Thread: Sproul on WCF 21.1

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

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

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

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?

Originally Posted by Gryphonette

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

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'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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

Originally Posted by Gryphonette

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

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'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.

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.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

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.

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)

Originally Posted by Presbyterian Deacon

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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by ChristopherPaul

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.

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.

There are graphic pictures surrounding the sanctuary of images intended to be Christ as well as nude images of men (!).

WHY?????

Originally Posted by Gryphonette

Originally Posted by ChristopherPaul

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by R Harris

Originally Posted by Presbyterian Deacon

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.

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.

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

Why just consider WCF 21.1?

Why not WCF 8.2 and 8.3, and why not try to understand WCF 21.1 somewhat more in the light of that?

II. The Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon Him man's nature, with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin;being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.

III. The Lord Jesus, in His human nature thus united to the divine, was sanctified, and anointed with the Holy Spirit, above measure, having in Him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; in whom it pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell; to the end that, being holy, harmless, undefiled, and full of grace and truth, He might be thoroughly furnished to execute the office of a Mediator and Surety. Which office He took not unto Himself, but was thereunto called by His Father, who put all power and judgment into His hand, and gave Him commandment to execute the same.

IOW, not only is making a picture of Christ forbidden (because he is God), but it is impossible because you cannot paint, photograph, or play-act God. The most you ever get is a picture of a mere man, and that is no Christ.

If we are ever in a place where such pictures are found, I usually point to them and say to my kids:

"Look! A picture of Elijah the prophet!" (or Paul, etc.)

What do you say about the naked ones? Sorry to keep beating that drum but I've never heard of something like that in a church, museum maybe, but church?

Originally Posted by PuritanBouncer

What do you say about the naked ones? Sorry to keep beating that drum but I've never heard of something like that in a church, museum maybe, but church?

I have no issue with a nude of David or any similar statue or painting. A nude statue or painting is not pornographic unless it is intended to entice or sexually stimulate someone. I do not think it would be appropriate for a church sanctuary to have these kind of depictions and especially a depiction of the LORD in any form.

Mod Note:

Let's keep on topic of OP, please.

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

Originally Posted by Gryphonette

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

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'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.

Originally Posted by Jeff_Bartel

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.

This has given me the most pause. Other than a Presbytery or whatever approving him to go help a struggling church of sorts, or something along those lines, I cannot imagine why this happens. Is not considered schismatic? I just really don't understand because where, then, is the accountability for the ministers of this Church? Where is the surety of appeal for the congregation beyond the local level? Where is accountability for Ligonier?

Originally Posted by ChristopherPaul

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.

Originally Posted by joshua

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

Originally Posted by Gryphonette;400135
[quote=Jeff_Bartel;400181

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.

This has given me the most pause. Other than a Presbytery or whatever approving him to go help a struggling church of sorts, or something along those lines, I cannot imagine why this happens. Is not considered schismatic? I just really don't understand because where, then, is the accountability for the ministers of this Church? Where is the surety of appeal for the congregation beyond the local level? Where is accountability for Ligonier?"

The ex-pastor ("ex" - he was forced to resign) of our church talked with RCSS some time ago when he was having a contentious issue with the North Texas Presbytery. He said that he phoned RCSS and asked him about being independent and being outside of a presbytery.

He told the Sunday school class that Sproul responded "Who needs it?" [meaning, a presbytery].

Needless to say, I was completely stunned to hear that. My respect for RCSS dropped several levels after hearing it.

Such comments only come from prideful, arrogant pastors who start to feel above everyone else and will not submit to any questioning comments or rebukes. Sure, presbyteries can unfortunately focus on nitpicky things at times; but that still is no excuse for abandoning a biblical teaching.

Frankly, I have grown very tired of these pastor "superstars."

Randy,

Not be offensive, but I'm curious. Given your strong statement above, why are you a part of an "Independent" church?

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

Randy,

Not be offensive, but I'm curious. Given your strong statement above, why are you a part of an "Independent" church?

Because of the problems caused by our ex-pastor, we are no longer a part of the PCA. Hence, we are "independent" for the time being. The session is currently reviewing what potential NAPARC denominations we might affiliate with. They have narrowed their list down to 4, with the PCA still being one of them (the problems with the North Texas Presbytery left some bitter feelings on both sides, so the session is hesitant about re-joining the PCA).

Sin is an unbelievable thing, is it not?

but my vote would be for ARP.

It seems like every year when the PCA statistical report comes out there are always some teaching elders who go into independency. As a PCA teaching elder this concerns me and I have to ask why. What is the PCA doing that causes these men to go into independency? I left independency and it is a real curse.

