Donations for the month of October


We have received a total of "$0" in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Forum Search
Member Spotlight
Robin
Robin
Lake Park, Georgia USA
Posts: 1,015
Joined: January 2002
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,294
Posts53,238
Members964
Most Online523
Jan 14th, 2020
Top Posters
Pilgrim 14,042
Tom 4,043
chestnutmare 3,086
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,818
RJ_ 1,583
MarieP 1,579
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Pilgrim 21
Tom 8
Robin 4
Johan 2
Readin 2
Ruben 1
Recent Posts
True of False
by Pilgrim - Wed Oct 20, 2021 7:12 AM
Natural Theology 2
by Pilgrim - Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:41 PM
Your opinion please
by Robin - Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:08 PM
Natural Theology
by Pilgrim - Sun Oct 17, 2021 6:10 AM
Mandatory Vaccines
by Robin - Sun Oct 17, 2021 5:21 AM
Progressive Christianity
by Readin - Sun Oct 17, 2021 1:39 AM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rating: 3
Hop To
Page 3 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
gnarley #11937 Sun Feb 29, 2004 11:35 PM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Persnickety Presbyterian
Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Quote
It is said that a man is better known by his enemies than by his assumed friends. Who were the enemies of this film? It was Hollywood, The liberal media, including our pretty boy newscasters , The political liberals, the Sodomite (I try to refrain from using the "gay" tag),along with our mainline church crowd who have long ago left any semblense of Christian orthodoxy.

The approbation of thousands of evangelicals, most of whom have applauded the movie without a thought as to the implications regarding the Second Commandment and Catholic theology, makes you more comfortable? I don't think anyone here has said not to watch the movie for the reasons espoused by the groups you mention: the charge of "anti-Semitism" is a direct attack on the Gospel itself, and we do not harbor negative attitudes about Christ and the Gospel. We are trying to look at it from a biblical perspective, and we find that images of God are prohibited by the Second Commandment.

Quote
I saw nothing in the film that smacked of any kind of "Catholic imagery".

As I noted to Kalled above, Did you not see the portrayal of the devil? Did you not see the woman, St. Veronica, who wiped Jesus' face? Did you not see the Pieta, where Mary held the dead Jesus in her arms? Did you not note that the disciples addressed Mary as "Mother"? Did you not see the overwhelming emphasis on Jesus' physical agony? How could you miss the Catholic imagery? I haven't even seen the movie, but I have read about all of this in reviews of it.

Quote
I would suggest, that for two hours, all on this forum would force them selves to view it---and do so as Bereans, opening up their minds with as little prejudicial presupposition as possible. Humbling ones self is hard, but often well rewarding.

Would you suggest we do so against our consciences? The Bereans examined the Scriptures, to see whether these things were so. They did not go and watch a movie or look at a painting.


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
#11938 Sun Feb 29, 2004 11:37 PM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Persnickety Presbyterian
Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Quote
I am glad someone doesn't seem to think I am damned or something for where I stand

No one has implied that you are damned for having seen this movie or for defending it, and it is most uncharitable of you to act as though that were the case.


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
CovenantInBlood #11939 Sun Feb 29, 2004 11:49 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
That wasn't fully directed at people here on The Highway. I just have not had very many people in general relate to my situation or try to help me out where I am at. Most of the time, with this movie and other random issues, people have just been out to show me where I am wrong. And having someone come and try and counsel me where I am was kind of bittersweet. It was good, but also made more clear all the times people have been [censored].

#11940 Mon Mar 01, 2004 8:20 AM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 406
Addict
Offline
Addict
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 406
I don't know where John stands on the movie. I know he liked the historical aspect to the film. I mention it, because John is a fantastic model of presuppositional apologetics when confronting an audience that is for the most part radically secular.
It is true that we are not married to the WCF as some infallible, never to be questioned document (I know people with similar convictions who are KJV only), so he may not come down on your particular side of the fence. If that makes us "antinomian" in your mind, then I guess we will have to live with it. I do know that the word "antinomian," is one of those annoying theological buzz words followers of the WCF love to throw out at those believers who dissent from their particular understanding of covenantalism. It is similar to how democrats call republicans racist when they don't agree with democratic welfare policies.

