Images and the 2nd commandment

[Goosha]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

Originally posted by Goosha

Originally posted by fredtgreco
But the point does get at your argument: if pictures of Christ don't portrary His Person, but merely are portraying a nature (a hunk of flesh), and they do so falsely, then of what use are they?

So, do you grant Paul's point that a picture portrays Christ's human nature and not His whole person (ie His diety)? Answer this first and then we can address your reductio.

I think what he was saying was that the logical consequence of that point (that a picture only portrays Christ's humanity and not His person) is the uselessness of such pictures, since the one thing they are limited to portraying by that definition (his flesh) is portrayed completely inaccurately.

Hi Chris,

One of the reasons I didn't want to get into the debate was because of my inability to keep up with the posts. In fact, my original post was simply to praise Paul...however, I did post so I can't complain if someone replies to it.

I understood what Fred was getting at...I think the point he brought was completely irrelevant and to be honest somewhat desperate. The second commandment can either allow for pictures of Christ or forbid it. To say that the second command is really just forbidding a picture of Christ because it would be inaccurate is to change the whole debate. He did finally say that he doesn't believe you can have a picture of Christ because that would be a picture of the whole person. This is nothing more than a restatement of his original position and does not refute or address my statement that pictures dont portray whole persons even for regular human beings. Your picture for your avatar doesn't tell me anything about the immaterial parts of your person i.e. personality, character blah blah. I could be wrong and would be willing to have someone disprove such an assertion but was not even the point of my post. I just wanted to thank Paul for his good work.

 

[Ianterrell]

Paul,

While I we both agree that Christ's humanity can be examined and in fact considered unique from his divinity. When we identify Christ the person we deal with both God and man. Of course any depictions made would only be able to present his human side but it would refer to the whole person of Christ. In this way his divinity and humanity are inseperable. That is what I was geting at. Similarly God chose to reveal himself through theophany, I asked you whether or not we could represent theophanies out of curiosity, you must have missed this post.

 

[Ianterrell]

Originally posted by Goosha

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

Originally posted by Goosha

Originally posted by fredtgreco
But the point does get at your argument: if pictures of Christ don't portrary His Person, but merely are portraying a nature (a hunk of flesh), and they do so falsely, then of what use are they?

So, do you grant Paul's point that a picture portrays Christ's human nature and not His whole person (ie His diety)? Answer this first and then we can address your reductio.

I think what he was saying was that the logical consequence of that point (that a picture only portrays Christ's humanity and not His person) is the uselessness of such pictures, since the one thing they are limited to portraying by that definition (his flesh) is portrayed completely inaccurately.

Hi Chris,

One of the reasons I didn't want to get into the debate was because of my inability to keep up with the posts. In fact, my original post was simply to praise Paul...however, I did post so I can't complain if someone replies to it.

I understood what Fred was getting at...I think the point he brought was completely irrelevant and to be honest somewhat desperate. The second commandment can either allow for pictures of Christ or forbid it. To say that the second command is really just forbidding a picture of Christ because it would be inaccurate is to change the whole debate. He did finally say that he doesn't believe you can have a picture of Christ because that would be a picture of the whole person. This is nothing more than a restatement of his original position and does not refute or address my statement that pictures dont portray whole persons even for regular human beings. Your picture for your avatar doesn't tell me anything about the immaterial parts of your person i.e. personality, character blah blah. I could be wrong and would be willing to have someone disprove such an assertion but was not even the point of my post. I just wanted to thank Paul for his good work.

This argument lacking in my opinion. If we had a theoretical command which said don't make images of Paul. And we painted a painting of Mr. Manata, do you think that would violate said command? Yes, you could argue "I didn't capture all of who he was, just his physical appearance", but we would not take such an argument seriously.

