Worshipping at churches that violate the 2nd Commandment

[Pilgrim's Progeny]

I do it every Sunday. The images are not in the sanctuary though. We have a cross on the wall and even boast the US flag and the Christian flag. I never had a problem with any of this until I became confessional as a result of following the PB as brother Dennis stated above. Old pictures of the pulpit show that a image depicting Jesus used to be behind the pulpit, this was removed when a baptistry was put in.

As a side note, I find it odd that those who do break the 2nd commandment are very poorly informed in their attempt to portray Christ, Jesus would not have had long hair per 2Cor 11. The movies and books do this as well, Jesus and the disciples are depicted as a group of hippies.

 

[Dogfreid]

I have no problem with a cross or a crucifix. In fact, I would have a problem with a church that has the means to put one up but doesn't. I think this stems from a misunderstanding of the second commandment. To begin with, the commandment came at a time when Christ hadn't incarnated and the cross hadn't happened. But the incarnation by definition includes the physical or material. And so should we in our worship.

Anyone that wants to caricature this view by stating that the cross becomes an object of idolatry is free to do so, but it's just that, a caricature. When I see a cross I don't associate the wood with deity; I don't believe the splinters contain drops of divinity. The ANE peoples believed their hand-made idols contained their deities. In the very least that their objects could summon the deities. Even the pagan Greeks were susceptible to this. Read Paul's address to them in Acts 17 carefully. Yet this is not at all what I believe as I ponder the image of the cross.

An empty cross represents a resurrected Christ. This is why the Catholic cross (and the mass itself) is an abomination to the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ.

Should we turn our eyes when we see a picture of an empty tomb at church? Oh, the horror of an image capturing such a blessed event! What about when a youth group wants to watch the Passion or Jesus of Nazareth?

Additionally, I'm more concerned with the implicit docetism involved in the view that crosses and images are to be prohibited in worship.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Berny,
Well, let me tell you my concerns: First, this is clearly an exception you are taking to the Westminster standards, which you have essentially painted as holding the error of docetism. Second, the application for membership on the PB specifically asked you to declare any problems you had with the standards you indicated were your confession of faith, in this case Westminster. You did not do so. Perhaps this was out of ignorance but I would address that asap if I were you by editing your bio.

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, what is the purpose of such images -- books for the unlearned; I believe the church has been there done that. Such images have no lawful use. It is impossible. If such an image stirs up devotion it is worshipping God by an image; and clearly prohibited by the second commandment; if it doesn't stir up devotion to God, it is vain, a clear violation of the third commandment.

I have no problem with a cross or a crucifix. In fact, I would have a problem with a church that has the means to put one up but doesn't. I think this stems from a misunderstanding of the second commandment. To begin with, the commandment came at a time when Christ hadn't incarnated and the cross hadn't happened. But the incarnation by definition includes the physical or material. And so should we in our worship.

Anyone that wants to caricature this view by stating that the cross becomes an object of idolatry is free to do so, but it's just that, a caricature. When I see a cross I don't associate the wood with deity; I don't believe the splinters contain drops of divinity. The ANE peoples believed their hand-made idols contained their deities. In the very least that their objects could summon the deities. Even the pagan Greeks were susceptible to this. Read Paul's address to them in Acts 17 carefully. Yet this is not at all what I believe as I ponder the image of the cross.

An empty cross represents a resurrected Christ. This is why the Catholic cross (and the mass itself) is an abomination to the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ.

Should we turn our eyes when we see a picture of an empty tomb at church? Oh, the horror of an image capturing such a blessed event! What about when a youth group wants to watch the Passion or Jesus of Nazareth?

Additionally, I'm more concerned with the implicit docetism involved in the view that crosses and images are to be prohibited in worship.

 

[BJClark]

Should this just apply to our churches? Or does it apply to our homes as well?

Does it apply to say, family portraits, pictures of the ocean or birds or whatever that may be found in a person's home?

As the 2nd Commandment (as all of them) are meant for ALL of life and not just times of worship..or does it not apply to that extent in our lives?

“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Ex 20:4

 

[JBaldwin]

NaphtaliPress;

Should this just apply to our churches? Or shouldn't it apply to our homes as well?

Does it also apply to say, family portraits, pictures of the ocean or birds or whatever that may be found in a person's home?

As the 2nd Commandment (as all of them) are meant for ALL of life and not just times of worship..or does it not apply to that extent in our lives?

“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Ex 20:4

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

 

[Zenas]

A cross wouldn't stop me, nor would a national flag, although it would be a point of discomfort. But an image of "Jesus" on display in the room where preaching is taking place would be a deal-breaker.

We have a cross and a national flag and the "Christian flag" in our church. Myself and a few others would love to get rid of all of it, but our session is pretty set in all of them being there I think.

 

[BJClark]

JBaldwin;

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[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?

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).

 

[NaphtaliPress]

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]

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.