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

__________________
Chris Coldwell
Lakewood Presbyterian Church (PCA), Member
• Naphtali Press: Presbyterian & Reformed Books
• The Confessional Presbyterian, A Journal for Discussion of Presbyterian Doctrine & Practice
• The Blue Banner Archive

When heresy rises in an evangelical body, it is never frank and open. It always begins by skulking, and assuming a disguise. Its advocates, when together, boast of great improvements, and congratulate one another on having gone greatly beyond the ‘old dead orthodoxy,’ and on having left behind many of its antiquated errors: but when taxed with deviations from the received faith, they complain of the unreasonableness of their accusers, as they ‘differ from it only in words.’ This has been the standing course of errorists ever since the apostolic age. Samuel Miller, Introductory essay, The Articles of the Synod of Dort (1841).

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

He says, "That 'visible representation' [referring to WCF 21.1] refers to visible representations of God the Father." (p. 312)

__________________
Andrew Myers
Husband of Jessica, Father of Jackson, Katie and Samuel
Member, Presbyterian Reformed Church of Northern Virginia
Warrenton, VA USA
Editor, The Matthew Poole Project

"On land, at sea, at home, abroad, / I smoke my pipe and worship God." -- J.S. Bach

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

__________________
Anne Ivy
Christ Chapel Bible Church
Fort Worth, Texas

Married to Don, mother of six, grandmother to an ever-increasing brood.

The Ivy Vine (my blog)

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'ming) 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.

Amen Chris!!! Hallelujah!!!

I have the same problem with R.C. Sr's position on the Sabbath day.

__________________
Benjamin P. Glaser
Pittsburgh, PA
Fairmount ARP Church

Student of Theology
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary
My Blog

Yes, one of my problems with RCS is his position on this. Although, generally I like his teachings, I find in a few areas, he seems to be a bit lax.

As Andrew quoted, "That 'visible represntation' refers to visible representations of God the Father." He goes on to write: "When God prescribed worship to His people in the old covenant, the very first commandment established pure monotheism...God is saying, 'I don't want to see a golden calf anywhere.'...He was jealous about the integrity of his people's worship and commanded that there be no idols."

I think he strains the point when he writes that WCF 21.1 "...is not a universal prohibition against art, because the tabernacle and later on the temple, designed on God's instructions, were veritable art museums...Art was not prohibited, but images of God himself were prohibited."

My problem with that is it rather simplisticly overlooks the truth that Jesus is God himself, and thus an image of Jesus is also prohibited.

__________________
Sterling Harmon
Coventry, CT
PCA
Deacon
________________

"Whatever is laudable in our works proceeds from the grace of God."
-- John Calvin, Institutes III:xv.3.

"Our Lord God must be a good man, to be fond of worthless fellows. I cannot like them, and yet I, myself, am one."
-- Martin Luther, Table Talk

I agree Chris. While I have alot of respect for Sproul Sr, there are certain things that just really bug me to be quite honest. The fact that he is a Presbyterian minister laboring in a "independent" congregation is a fine example of one of those things. He is very orthodox on many points/areas of the confession, but there are certain opinions that a presbyterian minister should not be allowed to have IMHO. This is why presbyterianism is where it is today.

__________________
Jeff Bartel
Mechanical Engineer
Member - Trinity Reformed Church - RPCNA

"To believe in the power of man in the work of regeneration is the great heresy of Rome, and from that error has come the ruin of the Church. Conversion proceeds from the grace of God alone, and the system which ascribes it partly to man and partly to God is worse than Pelagianism" (The Reformation in England (London, 1962), Vol. 1, p. 98)

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

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.

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

I am not aware of any Puritan support for pictures of Christ either, but even if there was, it is important to remember that truth is never established by citing and counting the number of individuals who have held a particular view. The only solid basis upon which to form our opinion on this clear teaching of Scripture.

That is why, though I respect R.C. Sproul in so many areas, I can without hestiation disagree with him here. His basis for his position is not a clear exposition of Scripture, IMHO.

Well said Deacon...