Similarly, Christ's human person cannot be so distinguished from his divinity that we can portray it. We refer to Christ as a whole when we sculpt idols of him, not just his humanity, but his being itself. When you pray you do not pray to "the divine side of Jesus", do you? When we see an image of Christ we do not see a mere man, we see a God-man depicted.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Good points, Ian. I think Richard Pratt said something that sheds light on this issue, which is that Jesus Christ is not God, and He is not man - He is the God-man. So while we may categorize different attributes of his under one category or another, that is a different thing from temporarily thinking about Him as just one or the other.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by fredtgreco

But it should bother you that your Church does. Unless ecclesiastical authority means nothing to you. (Which I know it does

So, if it doesn't bother you to disagree then why should it bother me? Indeed, since our Church holds the position they do don't you think you should be a bit more lenient on my views? That is, unless you want your cake and to eat it to

Paul,

Do you understand the issue of subscription? The fact that the PCA is now a "good faith subscription" denomination has NOITHING to do with whether a position contrary to the Standards is viewed as wrong from the Church's view. All it means is that the Church should permit those who are wrong on "non fundamental" issues (whatever that is) to be ordained while being wrong.

For the record, I never said this issue was "fundamental" or that it even represented a significant issue between us (hence the 99% jokes) . But according to the Church of both us, you're wrong. We might let you get ordained (all other things being equal) but good faith subscription doesn't make you right. As a matter of fact, part of the good faith subscription amendment was to allow a Presbytery to govern its own membership. So a Presbytery would be completely within its rights to refuse to ordain you on that point, or to ordain you and forbid you from teaching your view. On the other hand, if a Presbytery tried to that with me, it would be contrary to our Constitution, since my position is the position of the Standards.

So I have no idea what you mean about having cake and eating it too.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Paul manata
1. Fred, I said I "disagreed."

2. You said that "that should bother me."

3. I then brought up subscription. I asked if you agreed.

4. You told me that you "disagreed."

5. I came to the conclusion that you should be "bothered."

Hence, if you're not, but expect me to be bothered, then I concluded that you want your cake and to eat it also. Or, you are arbitrary in imposing that I should be bothered for disagreeing when you aren't. If you are bothered, good, so we're both bothered. if you're not bothered then you have cake and eat cake at the same time. I numbered this in order to lay it out simply. I hope you see what I was getting at?

Yep. So I take it from #1 that you fully submit to the teaching of the Church, and you neither have nor support any pictures of Christ?

Unless it is that you "disagree" rather than "disagreed." Maybe I got that impression because of your comments about the Church's view being "wrong," "unbiblical," etc.

Oh, also, should I explain the difference between a disagreement over a provision of the BCO and the teaching of the Bible? Or you could get that from the BCO itself if you want.

[Edited on 1/19/2005 by fredtgreco]

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Paul manata
alas, so you still didn't get it? sigh...

Nope. Sorry, but I'm finding out here that the BCO is not your strong suit.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Paul manata
So you want more cake and to eat it as well

OK, I'm finally going to ask...what on earth does that mean?

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Paul manata
I'm finding out that following arguments is not yours.... So you want more cake and to eat it as well

What's to follow.

You said your position is right and the Church is wrong. I said that should bother you, because you are flouting the Church (and setting yourself up as a standard).

I said that I took one side of a debate in which the Church partook. The Church disagreed with me and made a determination. I then chose to submit to the Church, so I would not be bothered by flouting the Church.

It seems to me pretty simple:

1. When Fred disagrees with the Church, he submits.

2. When Paul disagrees, he rebells and tells the Church it is wrong and he has a greater understanding of the Scriptures than she does.

3. Fred disagrees over matters of interpretation of the scope of a vow that is not required of all Christians and is not a Biblical mandate.

4. Paul disagrees over a matter of the moral law, that the Church says is binding on all men.

Now tell me what I am missing?? Or I guess it will be enough to simply say "have cake and eat it too" and not respond.


By the way, everyone else: this is DISCUSSION, not accusation. After all, Paul still is my 99% paison.

[Edited on 1/19/2005 by fredtgreco]

 

[Ianterrell]

"(1) The hi-lighted is an (unproven) premise."

