What scriptural support is offered for the veneration of statues and icons? What scriptural support is offered for the production of images of God the Son?
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
Please re-read my post. I was talking about eschatology that came about from the Protestant Reformation itself. I am well aware that probably the most widely held eschatological belief with in Protestantism is Dispensational Premillenialism (which as you correctly pointed out is a fairly new view, perhaps 1833). By and large this position is held by Arminian Protestants, though there are a few such as John MacArthur that hold to what I would call a semi-dispensational position on this matter.
Dispensational Premillenialism is a departure from both the Scriptures and Reformational Protestantism, therefore should not be concidered "Protestant". This is not to say that there are not true Christians who hold to Dispensational Premillenialism. For out of ignorance and because of incorrect teaching, for years I held to it.
If I haven't got that message to you by this post, I doubt very much I can.
The pretribulation rapture heresy is also fairly recent and infects nearly all of Protestantism, being introduced by John Nelson Darby, and then widely propagated by C.I.Scofield vie the Scofield Reference Bible. Don't talk to ME about doctrines that violate scripture! This one is specifically refuted in 2 Thess.
In 1590, the Jesuit Ribera invented a view of end times with the AntiChrist yet to come. His view remained dormant for quite awhile until it was popularized by Darby. The Millenialists embroidered on his theme with endless variety so much so that the original source is hardly recognizable.
You know well enough that the evangelical church is, by and large, not reformed. If you have quibbles with the doctrines and practices of reformed Christians, address those. Dispensationalism is indeed "fringe" within, withing the Reformed church. Marian veneration, however, is mainstream in the Roman Church.
A fair question, and when I start a thread on the Veneration of the Saints, it will be a significant undertaking with a vicious battle to ensue.
As Jesus recommends, I'm calculating the cost of war, and right now, I am ill equipped, undermanned, and unprepared. The members of this forum deserve my finest Catholic defense of this doctrine, and I am committed to ensure they recieve just that. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/einstein.gif" alt="" />
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
I'll probably get blasted for this, but oh well. Won't be something new for me here.
As I read this post, all I could think of is how beautiful it is when we are allowed to express our worship using the talents that God has given us. Art being a talent, I don't see a problem with using symbols and pictures to represent spiritual truths because if we don't allow people to paint a picture than what are we doing? We allow people to sing in church. We allow people to preach. We allow people to read poetry. How come painting a picture or making a sculpture is such a horrid thing?
I do disagree with praying to those statues and paintings. But a lot of good can come from admiring how someone expressed their spiritual life. Looking at a statue of, for example, St. Francis may remind us that we need to love all and share Christ unashamedly. Or looking at a statue of Mary may remind us that Jesus was pure, born of a virgin. Or looking at a painting depicting a crucifixion may remind us that Jesus actually did go through pain on the cross and that he wasn't just given a spanking and hung on a couple boards and put in a hole.
My point is, maybe we Protestants could learn something from the Catholics besides what not to do. What if the Catholics are right on this matter and Protestants came up with their interpretation of the second commandment as a way to not be Catholic?
So my thought is, maybe we shouldn't be so harsh on using artwork to help us to meditate on Spiritual truths and instead embrace (with moderation) a way to help guide us into meditation that has been long lost in many Protestant circles.
Yes, you're going to get blasted, brother. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />
Quote
As I read this post, all I could think of is how beautiful it is when we are allowed to express our worship using the talents that God has given us. Art being a talent, I don't see a problem with using symbols and pictures to represent spiritual truths because if we don't allow people to paint a picture than what are we doing? We allow people to sing in church. We allow people to preach. We allow people to read poetry. How come painting a picture or making a sculpture is such a horrid thing?
I don't know how many people read poetry in church, but preaching and singing are commanded means of corporate worship. Painting pictures or sculpting statues, or contemplating these? Not hardly. So already there is a difference.
