The PuritanBoard  

Go Back   The PuritanBoard > The Church > Worship

Worship Psa 5:7 But as for me, I will come into thy house in the multitude of thy mercy: and in thy fear will I worship toward thy holy temple.

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God.

» Online Users: 47
2 members and 45 guests
Bern, David
Most users ever online was 856, 07-06-2007 at 12:19 AM.
Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 05-04-2008, 09:36 AM
NaphtaliPress's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 12,497
Blog Entries: 20
Thanks: 1,589
Thanked 2,012 Times in 1,111 Posts
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?
__________________
Chris Coldwell, Lakewood Presbyterian Church (PCA), Dallas, Texas.
Naphtali Press: Presbyterian & Reformed Books
Westminster Letter Press
The Confessional Presbyterian Journal
The Blue Banner Archive

The Regulative Principle: The Scriptures are the “only infallible rule of faith and practice, no rite or ceremony ought to have a place in the public worship of God, which is not warranted in Scripture, either by direct precept or example, or by good and sufficient inference” (Samuel Miller).

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? Joining PB's Politics & Government Forum
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 05-04-2008, 09:45 AM
Puritanboard Librarian
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: N/A
Posts: 24,004
Blog Entries: 7
Thanks: 2,636
Thanked 3,523 Times in 2,014 Posts
He says, "That 'visible representation' [referring to WCF 21.1] refers to visible representations of God the Father." (p. 312)
__________________
Andrew
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 05-04-2008, 10:49 AM
Gryphonette's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 1,289
Thanks: 131
Thanked 303 Times in 167 Posts
Since there's a huge painting of Jesus on the cross at his church in Florida...

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress View Post
I don't have Sproul's three volumes on the WCF; anyone who does, does he address "pictures" of Christ at WCF 21.1?
__________________
Anne Ivy
Christ Chapel Bible Church
Fort Worth, Texas

Widowed mother of six, grandmother of eight.

The Ivy Vine (my blog)
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
The Following User Says Thank You to Gryphonette For This Useful Post:
NaphtaliPress (05-04-2008)
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 05-04-2008, 12:49 PM
NaphtaliPress's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 12,497
Blog Entries: 20
Thanks: 1,589
Thanked 2,012 Times in 1,111 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gryphonette View Post
.....RCSR obviously has no quarrel with fictional artistic representations of Christ.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress View Post
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.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to NaphtaliPress For This Useful Post:
Augusta (05-05-2008), Backwoods Presbyterian (05-04-2008), christianyouth (05-04-2008), ChristopherPaul (05-05-2008), Daniel Ritchie (05-04-2008), jaybird0827 (05-05-2008), Jeff_Bartel (05-04-2008), Joshua (05-05-2008), KMK (05-05-2008), lwadkins (05-05-2008), PuritanCovenanter (05-04-2008), Rev. Todd Ruddell (05-04-2008), tcalbrecht (05-04-2008), Theoretical (05-04-2008)
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 05-04-2008, 01:03 PM
Backwoods Presbyterian's Avatar
Puritanboard Doctor
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Clarksburg, WV
Posts: 11,973
Blog Entries: 2
Thanks: 5,103
Thanked 2,644 Times in 1,604 Posts
Amen Chris!!! Hallelujah!!!

I have the same problem with R.C. Sr's position on the Sabbath day.
__________________
Benjamin P. Glaser, M. Div, Licentiate, Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church
Member Fairmount ARP Church
Pittsburgh, PA


Deo Vindice
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Backwoods Presbyterian For This Useful Post:
christianyouth (05-04-2008), NaphtaliPress (05-04-2008)
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 05-04-2008, 03:35 PM
Presbyterian Deacon's Avatar
Puritanboard Graduate
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Rockville, CT
Posts: 3,646
Thanks: 609
Thanked 925 Times in 709 Posts
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
Presbyterian Church of Coventry (PCA)
Coventry, CT
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