Although my experience is anecdotal, I was showed the door at a Baptist Church we attended several years ago (13+) for disagreeing with the session of that Church (yes, they had elders) for their purchase and distribution of 1000+ copies of "The Jesus Video" (Campus Crusade version based loosely on the Gospel of Luke) after I told them that video violated the 2nd and 3rd commandments. For the record, they approached RC Sproul in the matter because I had said that my views were consistent with classical Reformed and Presbyterian teaching. He replied to the session of that Church that they were within their rights to do as they had done, and that he could see no problem with their course.

I have appreciated some of the ministry of Dr. Sproul. However, in this position I have have no agreement with him whatsoever. I believe, with the divines, that even representations or images in the mind are forbidden. (LC 109)

__________________
Rev. Todd Ruddell
Pastor, Christ Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church (RPCGA)
Wylie, TX
www.christcovenantreformedpc.org

Our best marks can contribute nothing to our justification, ...that is proper to faith. Faith cannot lodge in the soul alone, and without other graces; yet faith alone justifies before God.--G. Gillespie

The most bizarre thing is this: can anyone find a physical description of Christ anywhere in the Gospels (or anywhere in the epistles for that matter)? Thus, any portraits of Him while he walked in the flesh during His ministry are completely a work of the imagination. Not a good thing.

It is also somewhat a matter of racism that modern portraits of Christ, like that one where he is pictured from the right serenely looking up into Heaven, have Him not looking like a near eastern Jew but rather like some import from Scandinavia. The pictures are totally unrealistic.

Sproul Sr. is way off base on this one.

__________________
Randy Harris
Heritage Church (Independent)
Oklahoma City, OK

The history of the "Jesus" picture that we most often see is quite interesting for those who want to check it out. I agree wholeheartedly with what you say Randy about the Racist intentions and application of the Scandanavian Jesus.

Seems a good thing to about, Chris.

__________________

HaigLaw, ruling elder
Grace PCA, Shreveport, LA
http://www.xanga.com/HaigLaw

I did not realize RCS's position on this matter until my family visited his church last summer. We walked into the sanctuary and my kids were shocked wondering what kind of church their dad brought them too. There are graphic pictures surrounding the sanctuary of images intended to be Christ as well as nude images of men (!). I was quite shocked and felt bad for my kids that they were exposed to such pornography as well as confusion as they entered a "confessional" church.

I also thought it a bit pretentious that right at the vestibule when you walk in there hung a larger portrait of Dr. Sproul himself. A brother at my church has recently visited and has said it must have been taken down because it is no longer displayed.

__________________
--chRis
Psalm 115:1

Christopher Reeder
Husband to Kara, Father to Abigail (7), Caleb (6), Grace (4 1/2), Zoë (2 1/2), Elijah (1) and Baby Girl due 8/6/08

Member: Pilgrim Presbyterian Church (OPC), Raleigh, NC

I mentioned it to my friends who went there, and IIRC, it had been a gift by someone in the church - or a group? - anyway, it was one of those awkward situations where it'd have cause hurt feelings had it not been displayed for at least a while, as the ones who'd arranged for it as a surprise were so pleased about the whole thing.

He didn't actually set out to have a huge painting of himself made so it could be stuck in the entry hall, from what I understand. ;^)

Fond friend(s) thought it'd be a fitting tribute. Can't recall if the occasion had been his birthday or anniversary of ordination or time at the church; it was something like that, I believe.

WHY?????

__________________


http://www.myspace.com/aleavelle
"Speak wisdom to a fool and he'll think you have no sense at all"

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Since it is no longer displayed then that may very well be the case. Considering the many number of visitors to that church, I am not sure it was all that wise. In such cases simply communicate to the people instead of worrying about hurt feelings.

Oh, you must be referring to "Swede". That's what I call that guy. Or do you think "Lars" might be a better name?

__________________
~Jay~
Husband of ENS, father of J II. | Indian Trail, NC
Teacher Aide, Union County Public Schools, NC
Communicant Member, Precentor | Presbyterian Reformed Church of Charlotte, NC | Presbyterian Reformed Church