How could you create an image. Label it Christ and only, ONLY, have it refer to his humanity? How could you say this is an image of Jesus, the man not the Son of God...? This is idea is absurd.

"(2) The refutation of the premise is: so when Christ's beard was plucked you must be under the assumption that little pieces of deity fell on the ground."

Now you're arguing that I'm confusing the natures. What your arguing for is based on the false premise we can sever Christ's humanity from his deity. Christ is God in the flesh. He is not a human figure that can be taken in isolation. In first John the aged apostle hints at Christ's uniqueness by calling him "What". "What we new from the beginning". In other places he uses similar nuetered language. Christ is not to be taken one way or the other. I'm fully aware that his humanity can be spoken of, and his deity. But there is a "his" that we deal with which is unique in its properties.


"(3) I answerd the theophany question when Fred posed it. I see no problem in historically representing a created, or human aspect of a theophany, e.g., the burning bush."

There is no such thing as a historic reference to God that is distinct from matters of worship. Telling of God's works is a form of worship, as I believe I stated earlier.

[Edited on 19-1-2005 by Ianterrell]

 

[Ianterrell]

"Now you're arguing that I'm confusing the natures. What your arguing for is based on the false premise we can sever Christ's humanity from his deity. Christ is God in the flesh. He is not a human figure that can be taken in isolation. In first John the aged apostle hints at Christ's uniqueness by calling him "What". "What we new from the beginning". In other places he uses similar nuetered language. Christ is not to be taken one way or the other. I'm fully aware that his humanity can be spoken of, and his deity. But there is a "his" that we deal with which is unique in its properties."

How is the above emotional language?

 

[Ianterrell]

To your first point: We could say that images refer only to Christ's humanity not to his divinity?

And the third: Again we are ALWAYS talking about a created thing, the same could be said of our sculpture, or relief of God. It's a created thing. What the thing refers to is divine. Similarly the burning bush refers to God.

 

[Ianterrell]

Originally posted by Paul manata
"sever Christ's humanity from his deity." Obviously appeals to the emotional connotation of "severing." It also changes the word I use, and every other theologian, which is "distinguish between natures." Please use my words and not words which have negative connotation associated with them.

But that is what you are doing. Your ripping (haha) the natures apart. No seriously, sure...fine.

 

[Ianterrell]

Now that Christ's flesh exists we are dealing with God incarnate.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Paul manata
I'm finding out that following arguments is not yours.... So you want more cake and to eat it as well

What's to follow.

You said your position is right and the Church is wrong. I said that should bother you, because you are flouting the Church (and setting yourself up as a standard).

I said that I took one side of a debate in which the Church partook. The Church disagreed with me and made a determination. I then chose to submit to the Church, so I would not be bothered by flouting the Church.

It seems to me pretty simple:

1. When Fred disagrees with the Church, he submits.

2. When Paul disagrees, he rebells and tells the Church it is wrong and he has a greater understanding of the Scriptures than she does.

3. Fred disagrees over matters of interpretation of the scope of a vow that is not required of all Christians and is not a Biblical mandate.

4. Paul disagrees over a matter of the moral law, that the Church says is binding on all men.

Now tell me what I am missing?? Or I guess it will be enough to simply say "have cake and eat it too" and not respond.


By the way, everyone else: this is DISCUSSION, not accusation. After all, Paul still is my 99% paison.

[Edited on 1/19/2005 by fredtgreco]

3 quarters of your points assumed the truth of your position.

My point is, are you bothered that you disagree with your church?

Disagreed, Paul, disagreed. I uphold the BCO as it currently stands.

But that's OK, I give. Since your point is that to disagree with the Church on any point doesn't allow one the right to point out that others disagree, I'll be expecting that you will never use the Church's authority again, including when you criticize hyper-preterists and anti-Trinitarians. Oh, and don't criticize our fellow boarders here either who espouse solo Scriptura, because that would mean you would say the Church has authority, and then again, you have disagreed with the Church. That cake thing - too bad Christendom can't survive it.