My response to Barcellos is forth coming.

Fred


"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns
RefDoc #11941 Mon Mar 01, 2004 8:37 AM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 40
Journeyman
Offline
Journeyman
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 40
Quote
RefDoc said:

The film is clearly a violation of the 2nd commandment, both the making of it, and the viewing of it.

Apparently it's not clear, since Christians seem to be on both sides of the issue.

fredman #11942 Mon Mar 01, 2004 11:00 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,042
Likes: 12
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,042
Likes: 12
Quote
It is true that we are not married to the WCF as some infallible, never to be questioned document (I know people with similar convictions who are KJV only),
Fred, I am NOT going to assume that this little "dig" isn't addressed to us here? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Granted, there are some Presbyterians who are guilty of "married to the WCF" and deem it on par with Scripture, at least in a practical way. However, you being a Baptist are not subject to the WCF. But, the historic Baptist denomination, that which came forth out of the Protestant Reformation is something which, although not infallible, and which every Confession written by the denominations that resulted from the Protestant Reformation also affirm about themselves, i.e., the Scriptures are the sole and final authority in all matters of faith and life, has as its official statement of faith, the London Confession. It too, in total agreement with all the other denominations, e.g., Presbyterian, Congregational, Continental Reformed, German Reformed, French Reformed and Anglican, states that the Decalogue, the Ten Commandments are perpetual and binding upon Christians as a rule of life; not being under its condemnation but the expression of holiness and righteousness which was imputed to them and to which they desire to be conformed, as was the Lord Jesus Christ.

You are free, of course, to dissent and believe what you will. But as has always been the case, those who do dissent own the onus to prove that those statements of doctrine which are contained in those great Evangelical Confessions are in error.

But, returning once again to the original reason why I'm replying to you, charging that we, perhaps, are guilty of setting the WCF or any man-made document above Scripture is unfounded and uncharitable to say the least. ALL professing Christians hold to a "creed", yes, even the "Church of Christ", whose by-word is, "No creed but Christ; no doctrine but life." <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> When do you think you are going to write your Confession of Faith? And do you think that it will find enough support to be adopted by a great number of people? And do you think that it will withstand the test of time as have these other Confessions of the Reformation denominations? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Pilgrim #11943 Mon Mar 01, 2004 11:34 AM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 406
Addict
Offline
Addict
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 406
My intentions was not so much a dig at you and other presbys here, but more so at Gerry's insistence that John is some sort of lesser Christian, because he may have some positive remarks about Gibson's film, and thus is to be shoved over into the group of heretics that real Christians are to beware. It is not my purpose to be offensive, so please forgive my former remarks if you thought they were uncharitable.

That said, what I am about to say may be the equivilant of throwing a live squirrl in amongst 100 German Shepherds, I do think our traditions can blind us to the plain exegesis of scripture, and if that exegesis cuts against a favored tradition, and the WCF is a noble tradition, I believe the tradition is to have deference to the plain exegesis of scripture. All Christians have their creeds, but as I stated previously, I do not want to be so married to those creeds that I allow what the creed states to influence my understanding of the Bible. And I say this with all humble sincerity, I can see this displayed here among the posts at times.

The second commandment debate we have been having is a good example of this. Even looking at Exodus 20, the prohibition against making engraved images is defined as making them for the purpose of worship, to bow down to and to serve. Obviously, the cheribum on top of the ark, which are images of things in heaven, were not made for the purpose of worship in the way the 2nd commandment prohibits. Hence, because a movie about the historical figure of Jesus Christ, a real, living person, is not meant for inspiring worship (though I would lean toward your all's criticism of Gibson's film due to the interviews he has given stating the purpose of making this film), I do not believe the condemning any movie about Jesus, or passion play about Christ, or any other biblical event as a violation of the 2nd commandment is scripturally sound. The WCF interpretation of the 2nd commandment is what is driving people's passion (pun intended) against movies regarding Christ.

You state that it is the burden of proof to show where such creeds are in error, and I believe historic baptists have done that with the WCF in relation to paedobaptism. There would be no 2nd London Confession if they did not willing and compellingly shoulder that burden. Still, I believe the slogan of always reforming should stand true, and if that means reforming one's creed, and in this case according to my opinion, WCF/CT hermenuetics, I hope Christian would do so.