Interim Pulpit Supply of New England

My Facebook

Owner/Administrator @ Reformed Theology Institute

Last edited by Presbyterian Deacon; 05-04-2008 at 04:29 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Presbyterian Deacon For This Useful Post:
Anton Bruckner (05-04-2008), Backwoods Presbyterian (05-04-2008), Daniel Ritchie (05-04-2008), Gryphonette (05-04-2008), jaybird0827 (05-05-2008), NaphtaliPress (05-04-2008), PuritanCovenanter (05-05-2008), Quickened (05-06-2008)
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 05-04-2008, 04:50 PM
Jeff_Bartel's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Wichita, Kansas
Posts: 4,131
Thanks: 273
Thanked 200 Times in 112 Posts
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?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Jeff_Bartel For This Useful Post:
Anton Bruckner (05-04-2008), jaybird0827 (05-05-2008), NaphtaliPress (05-04-2008), Presbyterian Deacon (05-04-2008), Stephen (05-05-2008)
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 05-04-2008, 04:53 PM
Puritanboard Doctor
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Saintfield, Co. Down, Northern Ireland
Posts: 6,566
Thanks: 2,062
Thanked 1,124 Times in 740 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gryphonette View Post
.....RCSR obviously has no quarrel with fictional artistic representations of Christ.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress View Post
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.
__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 05-04-2008, 08:45 PM
Presbyterian Deacon's Avatar
Puritanboard Graduate
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Rockville, CT
Posts: 3,646
Thanks: 609
Thanked 925 Times in 709 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie View Post
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.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Presbyterian Deacon For This Useful Post:
Backwoods Presbyterian (05-04-2008), Daniel Ritchie (05-05-2008), NaphtaliPress (05-04-2008)
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 05-04-2008, 08:48 PM
Backwoods Presbyterian's Avatar
Puritanboard Doctor
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Clarksburg, WV
Posts: 11,973
Blog Entries: 2
Thanks: 5,103
Thanked 2,644 Times in 1,604 Posts
Well said Deacon...
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
The Following User Says Thank You to Backwoods Presbyterian For This Useful Post:
Presbyterian Deacon (05-05-2008)
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 05-04-2008, 11:12 PM
Rev. Todd Ruddell's Avatar
Puritanboard Sophomore
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Lavon, TX
Posts: 878
Thanks: 499
Thanked 329 Times in 132 Posts
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

Last edited by Rev. Todd Ruddell; 05-05-2008 at 06:56 AM. Reason: Clarity/Spelling
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 05-04-2008, 11:59 PM
R Harris's Avatar
Puritanboard Freshman
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 399
Thanks: 131
Thanked 197 Times in 89 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Presbyterian Deacon View Post
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.
__________________
Randy Harris
Heritage PCA Church
Oklahoma City, OK
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 05-05-2008, 07:49 AM
Backwoods Presbyterian's Avatar
Puritanboard Doctor
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Clarksburg, WV
Posts: 11,973
Blog Entries: 2
Thanks: 5,103
Thanked 2,644 Times in 1,604 Posts
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.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 05-05-2008, 08:05 AM
HaigLaw's Avatar
Puritanboard Sophomore
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Shreveport, LA
Posts: 753
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 165
Thanked 132 Times in 88 Posts
Seems a good thing to about, Chris.
__________________

HaigLaw, ruling elder
Grace PCA, Shreveport, LA
http://www.xanga.com/HaigLaw
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
The Following User Says Thank You to HaigLaw For This Useful Post:
NaphtaliPress (05-05-2008)
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 05-05-2008, 09:04 AM
ChristopherPaul's Avatar
Puritanboard Senior
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 2,496
Thanks: 245
Thanked 166 Times in 101 Posts
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.
__________________
Christopher Reeder
Husband to Kara, Father to Abigail (8), Caleb (7), Grace (5 1/2), Zoë (4), Elijah (2), Hannah (1), and Mary (due February 2010)