 

[Ianterrell]

He assumed a human nature. Human flesh.

 

[Ianterrell]

No it's not divine, but Christ's flesh is linked to the trinity. Whereas ours is not.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Paul, three points:

Originally posted by Paul manata
Also, if Christ isn't God, but the God-man. and if the commandment is against making images of "God" then by your admission (since you addmitted that he wasn't just "God") then where do we find a commandment against making an image of "God-man" which is in a different category then God qua God?

1) But the God-man conceptually includes both God and man, and so statements forbidding images of "God" in any sense logically forbid images of the God-man, since "God," after all, is personal rather than impersonal, and so the forbidding is not merely of depicting a "nature," but a whole person, and thus the God part of God-man cannot be left out of the extents that forbidding reaches.

2) Here is how I understand what Fred is getting at, and it revolves around the difference between agreement and submission. As Fred said, in spite of disagreeing with the Church's ruling on an issue, he submits to it, practicing and enforcing it. But the Church's ruling with which you disagree, you do not submit to, since doing so would mean having no pictures of Jesus or voluntarily watching film depictions. You can both disagree with a ruling of your church, but one of you is submitting to it in practice nonetheless, and the other is not.

Originally posted by Paul manata
1. The immage represents an attribute of His human nature. It is not wrong to make immages of attributes of human natures. Therefore it is not wrong to represent an attribute of His human nature.

3) But it seems to me that it is impossible to represent only his human nature through a picture. I think a lot of it may come from what we each mean by the word "represent," and if we are agreeing on that or not. When I think of a portrait as attempting to "represent" Jesus, I do not think of simply what it is physically portraying, but whatever it is designed to point the mind to. For instance, a picture of someone with a happy or sad face is not merely "representing," a bunch of atoms, but it is representing emotions and qualities as well - otherwise the expression on someone's face would not affect what the picture is "representing," a thought which is absurd. So I do not think there is a possible case in which a portrait of Jesus could not be intending to represent some divine quality of His, be it his perfection or what have you.

 

[Peter]

Originally posted by Paul manata
so a picture of His flesh is not a picture of divinity?

And, before you say, "you're ripping the natures" can I distinguish between the natures? That is, if you can say that when Christ said, "Who touched me?" that doesn't mean that the divine was not omniscient, then why can't I distinguish in the same way?

I see what you're getting at, but... did Thomas call Jesus God or just His divine nature? Did the wise men worship Jesus or just His divine nature?

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Peter

Originally posted by Paul manata
so a picture of His flesh is not a picture of divinity?

And, before you say, "you're ripping the natures" can I distinguish between the natures? That is, if you can say that when Christ said, "Who touched me?" that doesn't mean that the divine was not omniscient, then why can't I distinguish in the same way?

I see what you're getting at, but... did Thomas call Jesus God or just His divine nature? Did the wise men worship Jesus or just His divine nature?

That relates to what I was getting at by pointing out that "God" is personal rather than impersonal, and thus a "whole" person in addition to a "nature."

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

Originally posted by Peter

Originally posted by Paul manata
so a picture of His flesh is not a picture of divinity?

And, before you say, "you're ripping the natures" can I distinguish between the natures? That is, if you can say that when Christ said, "Who touched me?" that doesn't mean that the divine was not omniscient, then why can't I distinguish in the same way?

I see what you're getting at, but... did Thomas call Jesus God or just His divine nature? Did the wise men worship Jesus or just His divine nature?

That relates to what I was getting at by pointing out that "God" is personal rather than impersonal, and thus a "whole" person in addition to a "nature."

so the "whole person" always includes the body???

If so, when Christ was with his Father, and his body lay in the tomb, then I'd assume that you must think His "whole person" was not with the Father? Maybe he should have told the thief: "Today, you shall be with 96.567% of me and my Father." ?