Fred


"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns
fredman #11944 Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:12 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,042
Likes: 12
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,042
Likes: 12
Fred,

Personally, I have really no further interest in debating the verity of the interpretation of the Second Commandment which has been held to be true for centuries by men far more gifted than myself. I can tell you, however, that I did not first consult ANY Confession or Creed until AFTER I had come to an understanding of the Second Commandment by my own reading of Scripture. In fact, I had no knowledge of even the existence of the WCF, covenant theology, or paedobaptism; even the word "Calvinism" was unknown to me at the time. There is no denying that when I finally did come to realize the existence of these things, I rejoiced. For I was deemed a "black sheep" in the church I attended which consisted of people who held to Arminianism, credo-baptism, Dispensationalism, had no written creed, and were no less ignorant of the history of the church and of men such as Luther, Calvin, Owen, Goodwin, Flavel, Carey, Spurgeon, Edwards, nor even Gerstner, Sproul and last but not least MacArthur! Oh, by the way, if I would give allegiance to any Confession, it would be the Savoy Declaration of Faith and Practice (1658).

Quote
Fred remarked:
Obviously, the cheribum on top of the ark, which are images of things in heaven, were not made for the purpose of worship in the way the 2nd commandment prohibits.
Is this really obvious? In fact, I would suggest that is logically impossible. For what you are suggesting is that God forbid something and then permitted, no commanded the very thing which He just forbidden to be created and displayed upon the Ark of the Covenant in which the very law of prohibition was kept. Perhaps you should reconsider that argument. hehe

Lastly, as you are surely aware, so let me simply remind you, that my adamant condemnation of not only this blasphemous film, but ALL such films, plays, skits, re-enactments, paintings, sculptures, drawings and day-dreaming of an alleged image of Christ not only violates the Second Commandment, but also Chalcedon and in essence denies the perfect active obedience of Christ. In short, 3 strikes and they are all out.

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
fredman #11945 Mon Mar 01, 2004 6:20 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Dear Fred:

You said:
Quote
but more so at Gerry's insistence that John is some sort of lesser Christian, because he may have some positive remarks about Gibson's film, and thus is to be shoved over into the group of heretics that real Christians are to beware.

I respond:

That is totally uncalled for Fred. There isn't anything in my post, which I went back and reread before posting here, that would cause you to make such a statement. I don't think John is "some sort of lesser Christian, because he may make some postive remarks about the Gibson film". But I do think he is mistaken if he embraces the postion that the film is not a violation of the 2nd commandment. That is what I was implying and I think that is clear from my post.

I also think it is clear from my post that the position you have espoused with respect to NCT, if that is the consensus in the McArthur camp, would make it reasonable to assume, or surmise, that John might take a more tolerant view of violations of the 2nd Commandment. Thus, my question was based on a reasonable assumption about the possibilities and I was asking for a clear statement from you in that respect. While your response wasn't clear, it was directionally what I expected and I will make other plans for the time slot.

I will just add that having come from an antinomian environment, and having seen the effects such a belief can have on a congregation, it seems unwise to use the term "boogy man" to describe this heresy. I have chosen my view of the case entirely apart from the WCF statements on the issue, having as my authority the scriptures and having seen the outworking of a softening of position on this critical doctrine. As I have said elsewhere, it was evident to me that there was something very wrong long before I knew that there was a "boogy man" called antinomianism that was responsible.

So for me the issue is far more important that Democratic vs Republican politics. But then, to many professing Christians, nothing is really more important than politics, for in their heart of hearts, that is where their trust and faith really lie.

In Him,

Gerry

Last edited by acts2027; Mon Mar 01, 2004 6:25 PM.
vince_kieff #11946 Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:12 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 67
Enthusiast
Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 67
If it makes you feel better, I will rephrase...It is clear to me that it is a violation of the 2nd commandment.

And, here's some food for thought:

Acts 17 nkjv
29Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man's devising.