Member: Pilgrim Presbyterian Church (OPC), Raleigh, NC
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 05-05-2008, 09:14 AM
Gryphonette's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 1,289
Thanks: 131
Thanked 303 Times in 167 Posts
I was taken aback by it, too, when there for a funeral.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristopherPaul View Post
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.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 05-05-2008, 09:27 AM
ReformedWretch's Avatar
Puritanboard Doctor
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Pa.
Posts: 8,571
Thanks: 72
Thanked 569 Times in 339 Posts
Quote:
There are graphic pictures surrounding the sanctuary of images intended to be Christ as well as nude images of men (!).
WHY?????
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 05-05-2008, 09:41 AM
ChristopherPaul's Avatar
Puritanboard Senior
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 2,496
Thanks: 245
Thanked 166 Times in 101 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gryphonette View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristopherPaul View Post
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.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 05-05-2008, 10:06 AM
jaybird0827's Avatar
Puritanboard Postgraduate
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Indian Trail, NC
Posts: 4,175
Blog Entries: 10
Thanks: 1,080
Thanked 452 Times in 296 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harris View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Presbyterian Deacon View Post
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?
__________________
~Jay~
Husband of ENS, father of J II. | Indian Trail, NC
disabled - cancer
Communicant Member, Precentor | Presbyterian Reformed Church of Charlotte, NC | Presbyterian Reformed Church

zzzzzz ...
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 05-05-2008, 10:15 AM
jaybird0827's Avatar
Puritanboard Postgraduate
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Indian Trail, NC
Posts: 4,175
Blog Entries: 10
Thanks: 1,080
Thanked 452 Times in 296 Posts
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?

Quote:
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.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 05-05-2008, 10:25 AM
fredtgreco's Avatar
Vanilla Westminsterian
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 10,519
Thanks: 334
Thanked 3,501 Times in 1,412 Posts
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.)
__________________
Fred Greco
Senior Pastor, Christ Church PCA (Katy, TX)
Christ Church Blog

"The heart is the main thing in true religion...It is the hinge and turning-point in the condition of man's soul. If the heart is alive to God and quickened by the Spirit, the man is a living Christian. If the heart is dead and has not the Spirit, the man is dead before God." (J.C. Ryle)
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 05-05-2008, 10:28 AM
ReformedWretch's Avatar
Puritanboard Doctor
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Pa.
Posts: 8,571
Thanks: 72
Thanked 569 Times in 339 Posts
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?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 05-05-2008, 10:49 AM
Stephen's Avatar
Puritanboard Senior
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,026
Thanks: 933
Thanked 272 Times in 180 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by PuritanBouncer View Post
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.
__________________
Stephen Welch
PCA Teaching Elder
Nova Scotia :cheers:
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 05-05-2008, 12:33 PM
Joshua's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 22,425
Blog Entries: 39
Thanks: 2,918
Thanked 6,138 Times in 2,590 Posts
Mod Note:

Let's keep on topic of OP, please.
__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Dad
Christ Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church
, RPCGA
Facebook - The Calvinist Vent
Board Rules - Signature Rules - Suggestion Box

It is God that multiplies our sorrows....
God, as a righteous Judge, does it, which ought to silence us under all our sorrows; as many as they are, we have deserved them all, and more: nay, God, as a tender Father, does it for our necessary correction, that we may be humbled for sin, and weaned from the world by all our sorrows; and the good we get by them, with the comfort we have under them, will abundantly balance our sorrows, how greatly soever they are multiplied. - Matthew Henry
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 05-05-2008, 12:37 PM
Joshua's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 22,425
Blog Entries: 39
Thanks: 2,918
Thanked 6,138 Times in 2,590 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gryphonette View Post
.....RCSR obviously has no quarrel with fictional artistic representations of Christ.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff_Bartel View Post
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristopherPaul View Post
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.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 05-05-2008, 02:20 PM
R Harris's Avatar
Puritanboard Freshman
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 399
Thanks: 131
Thanked 197 Times in 89 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshua View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress View Post
Quote:
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."
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 05-05-2008, 02:31 PM
fredtgreco's Avatar
Vanilla Westminsterian
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 10,519
Thanks: 334
Thanked 3,501 Times in 1,412 Posts
Randy,

