love about heavenly things than they usually do. At present they do not know what they enjoy, so they do not know what to expect. This is why men who are complete strangers to seeing the person and glory of Christ by faith have turned to images, pictures and music to help them in their worship.

Here's a nice one on Total Depravity (indirectly). Finally (for now):

Music cannot please a deaf man, nor can beautiful colours impress a blind man. A fish would not thank you for taking it out of the sea and putting it on dry land under the blazing sun! Neither would an unregenerate sinner welcome the thought of living for ever in the blazing glory of Christ.

I wanted to bump this thread, because I think these are excellent quotes.

You provided the thread for my very Q!

I have listened to a sermon by Rev. Charles Biggs A God of the Word and in it he speaks of images/paintings of Christ. While he states there are to be no visible representations in our worship services, he makes a concession that in our world, if a person creates an image of the Christ or creates a cinematic representation (artistic) for a purpose that is not designed to teach (didactic) then we can say it is not a violation of the 2nd commandment. He states the WCF is concerned with the second of these, the didactic. Also, he uses Rembrandt as an example, asking "Rembrandt, are you painting the Christ for the purpose of teaching?" The answer is "No". Then, "Rembrandt, is the purpose for this for worship?" Again, "No." "Is then, the purpose for art?" "Yes". "Then, Rembrandt, I do not believe it is in violation of the 2nd commandment."

This is very confusing to me. Is it not true that any and every attempt is forbidden?

__________________
Donald P. Grubb
theol46@embarqmail.com

Berean Baptist Church, Mansfield, OH
Mansfield, OH

John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing.
The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

Concerning Biggs' statement, I think he would be hard pressed to go back and prove that his interpretation of the Confession was in line with the intentions of the Framers. When they say no images, they mean no images. Period.

I believe it was Thomas Watson who said that any image that is created to be a representation of Christ ought also bring a person to reverence and devotion, otherwise it is in vain, and we should never do such a thing in vain. But the kicker is, if such a thing does draw us night to worship, it has become an idol. So it's a catch 22.

We don't attempt images portraying God for several reasons:

1. The Second Commandment says not to.
2. We can't adequately represent Him in His fullness, whether it be the person of the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit.
3. Thus, to be brought nigh to God in such a fashion is not according to His prescription, and is idolatry, since such an image is not God.

I'm pretty tired, so I may have been unclear in what I was trying to intimate. I was in bed for a few minutes, then got up to take care of something and saw this. I'm sure someone will pick up where I've messed up.

Exactly, Joshua. Otherwise, the Jesus movie or The Passion can be argued as only art, thus acceptable. And since the Jesus movie is said to be one of the greatest evangelistic tools of the past century, that pretty much rules out "art only". And his concession also would seem to allow that the heathen are "off the hook", so to speak, when they purposely devise to make a mockery of Christ in their portrayals. They certainly can not be said to be using them to teach the church so, as art, we can look upon it.

This sermon comes on the heels of my previous thread about a recent service where a man portrayed God.