Quote
I do disagree with praying to those statues and paintings. But a lot of good can come from admiring how someone expressed their spiritual life. Looking at a statue of, for example, St. Francis may remind us that we need to love all and share Christ unashamedly. Or looking at a statue of Mary may remind us that Jesus was pure, born of a virgin.
Does that mean these ought to be displayed and contemplated during worship?
Quote
Or looking at a painting depicting a crucifixion may remind us that Jesus actually did go through pain on the cross and that he wasn't just given a spanking and hung on a couple boards and put in a hole.
What better than the gospel accounts themselves to remind us of this? Why should we need a crucifix, which not only cannot depict in any way the shame and pain of Jesus' sufferings, which were far more than physical, but also would be directly in violation of the Second Commandment, which forbids visual representations of God?
Quote
My point is, maybe we Protestants could learn something from the Catholics besides what not to do. What if the Catholics are right on this matter and Protestants came up with their interpretation of the second commandment as a way to not be Catholic?
There isn't any "what if." The Roman Church is wrong. Perhaps it may interest you that they lump the Second Commandment in with the first, while somehow dividing the Tenth so as to have a total of Ten Commandments? The reason for this is obvious: to justify the proliferation of statues, crucifixes, and icons in the Roman Church, and the veneration of these.
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
Thank you for your thoughts and candid assessment. I don't think you'll get blasted for it. From the feedback I've received it seems evident that most agree with the splendor of liturgical worship, even if some, like yourself, mistakingly believe that we pray to statues.
Protestantism doesn't necessarily have to exclude these worship enhancing visual aids. In fact, Lutherans and Anglicans, among others, create beautiful worship atmospheres in their churches without compromising their strongly Protestant doctrines.
Even in my home, I've found that dimming the lights and lighting a candle or two with incense gives a special and intimate touch to my private worship. Wouldn't hurt to give it a try! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />
Over and above the regulatory principle, "That which is not expressly permitted is forbidden" and the adiaphora principle, "That which is not expressly forbidden is permitted", we have the Christian liberty principle expressed by the early Reformers: "Without a reasonable cause, nothing should change" (Apology to the Augsburg Confession). The Roman church violated that principle when they introduced veneration of physical objects contrary to scripture and the traditions of the Church Catholic.
In all my years as a Catholic I have never worshipped a statue or icon of any kind, nor have I witnessed anyone doing so.
Ok I'm just going to point out the obvious. Am I missing something?? You say that you've never worshipped a statue or icon. But what are you doing when you are praying to Mary and other saints to intercede for you??? You are worshipping Mary. Ok you say Mary isn't devine. But in your very act of prayer to her, you are worshipping her. Only a devine being (God) can be prayed to. That's the error you hold right there. It seems that you are saying it's not worship to Mary by praying for her to interceded because she's not God. Mary is dead and powerless to intercede because she is not God. But only God has the power to work on our behalf, [/b]so whether you like it or not, Mary just became "God" when she is prayed to. Does that make any sense?? You say you've never worshipped an idle, but every time you pray to a Saint you've done it. You are deceived my friend. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bigglasses.gif" alt="" /> You are praying to these dead people who are powerless!! Do you realize you are worshipping dead people?? Their work on earth here is done and they do NOT have any work for you on your behalf or anyone's behalf while in heaven (and only God can do the intercession that you describe of the saints being able to do). Yes they are alive in heaven, but we are NOT to pray to them. That is worship and idolatry and it's also occultism.
I am interested in the history of all of this. I wonder what centuries did this get popular in the Catholic Church?? (I'm referring to praying to the Saints). Well that's another area of reading for me amongst so much reading.
CovenantInBlood said:Why should we need a crucifix, which not only cannot depict in any way the shame and pain of Jesus' sufferings, which were far more than physical, but also would be directly in violation of the Second Commandment, which forbids visual representations of God?
Before I can understand the Reformed objection to the crucifix, I need to understand the Reformed doctrine of the hypostatic union of God the Son and the flesh of Mary. Do Calvinists subscribe to the Athanasian Creed?