Not be offensive, but I'm curious. Given your strong statement above, why are you a part of an "Independent" church?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 05-05-2008, 04:06 PM
R Harris's Avatar
Puritanboard Freshman
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 399
Thanks: 131
Thanked 197 Times in 89 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredtgreco View Post
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?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 05-05-2008, 04:43 PM
Backwoods Presbyterian's Avatar
Puritanboard Doctor
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Clarksburg, WV
Posts: 11,973
Blog Entries: 2
Thanks: 5,103
Thanked 2,644 Times in 1,604 Posts
but my vote would be for ARP.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 05-05-2008, 04:55 PM
Stephen's Avatar
Puritanboard Senior
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,026
Thanks: 933
Thanked 272 Times in 180 Posts
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.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 05-05-2008, 06:01 PM
R Harris's Avatar
Puritanboard Freshman
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 399
Thanks: 131
Thanked 197 Times in 89 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen View Post
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.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 05-05-2008, 06:24 PM
Backwoods Presbyterian's Avatar
Puritanboard Doctor
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Clarksburg, WV
Posts: 11,973
Blog Entries: 2
Thanks: 5,103
Thanked 2,644 Times in 1,604 Posts
I do not know much about the PCA but how is Sproul seen in PCA circles?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 05-05-2008, 06:43 PM
DMcFadden's Avatar
Meum cerebrum nocet
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: San Gabriel, CA
Posts: 7,501
Thanks: 1,767
Thanked 3,535 Times in 1,715 Posts
Quote:
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.)
__________________
Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 05-05-2008, 07:49 PM
tcalbrecht's Avatar
Puritanboard Junior
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Downingtown, PA
Posts: 1,637
Thanks: 26
Thanked 223 Times in 128 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMcFadden View Post
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.
__________________
Tom Albrecht
Elder, Covenant URCNA, New Holland, PA.

"When I find the time, I'm going to write the social history of bourbon."
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 05-05-2008, 08:17 PM
Joshua's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 22,425
Blog Entries: 39
Thanks: 2,918
Thanked 6,138 Times in 2,590 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by tcalbrecht View Post
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?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 05-05-2008, 09:46 PM
Puritanboard Sophomore
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: x
Posts: 763
Thanks: 46
Thanked 18 Times in 16 Posts
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.
__________________
x

Last edited by brymaes; 05-05-2008 at 10:10 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #37 (permalink)  
Old 05-05-2008, 10:39 PM
nicnap's Avatar
Puritanboard Graduate
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: SC
Posts: 3,221
Thanks: 1,093
Thanked 576 Times in 430 Posts
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.
__________________
soli Deo gloria!
~Nicholas~ Ordained Pastor
Member, Fulton PCA; GPTS Student
Christians are like snow covered dung; it is the purity of the covering which the Father sees. -Luther-
There is nothing more ugly than a Christian orthodoxy without understanding or without compassion.
-Francis Schaeffer-
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #38 (permalink)  
Old 05-05-2008, 11:33 PM
turmeric's Avatar
Megerator
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Portland,OR
Posts: 10,723
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 1,738
Thanked 953 Times in 794 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicnap View Post
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!
__________________
The man who is disposed to think of his sin as a great calamity, rather than as a heinous crime, is not likely either to reverence God or to respect His law. - John Kennedy, 1873
Meg
Blog
Member, Intown Presbyterian Church,PCA, Portland, OR

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #39 (permalink)  
Old 05-06-2008, 10:56 AM
Stephen's Avatar
Puritanboard Senior
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,026
Thanks: 933
Thanked 272 Times in 180 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian View Post
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.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #40 (permalink)  
Old 05-06-2008, 11:02 AM
Stephen's Avatar
Puritanboard Senior
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,026
Thanks: 933
Thanked 272 Times in 180 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by theologae View Post
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.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.0

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2 ©2009, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2002-2008 PuritanBoard.com
Hosted by WebsiteMaven - helping ministries with web hosting advice, reviews, and design.
67 Westminster Abbey © Confessional Presbyterian Presses - used with permission.
Add Our Custom Button to your Google Toolbar

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69