No, what I'm saying is that His divine nature always necessarily represents His full being, since the "God" in Him cannot be seen as an impersonal concept. And since it's logical to ask this next, yes that does also imply that His human nature always necessarily represents His full being. And no, that does not mean that pieces of His beard were little pieces of deity, because a piece of His beard is not what I'm talking about, but rather His human nature as a whole, which is what you claimed portraits represent. And what I'm saying is that you cannot depict His human nature (or divine) as a whole without depicting His whole personal being as the God-man.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Paul manata
1. If any reference to Christ *always* involves the deity then when Christ said, "Who touched me" then "since "God," after all, is personal rather than impersonal, and so the forbidding is not merely of depicting a "nature," but a whole person, and thus the God part of God-man cannot be left out of the extents that forbidding reaches" you would conclude that God also was not omniscient??? Why does everyone else get to distinguish natures but not me? No fair,,

As I clarified in my last post, I am not saying you can't refer to certain parts of one of the natures without representing the whole person - hence why we can talk about His, say, omniscience as distinguished from His, say, omnipotence, and not be referring to the whole person, and also why we can talk about pieces of His beard without referring to the whole person. But what I am saying we cannot refer to without representing the whole person is His divine nature as a whole or His human nature as a whole. And you have acknowledged that it is the entire latter that is being portrayed in portraits, films, etc.

Originally posted by Paul manata
2. We're not at this point yet. Fred told me that it should "bother" me that I "disagree." That's all he said. So, the "disagreeing" was logically tied to the "bothering." So, since Fred "disagrees" with his Church on the issue of subscription then, on his terms, he should be "bothered." I want this point granted, then we can move on....

Fair enough, for now.

Originally posted by Paul manata
3. All you told us is what you think.

And what have you been doing this whole time if not precisely that?

Originally posted by Paul manata
Furthermore, see my arguments about every other theologian distinguishing between natures. He was a real man. Just as theologians focus, at times, on aspects of his divine nature, so I also take the picture of His *body* to be focusing on an attribute of his human nature. It's not my problem that you draw certain implications from that.

See my first paragraph in this post, which I think clarifies some of what I talked about above.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Paul manata
I know what you assert, Chris. Furthermore, I never said I represent his "whole" human nature but an *aspect* or an *attribute* of it. But even if I did, it wouldn;t be wrong since I am aloud to distinguish between natures. If theologians can do it without your dilemas then so can I. You're just being arbitrary.

Chris, are you saying that anything attributed to the human nature must be attributed to the divine nature? If yes, then you have a non-omniscient God. If no, then I have no problem.

The first paragraph in my last post clarifies what I mean.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Two arguments against the images

Response #1

Originally posted by Paul manata
I am representing Jesus in his humanity. That is, I'm *recognizing* an aspect of the person. That is, the image is of his *body.* I know you don't like this, but formulated this way I have ZERO problems. I know Jesus isn't merely a man. But, he's not merely divine, either.

I find this sentiment refuted by the Apostle Paul in 2 Cor. 5:16

Wherefore, we henceforth know no man after the flesh: even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know him so no more. (ASV, 1901)

The verb, "to know," is here being used after the manner of "to judge" or "to estimate" (so Calvin, Hodge), hence also "to recognize" as above in P. M. And "after the flesh" refers to the manner of judgment, i.e. according to the outward appearance, externals, superficialities; by the standards of ordinary human judgment. In the first statement, the apostle declares generally that he refuses to know a man by any human qualities, implying rather his reliance on the new spirit generated qualites in that man to know him thereby (see v.17). The apostle was not only being subjected to such kinds of judgments (see 10:10), but had himself even known Christ by such criteria.

Now that this cannot be speaking of personal contact between the apostle and Jesus during the Lord's days on earth should be self-evident. The biblical record goes in the opposite direction (e.g. 1 Cor. 15:8). However, what is quite relevant to the present discussion is the apostle's reluctance, even his refusal to base any knowledge, estimation, or recognition of Christ based upon any purely fleshly characteristics. In this way, the apostle stands as a perfect correlation to our own experience: his whole contact with Christ came to him by means of revelation, and he is absolutely unwilling, if not not unable to percieve of him in any other way.

