Flyboy said:
I couldn't say it any better.

That's unfortunate! Meyer's "defense of limited use of pictures of Jesus" is based upon a diminished view of God's transcendence. And truly, this is the ONLY way people can attempt to justify any form or representation, for whatever purpose, of God. Several of his rebuttals of Barnes arguments were illogical and not even relevant. In fact he is guilty of what he charges Barnes' argument with; i.e., Barnes uses "extra-biblical" arguments to make his case, and Meyers uses rank pragmatism and sophistry to try and force his presupposition that pictures of Jesus are allowable if not for devotional purposes. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />

Interesting reading, but hardly a convincing argument to abandon the biblical and historical view, which he as an ordained minister in the PCA, violates and teaches against, even though he has sworn an oath of subscription to uphold.

In His Grace,

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]