John Calvin (Institutes Book 1, Chapter 11, Section 4)
And it is to be observed, that the thing forbidden is likeness, whether sculptured or otherwise. This disposes of the frivolous precaution taken by the Greek Church. They think they do admirably, because they have no sculptured shape of Deity, while none go greater lengths in the licentious use of pictures. The Lord, however, not only forbids any image of himself to be erected by a statuary, but to be formed by any artist whatever, because every such image is sinful and insulting to his majesty

John Calvin (Institutes Book 1, Chapter 11, Section 5)
This at least I maintain, that when we teach that all human attempts to give a visible shape to God are vanity and lies, we do nothing more than state verbatim what the prophets taught.

John Calvin (Institutes Book 1, Chapter 11, Section 6)
Whosoever, therefore, is desirous of being instructed in the true knowledge of God must apply to some other teacher than images.

John Calvin (Institutes Book 1, Chapter 11, Section 7)
But, I ask, whence this stupidity, but just because they are defrauded of the only doctrine which was fit to instruct them? The simple reason why those who had the charge of churches resigned the office of teaching to idols was, because they themselves were dumb. Paul declares, that by the true preaching of the gospel Christ is portrayed and in a manner crucified before our eyes, (Gal. 3:1.) Of what use, then, were the erection in churches of so many crosses of wood and stone, silver and gold, if this doctrine were faithfully and honestly preached, viz., Christ died that he might bear our curse upon the tree, that he might expiate our sins by the sacrifice of his body, wash them in his blood, and, in short, reconcile us to God the Father? From this one doctrine the people would learn more than from a thousand crosses of wood and stone. As for crosses of gold and silver, it may be true that the avaricious give their eyes and minds to them more eagerly than to any heavenly instructor.

John Calvin (Institutes Book 1, Chapter 11, Section 9)
Not contented with spiritual understanding, they thought that images would give them a surer and nearer impression. When once this preposterous representation of God was adopted, there was no limit until, deluded every now and then by new impostures, they came to think that God exerted his power in images


[Linked Image]
#11947 Tue Mar 02, 2004 9:43 AM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 406
Addict
Offline
Addict
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 406
Gerry

Quote
That is totally uncalled for Fred. There isn't anything in my post, which I went back and reread before posting here, that would cause you to make such a statement. I don't think John is "some sort of lesser Christian, because he may make some postive remarks about the Gibson film". But I do think he is mistaken if he embraces the postion that the film is not a violation of the 2nd commandment. That is what I was implying and I think that is clear from my post.

(Fred) Gerry, forgive me if I came across rather curt toward your post, but the remarks you made did appear to be saying that you think John is muddle headed because he takes a different conclusion on the 2nd commandment than you do, or the Reformed faith does. These are your concluding remarks from your initial response to me:

Thanks, in advance, for being clear on this, because I for one don't want to waste my time if John is going to steer his hearers away from the historic reformed faith as evidenced in the Confessions, and indeed in the Word of God itself as it is quoted here

Maybe it is just my wounded sensibilities, but I read that statement to be saying something like: "John is going to be leading people into theological error, so thanks for the warning so I can make a point not to watch CNN all day just in case I may accidently see him making positive comments about Gibson's movie." It is as if John has nothing valuable to say in defense of Christianity and that it might as well be James Dobson doing that interview. My thought is that such thinking is unnecessary separation akin to the attitudes displayed in the very fundamentalist church that you deride.

Quote
I also think it is clear from my post that the position you have espoused with respect to NCT, if that is the consensus in the McArthur camp, would make it reasonable to assume, or surmise, that John might take a more tolerant view of violations of the 2nd Commandment. Thus, my question was based on a reasonable assumption about the possibilities and I was asking for a clear statement from you in that respect. While your response wasn't clear, it was directionally what I expected and I will make other plans for the time slot.

(Fred) John is not NCT. My convictions are my own, so let us make that clear so as to not have any further confusion. I would never think to speak for him in any official capacity, unless I knew what he believed for certain.

Quote
I will just add that having come from an antinomian environment, and having seen the effects such a belief can have on a congregation, it seems unwise to use the term "boogy man" to describe this heresy. I have chosen my view of the case entirely apart from the WCF statements on the issue, having as my authority the scriptures and having seen the outworking of a softening of position on this critical doctrine. As I have said elsewhere, it was evident to me that there was something very wrong long before I knew that there was a "boogy man" called antinomian that was responsible. So for me the issue is far more important that Democratic vs Republican politics. But then, to many professing Christians, nothing is really more important than politics, for in there heart of hearts, that is where their trust and faith really lie.