Rather, it is the Son of God who comprises the totality of the apostle's comprehension of Christ. He declares himself to be utterly averse to apprehending him "after the flesh," however one might want to present such an aspect. Now, it might be objected to the apostle that by this objection of his, he has cut himself off from the Christ of the Gospels. But how is that the case? The apostle's knowledge of Christ after the flesh was wholly a product of his unregenerate state. Following his conversion, beginning with his vision on the Damascus road, the apostle no longer knows him so.

His acquaintance, then, with the "Jesus of history," coming as it must through the witness of the other apostles and Christians is entirely filtered through this spiritual faculty of a new heart, and he cannot see him in any other way. This is the Christ he preaches (sets before his audience' eyes) as crucified on the cross (Gal. 3:1). This is the Christ he is able to describe in Rom 1:3 as "born of the seed of David according to the flesh," and immediately verse 4, "who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness," a unified thought expression. The Christ "known after the flesh" is forever an alien commodity to the Apostle Paul.

Response #2

Originally posted by Paul manata
It is not wrong to make an image of a human attribute (we all agree on this premise). Jesus' body is attributed to the human nature (cf, ALL the systematics texts and bible). Therefore, it is not wrong to make an image of Jesus' body (necessarily follows from the two true premises, making it sound).

The first premise cannot be agreed upon without qualification. Since the specific attribute of human nature "human body" are much in mind here, who agrees that: [ALL images of a human body are legitimate]? Few here would agree. Such a depiction might be a sin or it might not. Such "image making" might be acceptable under some circumstances, but quite unacceptable under others. Maybe [SOME images...], but that changes and invalidates the syllogism.

Just some more fuel on the blaze....

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally you said it should bother me to disagree with my church. You said my church was the PCA. I brought up that, due to the PCA's vote on subscription, I would't have a problem. You said you didn;t agree with the outcome of that vote. But the PCA voted for it. So, you disagree with your church just like you said I did...

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Paul manata

The fact that you don't find it useful, frankly doesn;t bother me.

No it shouldn't.

But it should bother you that your Church does. Unless ecclesiastical authority means nothing to you. (Which I know it doesn't )

my church in particular? They don't, actually. You must mean the confessions. But that isn't "the Church" anyway. There was a Church before there was the WCF. And, it does bother me a little, that's why I looked into it. I don;t find their views compelling. btw, you Church voted aginst a strict subscription, so no cake and eating it too

I mean the PCA. Remember, we're not congregationalists.

you mean the ones who voted against strict subscription? Also, this issue isn't even addressed in the confession but the catechisms. So, I'm still at a los

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Just to clarify, do those in the PCA who condone images of Christ thereby take exception to the Westminster Confession and Catechisms (see my first post on this thread for references)?

On my interpretaion I have not seen how I am at odds. I may need to polish my argument more, but basically it is that the confessions do not condem making images of man. Since God was also man I can represent *that portion* of His minsitry as it was historically played out here on earth. I see no problem with making disctinctions in this area since it is done all the time with words. All I'm doing is making the same words of the systametics text into picture form.

The issue of whether the PCA standards (Confession and Catechisms) prohibit images of Christ is secondary to whether the Second Commandment prohibits them, but it is important nevertheless and the quotes that I have culled from Paul's statements on this thread seem confusing to me.

Paul -- Can you clarify whether you agree that the PCA standards (Confession and Catechisms) do indeed prohibit images of Christ? Yes or no, please. (Specifically, I refer to WCF XXI, I; and WLC # 108-109.)

You may feel that it is lawful for individuals -- particularly non-ordained members such as yourself -- to disagree with the church standards in the PCA, and the PCA is certainly a broad tent when it comes to tolerating diverse views. But what happens to church discipline when members can reject portions of the standards that they disagree with? How can there be any church discipline?

