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"?
There is no communication of properties between the divine and human natures of Christ. Christ is, however, one Person, and no one can look at only His human nature, as though this nature were separable from the divine. To look upon Christ is to look upon both His humanity and His deity.
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
If the characteristics of each nature are perserved and Christ took on human flesh, how is the crucifix a representation of the Godhead?
Because to represent Christ in any visual manner is necessarily to represent Him in both His humanity and His deity, since these natures are forever united in Him. One cannot pull out His human nature and represent it as though by itself, else in his mind He divides Christ in two!
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
speratus asks: 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)?
I don't mean to answer for my brother here, but it seems rather odd to me that you would ask this question after I personally replied to this and provided to you the full text of the "Chalcedon Creed", which is a definitive statement concerning the two natures of Jesus Christ and their relationship to each other. You cannot separate nor intermix the two natures which exist in the Lord Christ. They are to be recognized as independent of each other, yet co-existent. Further, it is the one man within which these two natures dwell and which distinguish Him from every other creature. In short, the Lord Jesus Christ would not be what He is if either of the two natures is removed and/or diminished. Thus as Chalcedon rightly states, He was both God and man simultaneously in the ONE PERSON and forever shall be.
I hope this clears up your confusion. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
speratus said: Do you understand John 1:14 as referring to a physical glory?
Yes, but not to His physical glory only but rather the Lord Christ shone forth the "effulgence" of the glory of God (deity), since He was and remains the Son of God in human flesh.
Quote
you also ask: If the characteristics of each nature are perserved and Christ took on human flesh, how is the crucifix a representation of the Godhead?
Because in Christ the "whole Godhead dwelt bodily". Colossians 2:9 (ASV) "for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily," (cf. Col 1:15, 19). See also my previous reply to this same question posited by you above.
Good point, but Christ does not want us to "see" both natures in His humiliation. When Philip said, "Show us the Father", Christ did not reveal His glory. Instead, Christ says, “Philip, he who has seen me has seen the Father”.
Christ wishes to be seen in His humanity as the suffering servant bearing the shame and humility of the cross. Like Moses, we can not see God directly. But we see God hidden in suffering.
I try to answer each person individually and in order; however, sometimes things get jumbled up and I miss intervening posts during the time I am preparing my response.
Yes, I am gaining a better understanding of the Reformed view of the two natures of Christ and the commandments thanks to CovenantInBlood and yourself. I have much to ponder.
There are two kinds of images of Christ displayed in Roman and some Protestant churches. One type shows Jesus in His state of humiliation (e.g., the crucifix) bearing the sins of the world. The other type of image shows an idealized or glorified Christ. These glorified images of Christ cause us to look for Jesus where He can not be found.
I am still considering whether either image is proper.
"You say that you have 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.
That's your assertion. Our petition to the saints to intercede for us is not unlike your own petitions to friends to pray for you, exception being that the saint are in heaven having crossed the finish line and earned God's special favor and reward He has promised to all who persevere unto death.
You actually would have made a stronger objection by referring to our veneration (honoring) of the saints as equating to saint worship. But even this is in error. For the homage we give them (which they have indeed incurred) is not nearly the same as the worship and praise we give only to God, the Trinity.
Quote
..only God can do the intercession that you describe of the saints being able to do.
Do you never request the prayers of your friends? Don't you realize that you are asking them to intercede for you? There's nothing wrong with this because in 2 Peter we are referred to as a royal priesthood empowering us to do this priestly duty for each other. But you are incorrect in thinking that this replaces, for us, the ultimate intercession of Jesus Christ who is our Great High Priest according to the order of Melchizadek.
Quote
I am interested in the history of all 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.
That's one thing I can agree on, you are not yet well informed on this subject. In your research, please don't consult only anticatholic sources. You will find that petitioning the saints is steeped in historical precedent and is not just a hallmark of the Catholic Church, but also the Orthodox, and interesingly enough, the Anglican Church. (but try getting averagefellar to admit to that! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />)
"Grace be with all those who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Amen." Eph 6:24
Within Anglicanism there are basically three "camps". All three agree that there is no need to bow to Rome nor the pope.
1) Old catholics. This type will hold to some very old beliefs; baptismal regeneration, prayer to saints, iconification and still some Latin masses. You would barely notice a difference between these types and Roman catholics. Tradition is very important to old-school Anglicans.
2) Liberals. This is the folks that revise history and scripture. There biggest push currently, after succeeding in ordaining women, is the acceptance of gay clergy. Many wesleyan/arminian types there. Theologically drifting.
3) Conservative. Less ornate structures, more reformational theologically and conservative core values. The Reformed Episcopal Church follows this type of example. Much more calvinistic as well as an emphasis on outreach. More oriented toward scripture although some old traditions are still practiced.
To branch all Anglicans together over any specific beliefs will usually lead to problems. The term 'Anglican' means less than ever today. However, a recent article posted in response to the erroneous claim of 33,000 divisions shows that even Rome is divided on some issues so definitions are becoming more lenient for all of us.
When I see a cross, I am reminded of the price that my Lord paid for our sins. I do not get a picture in my mind of the Lord himself. This is similar to when I partake in the Lord's Supper; I partake in it in remembrance of Him.
However, I do get that picture in my mind of Jesus when I see a Roman Catholic cross with Jesus hanging on it.
You will find that petitioning the saints is steeped in historical precedent and is not just a hallmark of the Catholic Church, but also the Orthodox, and interesingly enough, the Anglican Church.
There are two reasons it remains in the Anglican church:
1) There were and remain factions within the Anglican Church that maintained a much more Roman ceremony and theology. The most prominent factions did not, and the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion are, in fact, thorough-going Protestant. (Which is why most Anglo-Catholics today are quite ambivalent toward them.) 2) The Oxford Movement, which revived Romanism within the Anglican church in the 1800's. See here and here.
A possible third reason, which is inferrence on my part, is the trend of liberal theology to embrace any form of religion they consider "inclusive." Prayer to Mary, for example, is certainly attractive to feminists.
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
I'm with you on this one Tom. I am also offended at the crucifix. Some simple symbols may be allowable, but caution must be taken. Elaborate cathedrals with stained glass and gold plated baptistry's can show how pride can take away from the worship experience. I prefer a very conservative liturgy style of worship, but ceremony can have the same problem. Too much pomp hinders our ability to concentrate on God. As far as praying to dead folks, I see no scriptural support that it is either permissible or helpful. I see no examples of it. I also disagree with iconification and the roman notion of sainthood.
A third reason, which is inferrence on my part, is the trend of liberal theology to embrace any form of religion they consider "inclusive". Prayer to Mary, for example, is certainly attractive to feminists.
Well, sir, as long as you are reaching (and that's quite a reach) might you consider the possibility that prayer to Mary is done for the stated intent and purpose; that she is in Heaven with the Lord and has incurred God's special grace, a never-ending reservoir that we tap into?
The theology of Jesus being fully man and fully human is a core issue, because only by this may Jesus be qualified to be a perfect sacrifice on our behalf. If He were not, all our hope is in vain.
I wish I could provide scriptural support, but right now I'm traveling and don't have a bible. If I had one right now, I would be turning to Hebrews. But if you agree, (I'm sure you do) you may find this to be the strongest argument in defense of this critical point.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