(Fred) I believe "boogey man" is a truly appropriate term, because like I have stated in previous posts, the convictions displayed here concerning the 2nd commandment are creedal traditions, not the application of biblical exegesis. Granted, it is a noble creedal tradition, but it is not the infallible interpreter of scripture. Everyone is good about quoting Exodus 20:4, but ignore the clarifying statement of verse 5, which says you shall not bow down to them nor serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God The issue is not the making of graven images, but the use of those graven images in worship and as a replacement for God. If it was the making of graven images that is the violation of the 2nd commandment, then, like I stated elsewhere, how does the cheribum on top of the ark fit into your understanding of the 2nd commandment? They are images of things in heaven, are they not? I don't believe God contradicted himself. What about the bronze serpent God tells Moses to make in Numbers 21? It is an image of an earthly creature, is it not? It comes down to the intent of those images: were they for worshipping God faslely or serving false gods? Later, in 2 Kings 18:4, that same bronze serpent was destroyed by Hezekiah because the Israelites had transformed it into an object of worship. It had become a relic of sorts.
I feel what you are saying when you speak of those congregations that are weak on conviction and have no theological anchor because they are not taught scripture by the pastors. All of their knowledge of the Bible comes from shallow quarterlies that rush the sunday school class through the Bible on some 3 year jet tour schedule. The depth of the sermons preached are 3 point evangelisitc presentations that are really just 30 minute torture session of a passage cruelly removed from its context. The convicition the people convey are legalistic and ascetic vice based upon a list of supposed dos and don'ts derived from misapplied verses and personal preferences elevated to the authority of scripture. Honestly, I have heard just as much negative reaction toward Gibson's film from the fundamentalist, antinomian crowd and they base that reaction on the 2nd commandment. However, just because you come across other Christians who believe you are misapplying the 2nd commandment and do not conclude the same thing as your personal convictions, does not mean they are antinomian, don't respect creeds and confessions, nor are they to be equated to those anemic congregations you escaped from. I believe Christians should have a standard to which to hold them accountable, and creeds and confessions do a fine job of that and I would readily receive them as a doctrinal statement. But, our ultimate doctrinal statement is the word of God rightly interpreted, and when any creed or confession wrongly applies a Bible verse or promotes priniciples that are misapplied due to a certain reading into the Bible, then that is where the creed and confession should be laid aside.

Fred


"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns
fredman #11948 Tue Mar 02, 2004 12:16 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 109
Enthusiast
Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 109
Well said, Fred.


In the midst of your sadness and woe, when you are tormented and afflicted, have comfort! God's will is done.
fredman #11949 Tue Mar 02, 2004 7:31 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Hi Fred:

Thanks for the response. I do appreciate it and also the candor.

You said:
Quote
Maybe it is just my wounded sensibilities, but I read that statement to be saying something like: "John is going to be leading people into theological error, so thanks for the warning so I can make a point not to watch CNN all day just in case I may accidently see him making positive comments about Gibson's movie." It is as if John has nothing valuable to say in defense of Christianity and that it might as well be James Dobson doing that interview."

It is your wounded sensibilities, Fred. What I said is what I meant. You read way too much into what I said, but I appologize if the wording was what led you to take it that way. I respect John as a godly man who acts on the strength of his convictions and one who loves the Lord and has done much in service of The Savior.

Thus, I do believe John has valuable things to say, and for some that value may actually over ride the damage done, IMO, if he doesn't clearly support the 2nd Commandment in his statements about the movie. But for me, the time would be better spent in reading and understanding what these men of past generations whose views you have cast aside on this issue, had to say with respect to the second commandment and other aspects of the Christian life. To me the issue is more than trivial, and John's "being a model for apologetics" is not as important as recognizing the value of obedience to the clear instructions of God on this issue. It't that simple, for me, as it was apparently for men like Owen and Ursinus.

Quote
My thought is that such thinking is unnecessary separation akin to the attitudes displayed in the very fundamentalist church that you deride.


