If the images were removed

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The Scripture says not to make a graven image in order to worship it. There is a big difference between having a picture on the wall and using that picture for religious worship. If images in general were sinful, then all of our photo albums, family pictures, artworks, etc are all illegal, which of course is nonsense.

But if someone sets up a crucifix and then kneels in front of it as if to use it for worship, then that is idolatory. We worship and fellowship with God and Christ directly, as Jesus said, we worship God in spirit and in truth.

Even kneeling before the cross is idolatory, because the symbol is made into an idol of worship. Also the crucifix with Christ hanging on it is inaccurate because Christ is no longer on the cross. He has risen from the dead and is at the right hand of the Father in heaven. Statues of the Virgin Mary can either be statues, or idols depending on whether people kneel in front of them or not. The excuse that they are using the statue as a respresentative of the person being worshipped is not an excuse against idolatory.

It is interesting to note that when Constantine made Christianity the state religion of Rome, the great influx of pagans into the church caused major changes. The pagan temples became ornate Christian temples (or churches), the Vestal Virgins were replaced by Catholic nuns, the multiplicity of Roman gods replaced by canonisation of "saints" which many Catholics pray to, pagan priests were replaced by the Catholic priesthood, and the pagan ceremonies replaced by the Mass. So the RCC has a definite pagan influence from Roman times, and a lot of the worship can be compared with the pagan worship of Romans, including the ceremonies and worship of statues.

Of course, many modern Catholics will not accept this, and there are many who put their faith exclusively in Christ and do not take the worship of Mary and the saints seriously.

But we need to ensure that we are worshiping and serving the God of the Bible and not some deity made up from imagination and fantasy.

God mandated the making and using of images for His temple in the OT.

I find it to be a real paradox when reformed protestants hang so much of their theology on the 10 commandments; which is OT legalism, yet totally disregard God's command that images be used. How can you reconcile and justify this position, while "confessing" Sola Scriptura? Recall also that God commanded the making of a bronze serpent, not for worship but as a symbol of His grace, for his people. Did the bronze serpent protect His people; no: His Will and His Grace did. Be mindful also that the 10 commandments were given by God before God mandated the building of His temple.

Scripture tells us that where people gather in His Name, He is there; it says nothing about icons. Yet the destruction or removal of icons and images are indeed a sin, because Scripture does not forbid their in worshiping the One True God. Scripture only forbids their use for worshiping false gods. And yes, if they are not there, we can still worship without them. If they are there, we can worship in the presence of them; in that there is no sin, only man's expression of his love of God.

Likewise, when we kneel before the cross or crucifix on our altar, we are not venerating the image; we are venerating what that image represents, our Lord God Jesus Christ!

God bless,

Mark

 

[laconicstudent]

Of course, many modern Catholics will not accept this.

Because its your a-historical opinion that misunderstands the theology and logic of icons.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

It might help to understand a bit what icons are and how they fit into Christian theology. In Christian theology God Himself has given us His Icon, Jesus Christ, "He is the Icon of the invisible God" says St. Paul. Thus God has, in Christ, given us His Icon.

The use of icons is deeply incarnational, it points us toward the fact that God Himself has given us His Image, His Icon, in Christ. It's also part of the fact that Christianity has historically made use of all the human senses as part of our worship and theology, sight and smell and hearing and taste. Christianity has made use of created things, seeing God's movement and action through them; in the water of Baptism, the bread and wine of the Eucharist, etc. God acts, God moves, God makes Himself known to us through the mundane things of this world--because in Christ God Himself has united Himself to creation in the Person of our Lord Jesus.

God united Himself to human nature, Christ had a body; the Creator has united Himself to creation in a special and particular way, and therefore we see in these Mysteries or Sacraments and the various sacramental character of historic Christianity a reminder that, in Christ, God has united Himself to us and that God's purposes for all things is restoration and reconciliation. At the end of all things we are not looking forward to an escape or removal from this world, but the return of Christ and the restoration of all creation (Romans 8). In seven days God created the heavens and the earth, and on the eighth day Christ, in rising from the dead, has made us new creations in Himself and His purposes for creation are its dignity and salvation, "Behold I make all things new!"

