Worshipping at churches that violate the 2nd Commandment - Page 2

BJClark · #41 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 08:58 AM

JBaldwin;

Quote:

Is not this the view held by the Amish? They do not have images or pictures of anything in the their homes.

yes it is..

Pilgrim · #42 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 09:07 AM

If a cross is a 2nd commandment violation, then a lot of PCA and OPC churches violate it, and it is probably the vast majority. Is there any Presbytery of either denomination that would require an exception for that? I doubt it (although what they may require or allow regarding exceptions certainly shouldn't be the ultimate standard), but I've read this thread in haste and maybe have missed the point. I can do without crosses personally, but to me it is not nearly as clear a violation as actual pictures of what the artist imagines to be Christ. I can imagine scenarios where one might have to drive across several states to find a church that doesn't have a cross displayed somewhere.

The "Amazing Grace: History and Theology of Calvinism" DVD was loaded with "pictures of Christ". Why this was deemed necessary, I don't know. My copy has disappeared and I only saw it once about 2 1/2 years ago, but I got the impression that the producers were going out of their way to appear high church, as if it was somehow more reverent.

Dogfreid · #43 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

Now, I'm sure others will opine on what you have said, but images of Christ, the second person of the Trinity, are prohibited by the second commandment.

Now, this would be the very point of contention, wouldn't it?

For the record, I'm far more interested in the debate over the cross or crucifix than I am over images.

NaphtaliPress · #44 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogfreid

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

Now, I'm sure others will opine on what you have said, but images of Christ, the second person of the Trinity, are prohibited by the second commandment.

Now, this would be the very point of contention, wouldn't it?

For the record, I'm far more interested in the debate over the cross or crucifix than I am over images.

Of course it is; but not what is unConfessional. I'm not interested in the cross debate; but a crucifix is an image. Fix your bio.

Joshua · #45 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogfreid

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

Now, I'm sure others will opine on what you have said, but images of Christ, the second person of the Trinity, are prohibited by the second commandment.

Now, this would be the very point of contention, wouldn't it?

For the record, I'm far more interested in the debate over the cross or crucifix than I am over images.

But it won't be a point of contention here. Why? Because the Westminster Confession of Faith, due to Scripture's commands, states these truths very clearly.

For the record, a crucifix contains an image.

Dogfreid · #46 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 10:59 AM

I had trouble logging in earlier and it made me think that I was banned. I kept putting in my name and password and after it redirected me it showed that I wasn't logged in. Let me just take the opportunity to say that if the mods or admins want me to stop posting on this matter or any other that might be off putting to the confessional identity here, I'm more interested in retaining membership than continuing these discussions. I'd rather respect the mood here than become a maverick in these discussions.

With that said, I'd like to address a couple of things:

Napthali, I fixed my bio before you posted your last message. Is it not showing up?

Joshua wrote: "But it won't be a point of contention here. Why? Because the Westminster Confession of Faith, due to Scripture's commands, states these truths very clearly.

For the record, a crucifix contains an image."

Notice how adherence to the confession destroys the critical sense. It becomes a functional magisterium in that it cannot be questioned on its interpretation of Scripture. How can we retain the principle of Sola Scriptura when we accept the Confession as the end-all of doctrinal explanation?

Why can't we debate this issue? We're not Roman Catholics. We get to test everything against Scripture.

I realize that this has now turned into a debate over the authority and place of the Westminster Confession, and this was not the point of this thread. But let me note that I didn't intend to steer us to this debate. I'm interested in debating the different issue of symbols and images in church yet we cannot because there has been the authoritative and final interpretation on it already delivered.

What is the difference between the 7th ecumenical council on the iconoclast controversy and the Westminster Confession? Both authoritatively concluded a specific position. Yet as Protestants who hold to Sola Scriptura, we'd expect to be able to question our conciliar and confessional statements against Scripture while the EO cannot or would not (given their rejection of Sola Scriptura).

Joshua · #47 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogfreid

Joshua wrote: "But it won't be a point of contention here. Why? Because the Westminster Confession of Faith, due to Scripture's commands, states these truths very clearly.

For the record, a crucifix contains an image."

Notice how adherence to the confession destroys the critical sense. It becomes a functional magisterium in that it cannot be questioned on its interpretation of Scripture. How can we retain the principle of Sola Scriptura when we accept the Confession as the end-all of doctrinal explanation?

Did you miss the part wherein I wrote "due to Scripture's commands?" You're still, respectfully, missing the point. I am saying that it may be a point of contention elsewhere. Maybe Presbyteries want to take it up for debate at the General Assembly, so that they can overturn and amend that part of the Confession. However, what I'm saying is that this is a Confessional, Reformed, and Puritan forum. Thus, we're not debating the validity of images, because the Confession (again, due to Scripture's commands) prohibits images. If you want to debate this, then go to another board that doesn't have as strict standards. It's nothing personal.

Quote:

Why can't we debate this issue? We're not Roman Catholics. We get to test everything against Scripture.

You can debate the issue, just not here.

This isn't an Ecumenical Council or a General Assembly. This is a privately-owned board which is also under the oversight of a Reformed and Presbyterian denomination. Thus, it is also a Confessional board, and the rules here aren't egalitarian, or "balanced." Nor is it a democracy, or even a representative republic. The owners decide what structure to use for rules, etc. And it is respectively their right and prerogative to do so.

NaphtaliPress · #48 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogfreid

I had trouble logging in earlier and it made me think that I was banned. I kept putting in my name and password and after it redirected me it showed that I wasn't logged in. Let me just take the opportunity to say that if the mods or admins want me to stop posting on this matter or any other that might be off putting to the confessional identity here, I'm more interested in retaining membership than continuing these discussions. I'd rather respect the mood here than become a maverick in these discussions. With that said, I'd like to address a couple of things:

Napthali, I fixed my bio before you posted your last message. Is it not showing up?

No conspiracies as far as I know; you wouldn't have been able to log in at all if you had been suspended. Thanks for changing the bio. It is rather non specific and coming at this issue as vocally as you are you seem to have an exception pretty firmed up against the Westminster Standards on this subject. There is an approach to this that is not hostile to the board's confessionalism, and that is to ask questions, rather than make bold pronouncements that those standards imply a heresy or attack the nature of confessions themselves. [/quote]

Dogfreid · #49 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 11:22 AM

Joshua, I think I understand your point better now. It's not that we cannot debate the issue in a proper forum but that we cannot debate it here. That makes sense, and it's perfectly acceptable.

Napthali, I knew there wasn't a conspiracy in play. Frankly, if the mods or admins want to ban me that is their prerogative and they won't hear a peep of complaint from me. I know I'm a guest here; it's not my right to be a member.

Your right about the approach that I should take with respect to these debates. I should've asked questions rather than say the things I said outright.

But I am able to say that now because before Joshua clarified the Confession's place on this board for me I didn't know that such things were out of bounds.

If anyone wishes to continue this discussion with me, please email me or post a comment on my blog. I respectfully bow out.

Joshua · #50 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogfreid

Joshua, I think I understand your point better now. It's not that we cannot debate the issue in a proper forum but that we cannot debate it here. That makes sense, and it's perfectly acceptable.

I would add this qualification, as Mr. Coldwell did above. There is a difference between debating something, and asking questions about something. I believe what sparked the last several comments was your assertion that you "would have a problem with a church that has the means to put one up but doesn't." So, while you're welcome to ask why the Confession, etc. sees things like Crucifixes and images intending to portray God are wrong, it's not welcome to assert things which are dogmatically contra the Confession (and in our estimation, thus contra Scripture).

Hope that makes sense.