I haven't been deriding fundamentalist churches, you have. But I agree with you on the shallow nature of fundamentalism. That is why I was never a member of a fundamentalist church. The church I spent the most time in, and which I have mentioned here as an antinomian church, was a intellectualist church that derided fundamentalism, and prided itself on not being fundamentalist, another trap to be avoided in my view <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Everyone that accepts the currency of the older confessions with regard to the second commandment is not automatically a fundamentalist.

Quote
John is not NCT. My convictions are my own, so let us make that clear so as to not have any further confusion.
Thanks Fred for making that clear. I don't follow John's minstry closely so I had no idea where he stood on this and so I appreciate your clarity on it.

Quote
I believe "boogey man" is a truly appropriate term, because like I have stated in previous posts, the convictions displayed here concerning the 2nd commandment are creedal traditions, not the application of biblical exegesis.

Correction, as has been stated in previous posts, the convictions concerning the 2nd commandment are indeed the application of biblical exegesis. The creeds you mention, and they include more than the WCF, as Pilgrim has pointed out to you, were developed by the best biblical scholars of the times in which they were written, many if not most, of whom are considered by todays best scholars to have attained heights of wisdom and insight into God's word that simply hasn't been surpassed in the succeeding centuries. I'm thinking here of men like Owen, T. Goodwin and so on. It may not be YOUR biblical exegesis, but it most certainly is biblical exegesis.

Quote
The issue is not the making of graven images, but the use of those graven images in worship and as a replacement for God.
Yes, you have made this statement before, but unlike your assertion here, it has not been ignored. It has been answered. Apparently not to your satisfaction, but it has been answered. Your interpretation of the purpose of the Cherubim and the bronze serpent, as well their application to the issue at hand, not to mention the Lords purpose in providing vs 5 of the context to the 2nd commandment is lacking in my view, as has been pointed out in other posts on this subject. You are of course entitled to another view, but you are rejecting the majority view of the orthodox Christian community for centuries, and I find your basis for doing so quite unsubstantial, if what you have provided here is the whole of it.

Quote
I feel what you are saying when you speak of those congregations that are weak on conviction and have no theological anchor because they are not taught scripture by the pastors. All of their knowledge of the Bible comes from shallow quarterlies that rush the sunday school class through the Bible on some 3 year jet tour schedule. The depth of the sermons preached are 3 point evangelisitc presentations that are really just 30 minute torture session of a passage cruelly removed from its context. The convicition the people convey are legalistic and ascetic vice based upon a list of supposed dos and don'ts derived from misapplied verses and personal preferences elevated to the authority of scripture. Honestly, I have heard just as much negative reaction toward Gibson's film from the fundamentalist, antinomian crowd and they base that reaction on the 2nd commandment.

Fred, you must have me confused with someone else. I have told you what my convictions are based on, as have others on this site. It seems you are trying to say that either our (my) covictions are based on shallow fundamentalism or "creedal tradition", and you reject the fact that I and others have told you that we have studied the scriptures too, have applied biblical exegesis to them and come up with a different postion than you. As I said before, I did not come to my place of belief, soley on the basis of observing the results of antinomian error in various contexts, nor have I blindly swallowed a "creedal tradtion".

Quote
However, just because you come across other Christians who believe you are misapplying the 2nd commandment and do not conclude the same thing as your personal convictions, does not mean they are antinomian, don't respect creeds and confessions,

I have already given the basis of my suspicion that your views are considered by some as tending toward antinomianism in the form of direct quotes from respected scholars that say that NCT has that tendency. Thus your attempting to to imply that my view is based on a lack of analysis or simple difference in convictions conveniently avoids the issue, does it not?

Quote
nor are they to be equated to those anemic congregations you escaped from.


Those "anemic congregations I escaped from" are very similar to those that you, by your own admission, escaped from. But you keep refering to this as the basis of my current views, which it is not, and thus I can't help but wonder if you have really escaped to the extent that you believe. In other words, Fred, not everyone disagrees with you on this issue because they are shallow fundamentalists.

Quote
I believe Christians should have a standard to which to hold them accountable, and creeds and confessions do a fine job of that and I would readily receive them as a doctrinal statement.