The water in Baptism, the bread and wine in the Eucharist, the music we sing, the Word that is spoken to us, incense, genuflection, making the Sign of the Cross, and yes even icons. These all call our attention back to the reality of the Word of God made flesh who by His Incarnation has set about the salvation and restoration of all created things. The visible and the tangible is not inferior or bad (as the ancient Gnostics taught), rather we say in the Creed, "...One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, of all things seen and unseen", in Genesis God proclaimed all that He had made "exceedingly good".

Again, icons call us back to this. Icons of Christ proclaim the real Jesus who was crucified, buried and dead and rose again on the third day, the Icon of God; icons of the saints proclaim the beauty of Christ's saving action, they are (in as my Eastern Orthodox friends would say) "windows into heaven". Icons do not point to themselves, they point to the reality and glory of the Risen Christ, icons of Mary and the Saints do not point to themselves, but again to the reality and glory of the Risen Christ.

Iconoclasm was rejected as heretical not because images are "necessary", but because Iconoclasm rejects the inherent goodness of the visible and created as means by which God shows Himself to us--Iconoclasm was rejected as heretical because it was seen as dangerous, leading ultimately toward a practical (or even real) rejection of the Incarnation itself.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Actually, I quite enjoy fellowshiping and worshiping the invisible Father and Jesus Christ. The Bible tells me that this is life eternal that I might know the Father and Jesus, and that my fellowship is with them directly. I have the Holy Spirit, who is God Himself, living in my spirit, therefore I don't need an icon or image to assist my fellowship with Him.

There are times where I have wonderful and meaningful fellowship with Him and I have a strong sense of His presence with me, so He doesn't seem to mind that I don't need to have images to assist. In fact, He has told me directly that because I have Him in my heart to fellowship with, images, icons, visions, or any other visual representation of Him are not necessary at all.

To me, this is not merely a "Protestant thing", but it is an integral part of my faith.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Actually, I quite enjoy fellowshiping and worshiping the invisible Father and Jesus Christ. The Bible tells me that this is life eternal that I might know the Father and Jesus, and that my fellowship is with them directly. I have the Holy Spirit, who is God Himself, living in my spirit, therefore I don't need an icon or image to assist my fellowship with Him.

There are times where I have wonderful and meaningful fellowship with Him and I have a strong sense of His presence with me, so He doesn't seem to mind that I don't need to have images to assist. In fact, He has told me directly that because I have Him in my heart to fellowship with, images, icons, visions, or any other visual representation of Him are not necessary at all.

To me, this is not merely a "Protestant thing", but it is an integral part of my faith.

All fine and good, I don't venerate icons either. However the theology of the icon is still an integral part of the historic Christian faith and Iconoclasm is still heterodox.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

It might help to understand a bit what icons are and how they fit into Christian theology. In Christian theology God Himself has given us His Icon, Jesus Christ, "He is the Icon of the invisible God" says St. Paul. Thus God has, in Christ, given us His Icon.

The use of icons is deeply incarnational, it points us toward the fact that God Himself has given us His Image, His Icon, in Christ. It's also part of the fact that Christianity has historically made use of all the human senses as part of our worship and theology, sight and smell and hearing and taste. Christianity has made use of created things, seeing God's movement and action through them; in the water of Baptism, the bread and wine of the Eucharist, etc. God acts, God moves, God makes Himself known to us through the mundane things of this world--because in Christ God Himself has united Himself to creation in the Person of our Lord Jesus.

God united Himself to human nature, Christ had a body; the Creator has united Himself to creation in a special and particular way, and therefore we see in these Mysteries or Sacraments and the various sacramental character of historic Christianity a reminder that, in Christ, God has united Himself to us and that God's purposes for all things is restoration and reconciliation. At the end of all things we are not looking forward to an escape or removal from this world, but the return of Christ and the restoration of all creation (Romans 8). In seven days God created the heavens and the earth, and on the eighth day Christ, in rising from the dead, has made us new creations in Himself and His purposes for creation are its dignity and salvation, "Behold I make all things new!"