Quote
For the right faith is, that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man of the substance of His mother, born in the world; Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood; Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but one Christ: One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking the manhood into God; One altogether; not by confusion of Substance, but by unity of Person.
If so, how do Calvinists understand, "not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking the manhood into God"?
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
speratus queried: Before I can understand the Reformed objection to the crucifix, I need to understand the Reformed doctrine of the hypostatic union of God the Son and the flesh of Mary. Do Calvinists subscribe to the Athanasian Creed?
This is a joke, right? Calvinism is BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY, so of course we who hold to the doctrines of sovereign grace also embrace the Athanasian Creed as well as the Nicene Creed and Chalcedon, which says:
Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.
The reason most Calvinists find a "crucifix" objectionable is because: (1) It is in direct violation of the Second Commandment which prohibits the creation of any form of any of the three persons of the Godhead and/or the worship of them or use of them to worship. (2) Christ is risen and now sits at the right hand of God; ruling the earth and His kingdom, having ascended and been coronated King of Kings and Lord of Lords. (3) We are to remember His sacrificial death in the Lord's Supper and not through some fabricated object that is nothing more than the materialization of some man's imagination.
Quote
speratus also asks: how do Calvinists understand, "not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking the manhood into God"?
I think that is quite thoroughly answered in the Chalcedon Creed, but perhaps these Bible passages might make it even clearer for you:
John 1:14 (ASV) "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth."
Philippians 2:5-11 (ASV) "Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient [even] unto death, yea, the death of the cross. Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name; that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven and [things] on earth and [things] under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
1 Timothy 3:16 (ASV) "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the spirit, Seen of angels, Preached among the nations, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory."
Thanks for the link to an excellent and thorough exposition on the hypostatic union. However, I still have one point of confusion. Pink writes in "Mediatorial Union, Part III,
Quote
We turn next to consider the consequence of His human nature being taken into union with the Son of God. And, first, negatively. His humanity was not invested with Divine attributes. As the Divine nature was not humanized at the incarnation, neither was the humanity deified: there was no communication of properties from one to the other; both preserved their integrity, and remained in possession of their distinctive qualities. “I do not hereby ascribe the infusion of omniscience, of infinite understanding, wisdom, and knowledge into the human nature of Christ. It was and is a creature, finite and limited, nor is a capable subject of properties absolutely infinite and immense. Filled it was with light and wisdom to the utmost capacity of a creature. But it was so, not by being changed into a Divine nature or essence, but by the communication of the Spirit unto it without measure. The Spirit of the Lord did rest upon Him: Isaiah 11:1-3” (John Owen).
However, he also writes,
Quote
Fifth, in consequence of the Hypostatic union, all the fullness of the Godhead dwells personally in Jesus Christ, and in Him there is such an outshining of the perfections of Jehovah as contain the utmost manifestation of Deity which can be made either unto the angels or unto men. The “glory of God” shines “in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6). Much may be seen of God, in creation, in providence, in grace, but in and by Jesus Christ alone is He fully and perfectly revealed. Therefore could He say, “He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father” (John 14:9).
The second statement indicates why Calvinists view any representation of Christ as a violation of the second commandment. However, the first statement says there is no communication of properties. So how can the "glory of God" shine visually in "the face of Jesus Christ" (so that we can not make any visual representation of it)?
Last edited by speratus; Sat Oct 09, 200411:53 AM.
Do you understand John 1:14 as referring to a physical glory?
Quote
the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ
If the characteristics of each nature are perserved and Christ took on human flesh, how is the crucifix a representation of the Godhead?
Calvinists uphold the Athanasian Creed and the hypostatic union.
As far as the clause, "not by the conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking the manhood into God," I understand it to mean that the divine nature did not become fleshly nature, but rather took a fleshly nature and united it to itself. In this way both the divine and fleshly natures remained wholly intact.
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
Calvinism is BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY, so of course we who hold to the doctrines of sovereign grace also embrace the Athanasian Creed as well as the Nicene Creed and Chalcedon, which says:![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)