Originally Posted by Stephen

It seems like every year when the PCA statistical report comes out there are always some teaching elders who go into independency. As a PCA teaching elder this concerns me and I have to ask why. What is the PCA doing that causes these men to go into independency? I left independency and it is a real curse.

My own opinion? It is examples of what we have discussed on this thread, such as with RCSS and my ex-pastor.

While my evidence is anecdotal and not empirical, I do seem to see more and more instances every year of pastors who simply will not submit to a higher body. Call it pride, call it arrogance, call it what you will, but submission in many elements - pastors to their congregations and sessions, members to pastors, wives to husbands - is certainly out of vogue, not only in the church but certainly everywhere in our society. Radical individualism is winning the day.

So, someone like RCSS is confronted with their position on the second commandment, the original question of this thread. The person has an opinion, won't change it in light of biblical teaching and confessional standards, gets upset, then says "who needs this," and decides to leave their presbytery and denomination. This is a BIG, BIG problem in my opinion and experience. It is why Christianity is as fragmented as it is today.

I wish I had answers to why the answer to the problem isn't happening, but I don't.

I do not know much about the PCA but how is Sproul seen in PCA circles?

While my evidence is anecdotal and not empirical, I do seem to see more and more instances every year of pastors who simply will not submit to a higher body. Call it pride, call it arrogance, call it what you will, but submission in many elements - pastors to their congregations and sessions, members to pastors, wives to husbands - is certainly out of vogue, not only in the church but certainly everywhere in our society. Radical individualism is winning the day.

Given the autonomous nature of the American psyche, can Presbyterian polity function in America c. 2008?

(Not meant as a slam from a baptist. I am alarmed at RCSS's refusal to put himself under the authority of a presbytery. That bothers me greatly. What do you insiders think about the future of your polity? I have been hoping that at least my confessional presbyterian brethren had overcome the inherent weaknesses of baptist/congregational polity.)

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Given the autonomous nature of the American psyche, can Presbyterian polity function in America c. 2008?

(Not meant as a slam from a baptist. I am alarmed at RCSS's refusal to put himself under the authority of a presbytery. That bothers me greatly. What do you insiders think about the future of your polity? I have been hoping that at least my confessional presbyterian brethren had overcome the inherent weaknesses of baptist/congregational polity.)

Actually, I believe RC was given permission by Central Florida Presbytery to start Saint Andrews church as an independent work. So, technically, RC is in submission to his presbytery. It's the presbytery that seems to have an issue.

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

Actually, I believe RC was given permission by Central Florida Presbytery to start Saint Andrews church as an independent work. So, technically, RC is in submission to his presbytery. It's the presbytery that seems to have an issue.

Thanks for this info. I wonder why he wanted/needed to start an "independent" work. And you're right, what was the Presbytery thinking?

RC Sproul is in fact a member of Central Florida Presbytery. The session of St. Andrews Chapel was at one time in the process of joining the PCA but backed out when RCJr. was rejected for ordination in the PCA.

See here, the relevant portion is on page 9.

I just want to say...this is off topic...but it's pretty cool that the guy is reffered to as RCS and other acronyms. I gotta do something to be reffered to as NSN...this is in jest of course.

Originally Posted by nicnap

I just want to say...this is off topic...but it's pretty cool that the guy is reffered to as RCS and other acronyms. I gotta do something to be reffered to as NSN...this is in jest of course.

You better be careful what you ask for around here, you just might get it!

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

I do not know much about the PCA but how is Sproul seen in PCA circles?

He is still a minister in the PCA and votes at the General Assembly level. He was a minister at St. Paul's in Orlando years ago before he started St. Andrew's Chapel in Lake Mary, Florida. Some issues were raised in the PCA presbytery and he was deeply hurt over that and how his son was treated when he tried to enter the PCA. I do not know why his congregation is outside the PCA. It is odd that the presbytery of Central Florida has not challenged the issue of his congregation.

Originally Posted by theologae

RC Sproul is in fact a member of Central Florida Presbytery. The session of St. Andrews Chapel was at one time in the process of joining the PCA but backed out when RCJr. was rejected for ordination in the PCA.

See here, the relevant portion is on page 9.

Yes, I believe that is correct. It was my understanding that his position on home schooling and theonomy was the reason that the presbytery he applied to rejected him. I find this deplorable considering we have theonomists and those in the home schooling movement across the denomination; i.e Rayburn, Grant, Gentry, DeMar, and others.