The water in Baptism, the bread and wine in the Eucharist, the music we sing, the Word that is spoken to us, incense, genuflection, making the Sign of the Cross, and yes even icons. These all call our attention back to the reality of the Word of God made flesh who by His Incarnation has set about the salvation and restoration of all created things. The visible and the tangible is not inferior or bad (as the ancient Gnostics taught), rather we say in the Creed, "...One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, of all things seen and unseen", in Genesis God proclaimed all that He had made "exceedingly good".

Again, icons call us back to this. Icons of Christ proclaim the real Jesus who was crucified, buried and dead and rose again on the third day, the Icon of God; icons of the saints proclaim the beauty of Christ's saving action, they are (in as my Eastern Orthodox friends would say) "windows into heaven". Icons do not point to themselves, they point to the reality and glory of the Risen Christ, icons of Mary and the Saints do not point to themselves, but again to the reality and glory of the Risen Christ.

Iconoclasm was rejected as heretical not because images are "necessary", but because Iconoclasm rejects the inherent goodness of the visible and created as means by which God shows Himself to us--Iconoclasm was rejected as heretical because it was seen as dangerous, leading ultimately toward a practical (or even real) rejection of the Incarnation itself.

-CryptoLutheran

Well said!

All fine and good, I don't venerate icons either. However the theology of the icon is still an integral part of the historic Christian faith and Iconoclasm is still heterodox.

-CryptoLutheran

Indeed it is.

 

[Dark_Lite]

The Scripture says not to make a graven image in order to worship it. There is a big difference between having a picture on the wall and using that picture for religious worship. If images in general were sinful, then all of our photo albums, family pictures, artworks, etc are all illegal, which of course is nonsense.

But if someone sets up a crucifix and then kneels in front of it as if to use it for worship, then that is idolatory. We worship and fellowship with God and Christ directly, as Jesus said, we worship God in spirit and in truth.

Even kneeling before the cross is idolatory, because the symbol is made into an idol of worship. Also the crucifix with Christ hanging on it is inaccurate because Christ is no longer on the cross. He has risen from the dead and is at the right hand of the Father in heaven. Statues of the Virgin Mary can either be statues, or idols depending on whether people kneel in front of them or not. The excuse that they are using the statue as a respresentative of the person being worshipped is not an excuse against idolatory.

Ah yes, the magic "if you do this particular action it is automatically worship" idea. Tell me: does anyone who kneels before a King worship that king? Do people in Japan who bow before each other out of respect worship each other?

You should be answering no. Thinking that kneeling automatically = worship is just as nonsensical as thinking having any picture = worship. Worship requires a very specific intent. Catholics do not worship the Saints or Mary, despite any misconceptions you may have to the contrary. If you know of a Catholic worshiping the Saints, you should go tell them that they are not adhering to Catholic teaching.

It is interesting to note that when Constantine made Christianity the state religion of Rome, the great influx of pagans into the church caused major changes. The pagan temples became ornate Christian temples (or churches), the Vestal Virgins were replaced by Catholic nuns, the multiplicity of Roman gods replaced by canonisation of "saints" which many Catholics pray to, pagan priests were replaced by the Catholic priesthood, and the pagan ceremonies replaced by the Mass. So the RCC has a definite pagan influence from Roman times, and a lot of the worship can be compared with the pagan worship of Romans, including the ceremonies and worship of statues.

It's far more interesting to note that there is evidence of the veneration of Saints long before the Edict of Milan. Look up Sub tuum Praesidium. Sorry, history disagrees with your assessment.

Of course, many modern Catholics will not accept this, and there are many who put their faith exclusively in Christ and do not take the worship of Mary and the saints seriously.

But we need to ensure that we are worshiping and serving the God of the Bible and not some deity made up from imagination and fantasy.

Catholics do not worship Mary and the Saints. Any Catholic who does is espousing heresy.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Actually, I quite enjoy fellowshiping and worshiping the invisible Father and Jesus Christ. The Bible tells me that this is life eternal that I might know the Father and Jesus, and that my fellowship is with them directly. I have the Holy Spirit, who is God Himself, living in my spirit, therefore I don't need an icon or image to assist my fellowship with Him.