The Confession, Chap. XX, states that

IV. And because the powers which God has ordained, and the liberty which Christ has purchased are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another, they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God.[15] And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation), or to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ has established in the Church, they may lawfully be called to account,[16] and proceeded against, by the censures of the Church. and by the power of the civil magistrate.[17]

In my view, to advocate or condone pictures of Christ is to act and believe contrary to the Second Commandment, but also to the PCA standards. I consider it a very significant issue in terms of church discipline.

On this Board a great diversity of views is tolerated; nevertheless, I consider images of Christ to be a major violation of Scripture and church standards.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Paul manata


My point, in case anyone cares to addreess it, is that Fred should be "bothered" that he disagrees with his church.

Paul,

I have addressed it. Or do you not understand the concept of verb tense?

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Paul manata
I'm responding to so many people, I've been working alot, so I'm a bit slow. Can you answer it again:

Are you bothered?

I understand. That is the hard thing about a board like this. Like having 5 conversations at the same time.

I am not bothered:

1. Because I no longer disagree. My submission requires agreement.

2. At the time I disagreed, it was BEFORE the Church spoke on the issue, not AFTER.

So I am not bothered by my former taking of a position before the Church's pronouncement.

Are you bothered by the fact that you presently disagree with the Church's established confession of what the Bible teaches about the moral law?

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Also, good think you're not ordained, because I no of no ordained elder in the PCA who would bring up disciplinary charges on me....

Generally, but not universally true.

(And I would not bring you up on charges)

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Paul manata
Andrew wrote:

"In my view, to advocate or condone pictures of Christ is to act and believe contrary to the Second Commandment, but also to the PCA standards. I consider it a very significant issue in terms of church discipline.

On this Board a great diversity of views is tolerated; nevertheless, I consider images of Christ to be a major violation of Scripture and church standards. "


Well, I consider denying Christ's humanity a very serious issue in terms of church discipline.

Also, good think you're not ordained, because I no of no ordained elder in the PCA who would bring up disciplinary charges on me....

Paul,

Are you suggesting that I or anyone else in this thread is actually "denying Christ's humanity"?

P.S. I'm not in the PCA, nor am I ordained, so you don't have to worry about me.

But I do know personally several PCA ministers who would, under the appropriate circumstances, bring charges against a person who advocated breaking the Second Commandment by making or condoning images of Christ. I have no idea whether such charges would ever be sustained, but that's another issue.

I am not meaning to pick on you personally, Paul, but I am speaking to the idea that your propagation of a view, which I think is blatantly contrary to the Second Commandment and to the PCA standards, ought to be a matter of grave concern to the PCA.

[Edited on 19-1-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Paul manata
I'm responding to so many people, I've been working alot, so I'm a bit slow. Can you answer it again:

Are you bothered?

I understand. That is the hard thing about a board like this. Like having 5 conversations at the same time.

I am not bothered:

1. Because I no longer disagree. My submission requires agreement.

2. At the time I disagreed, it was BEFORE the Church spoke on the issue, not AFTER.

So I am not bothered by my former taking of a position before the Church's pronouncement.

Are you bothered by the fact that you presently disagree with the Church's established confession of what the Bible teaches about the moral law?

oooooohhhh, that was our problem. You see, Fred, if you check out the thread you said that you did currently disagree. I asked if you disagree with the idea of subscription passed and you said, "better to say I disagree." You didn't say, "disagreed." Honestly, and I don't mean this as a slam against your character, but I think you jumped ships mid-way.

Sorry, I'll go back and relook. I may have jumped ships. If that is the case, I was wrong before.

no I'm not bothered because I don't disagree with the teaching on the moral law.

But I never asked if you were bothered by your interpretation. I asked if you were bothered by the fact that you are treating the moral law like a modern evangelical (i.e. flouting the church)