Agreed, and on the issue at hand, I do indeed accept the WCF and the Heidleberg Catechism as good doctrinal statements.

Quote
But, our ultimate doctrinal statement is the word of God rightly interpreted, and when any creed or confession wrongly applies a Bible verse or promotes priniciples that are misapplied due to a certain reading into the Bible, then that is where the creed and confession should be laid aside.

Agreed again, and in the case of the 2nd Commandment, I believe the creeds in question rightly apply the Biblical teaching on this subject and I refuse to lay them aside.

In Him,

Gerry

Last edited by acts2027; Tue Mar 02, 2004 8:31 PM.
#11950 Fri Mar 05, 2004 2:18 PM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 406
Addict
Offline
Addict
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 406
I meant to get back to this earlier, but work has prevented me. I would imagine this overall discussion is winding down any way, but I wanted to respond to Gerry's last post.

Quote
I haven't been deriding fundamentalist churches, you have. But I agree with you on the shallow nature of fundamentalism. That is why I was never a member of a fundamentalist church. The church I spent the most time in, and which I have mentioned here as an antinomian church, was a intellectualist church that derided fundamentalism, and prided itself on not being fundamentalist, another trap to be avoided in my view Everyone that accepts the currency of the older confessions with regard to the second commandment is not automatically a fundamentalist.

(Fred) I evalutated your comments as directed toward fundamentalist minded churches based upon the following statement you made in a previous post in which you wrote:

I have had all of antinomianism I want in that dispensational church I was in some 15 years ago.

I am unaware of an intellectualist minded church that would be dispensational, but deriding of fundamentalism. Perhaps there are some. As a rule of thumb, fundamentalism and dispensationalism usually fit together like Ed McMahon and Johnny Carson.
At any rate, I believed I was secure in my assumption that your comments about antinomianism and dispensationalism was aimed at a typical Independent Baptist churches, because usually, when Covenant Theologists employ words like "antinomian" and "dispensationalism" to describe negative attributes of bad Christianity, those words can be code for "fundamental baptists" as I pointed out in my previous post.
That being said, I still believe that even though one may come from a liberal Methodist background, or a Calvary Chapel background, or even a mega-seeker-centered SBC background, they all share the similar characteristics that I pointed out and to equate the "antinomianism" of these typical Churches with the theology of NCT proponents, is in error.

Quote
Correction, as has been stated in previous posts, the convictions concerning the 2nd commandment are indeed the application of biblical exegesis. The creeds you mention, and they include more than the WCF, as Pilgrim has pointed out to you, were developed by the best biblical scholars of the times in which they were written, many if not most, of whom are considered by todays best scholars to have attained heights of wisdom and insight into God's word that simply hasn't been surpassed in the succeeding centuries. I'm thinking here of men like Owen, T. Goodwin and so on. It may not be YOUR biblical exegesis, but it most certainly is biblical exegesis.

(Fred) I appreciate your love for those men who drafted the WCF; I myself would agree with their ability and scholarship and would have equal admiration for them. It is important to keep in mind, however, that they are men as fallible as us. This is similar argumentation used by KJV onlies when they insist that the KJV is the superior translation because it was translated by superior scholars. We want to make sure the we are not unduly elevating people to a level beyond what they truly were to which I am sure you would agree. That being said, the men who framed the WCF were not with out their social-religious biases. Their stance on the second commandment, particularly what is outlined in their answer to the 109th question of the larger catechism, is reactionary of the Puritan Reformer's dissent from Roman Catholicism and the Anglican Church. Hence the reason they detail their answer with statements like: all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense. Their answer is meant to convey clearly, and I would argue, rightly so, that the worship presented in the RCC and the Anglican Church of their day (and our day as well) is a violation of the 2nd commandment. I would also point out that the WCF rightly emphasizes the use of images in worship, where I believe the biblical second commandment condemns such uses. That would fall under that category of praying to or bowing down to, etc. I believe that is the intent of their words when they address the issue of making representations of all three members of the Trinity: It is the use of such representations in the purposes of worship.
Thus, drawings of circles and triangles and the like that are found in theological works designed for the purpose of helping to clarify, with the use of illustration, the biblical teaching of the Trinity, is not worshipping an image prohibited by the 2nd commandment. The same can be said about a group of 1st graders in Sunday school looking at a flannel graph cartoon of Jesus feeding the 5,000; they are not engaged in idolatry or the breaking of the 2nd commandment. Granted, the flannel graph Jesus could look way more Jewish than the pale faced, high foreheaded, slicked back hair Jesus often portrayed, but still, the image is not meant to direct the heart in worship to a false idol.