There are times where I have wonderful and meaningful fellowship with Him and I have a strong sense of His presence with me, so He doesn't seem to mind that I don't need to have images to assist. In fact, He has told me directly that because I have Him in my heart to fellowship with, images, icons, visions, or any other visual representation of Him are not necessary at all.

To me, this is not merely a "Protestant thing", but it is an integral part of my faith.

Iconoclasm is indeed a "Protestant thing." It was condemned as a heresy at the second Nicaean Council. It was then later revived by some of the Reformers and persists in many Protestant traditions to this day.

 

[visionary]

What kind of faith can do without images and stay well connected with God?

 

[Hairy Tic]

Thanks for the reply. Just a few points I'm still shady on.

What do you mean by 'from the beginning'?


So, yes they would be an outrage if the images were removed and you say the reason for the outrage would be because people are now too used to them to be able to do without them?

## The Creation of man in the image of God, is as good a place to start as any The whole of creation a single vast image of God's Goodness & Power & Love.

 

[Hairy Tic]

God mandated the making and using of images for His temple in the OT.

I find it to be a real paradox when reformed protestants hang so much of their theology on the 10 commandments; which is OT legalism, yet totally disregard God's command that images be used. How can you reconcile and justify this position, while "confessing" Sola Scriptura?

## Taking a stab at this (not being Protestant etc.), I suspect they would argue that the Law is done away with in Christ as far as its ceremonial part (which pertains to the cherubim, Ark, etc.) is concerned, so that, because the NT Church is not given an explicit mandate to have images, images have no place in a Christian Church. And Hebrews 1.1 would come into play.

In this matter of the Law, Luther was on the ball more than Calvin IMO, because Luther does not let himself be restricted by the Bible in the way Calvin does. If all we needed was a book, there would have been no Incarnation. The Bible is all very well, but....

Recall also that God commanded the making of a bronze serpent, not for worship but as a symbol of His grace, for his people. Did the bronze serpent protect His people; no: His Will and His Grace did. Be mindful also that the 10 commandments were given by God before God mandated the building of His temple.

Scripture tells us that where people gather in His Name, He is there; it says nothing about icons. Yet the destruction or removal of icons and images are indeed a sin, because Scripture does not forbid their in worshiping the One True God.

## But the use of supposed Adiaphora leads to "Popery" - "things indifferent" are not, if God forbids them, or does not command their use. And where no command exists, Christians are not free to behave as though there were: images are not commanded for the NT Church - so they are forbidden it. There is also the strong Calvinist emphasis on "peculiarism", so to call it - the Church must not follow the "ways of the nations", because it is His elect people, a holy nation, & His People must live holy lives. They have been "called out of" the nations, so must not live like them - & this principle is transferred to the Churches: Rome being Babylon, the mother of harlots etc. It is full of errors, so a reformed Church must have no share in those errors. It find all sorts of excuses for being carnal & reintroducing the service of idols - so a Christian Church, just like an obedient Christian, must not give "the appearance of evil", as it would, by having images.

So the Calvinist argument is strongly theological: it co-ordinates various Scriptures, & draws the conclusions.

Scripture only forbids their use for worshiping false gods. And yes, if they are not there, we can still worship without them. If they are there, we can worship in the presence of them; in that there is no sin, only man's expression of his love of God.

Likewise, when we kneel before the cross or crucifix on our altar, we are not venerating the image; we are venerating what that image represents, our Lord God Jesus Christ!

God bless,

Mark

 

[Hairy Tic]

It might help to understand a bit what icons are and how they fit into Christian theology. In Christian theology God Himself has given us His Icon, Jesus Christ, "He is the Icon of the invisible God" says St. Paul. Thus God has, in Christ, given us His Icon.