Quote
Yes, you have made this statement before, but unlike your assertion here, it has not been ignored. It has been answered. Apparently not to your satisfaction, but it has been answered. Your interpretation of the purpose of the Cherubim and the bronze serpent, as well their application to the issue at hand, not to mention the Lords purpose in providing vs 5 of the context to the 2nd commandment is lacking in my view, as has been pointed out in other posts on this subject. You are of course entitled to another view, but you are rejecting the majority view of the orthodox Christian community for centuries, and I find your basis for doing so quite unsubstantial, if what you have provided here is the whole of it.

(Fred) I am completely aware of the various responses some folks have made, but those responses, I have to say, are not born from the entire text of Exodus 20:4-5 and do not adequately answer my pointing out of the Cherubim on top of the ark. Are you telling me that the high priest dripping blood on the ark during the day of atonement is not worship? Did not Jesus Christ point to the serpent lifted up in the wilderness as a type (an illustration) of what he was to do on the cross to bear sin? The distinction concerning the prohibition of images is not in the image itself, but the worship of that image. The Israelites were guilty of taking the Ark into battle as some sort of good luck charm in 1 Samuel 4-6. They were in essence worshipping the actual box, the image so to speak, not God. The serpent is also another prime example. Because it was turned into an icon by the Israelites, Hezekiah destroyed it. If it is images themselves being condemned, then I hope we are all prepared to burn our copies of Pilgrim's Progress, particularly the illustrated versions that show Pilgrim taking on Apollyon and him crossing the river into the Celestrial City, or perhaps our copies of Moby Dick, where Melville pictures sinful man (Ahab) fighting against God (the White Whale).
Now please, don't misunderstand me; I am not suggesting that we have pictures of Jesus in our Churches or statues of saints and angels decorating the corridor leading down to the fellowship hall. But I am saying that an artistic expression of the children crossing the Red Sea and the fire burning behind them to separate them from Pharaoh's army is not violating the 2nd commandment. Nor is the famous painting of Jesus and the apostles in the sea storm that depicts the disciples freaking out and Jesus calmly seated in the rear of the boat. Those painting only capture historical events and are not designed, nor intended, to be worshipped.
As for my point of view cutting against the majority view of orthodox Christianity, I would say that it may cut against the majority view of Covenant Theology and its application of the 10 commandments, not necessarily the whole of orthodox Christianity. If the historic majority is the determiner of orthodoxy, then we need to go back to Rome.

Fred


"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns
fredman #11951 Fri Mar 05, 2004 7:06 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Hi Fred:

In response to my statement as follows:
Quote
You are of course entitled to another view, but you are rejecting the majority view of the orthodox Christian community for centuries, and I find your basis for doing so quite unsubstantial, if what you have provided here is the whole of it.

You made the following statement:
Quote
If the historic majority is the determiner of orthodoxy, then we need to go back to Rome.
I would respond that I thought it would be obvious to you that when I say "majority view of the orthodox Christian community" I am refering to orthodoxy, which Roman Catholicism is not.

Your statement appears to be an attempt to say that following the teaching of the historic creeds and confessions of the orthodox Reformed faith is no more than following Rome, which I know you don't believe.

I am saying, which ought to be more than obvious, the exact opposite of that, Fred, for the movie the Passion, is a PRODUCT OF ROME, is ENDORSED BY ROME, teaches ROMES DOCTRINES, and is designed to draw the unwary to ROME. What could be clearer?

In Him,

Gerry

Page 3 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 104 guests, and 14 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
atdcross, NetChaplain, winslowlady, Zach, Daverogk
964 Registered Users
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
October
S M T W T F S
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
Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Popular Topics(Views)
1,292,927 Gospel truth