The use of icons is deeply incarnational, it points us toward the fact that God Himself has given us His Image, His Icon, in Christ. It's also part of the fact that Christianity has historically made use of all the human senses as part of our worship and theology, sight and smell and hearing and taste. Christianity has made use of created things, seeing God's movement and action through them; in the water of Baptism, the bread and wine of the Eucharist, etc. God acts, God moves, God makes Himself known to us through the mundane things of this world--because in Christ God Himself has united Himself to creation in the Person of our Lord Jesus.

God united Himself to human nature, Christ had a body; the Creator has united Himself to creation in a special and particular way, and therefore we see in these Mysteries or Sacraments and the various sacramental character of historic Christianity a reminder that, in Christ, God has united Himself to us and that God's purposes for all things is restoration and reconciliation. At the end of all things we are not looking forward to an escape or removal from this world, but the return of Christ and the restoration of all creation (Romans 8). In seven days God created the heavens and the earth, and on the eighth day Christ, in rising from the dead, has made us new creations in Himself and His purposes for creation are its dignity and salvation, "Behold I make all things new!"

The water in Baptism, the bread and wine in the Eucharist, the music we sing, the Word that is spoken to us, incense, genuflection, making the Sign of the Cross, and yes even icons. These all call our attention back to the reality of the Word of God made flesh who by His Incarnation has set about the salvation and restoration of all created things. The visible and the tangible is not inferior or bad (as the ancient Gnostics taught), rather we say in the Creed, "...One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, of all things seen and unseen", in Genesis God proclaimed all that He had made "exceedingly good".

Again, icons call us back to this. Icons of Christ proclaim the real Jesus who was crucified, buried and dead and rose again on the third day, the Icon of God; icons of the saints proclaim the beauty of Christ's saving action, they are (in as my Eastern Orthodox friends would say) "windows into heaven". Icons do not point to themselves, they point to the reality and glory of the Risen Christ, icons of Mary and the Saints do not point to themselves, but again to the reality and glory of the Risen Christ.

Iconoclasm was rejected as heretical not because images are "necessary", but because Iconoclasm rejects the inherent goodness of the visible and created as means by which God shows Himself to us--Iconoclasm was rejected as heretical because it was seen as dangerous, leading ultimately toward a practical (or even real) rejection of the Incarnation itself.

-CryptoLutheran

## Have you been reading St. John of Damascus ? It sounds like it.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

## Taking a stab at this (not being Protestant etc.), I suspect they would argue that the Law is done away with in Christ as far as its ceremonial part (which pertains to the cherubim, Ark, etc.) is concerned, so that, because the NT Church is not given an explicit mandate to have images, images have no place in a Christian Church. And Hebrews 1.1 would come into play.

In this matter of the Law, Luther was on the ball more than Calvin IMO, because Luther does not let himself be restricted by the Bible in the way Calvin does. If all we needed was a book, there would have been no Incarnation. The Bible is all very well, but....
## But the use of supposed Adiaphora leads to "Popery" - "things indifferent" are not, if God forbids them, or does not command their use. And where no command exists, Christians are not free to behave as though there were: images are not commanded for the NT Church - so they are forbidden it. There is also the strong Calvinist emphasis on "peculiarism", so to call it - the Church must not follow the "ways of the nations", because it is His elect people, a holy nation, & His People must live holy lives. They have been "called out of" the nations, so must not live like them - & this principle is transferred to the Churches: Rome being Babylon, the mother of harlots etc. It is full of errors, so a reformed Church must have no share in those errors. It find all sorts of excuses for being carnal & reintroducing the service of idols - so a Christian Church, just like an obedient Christian, must not give "the appearance of evil", as it would, by having images.

So the Calvinist argument is strongly theological: it co-ordinates various Scriptures, & draws the conclusions.

Spoken like a crypto-Calvinist!

Such is indeed the argument made by Iconoclasts; yet such theological argument is weak in that it picks and chooses it's way through Scripture, then draws all the points together, creating their own context; yet out of context with Scripture as a whole.

It is my understanding that the Orthodox Church have one or more Icons which may indeed have been "written" by the hand of St. Luke, the Apostle. If one of our Lord's own Apostles "wrote" Icons; then those of us who hold a traditional understanding of the Apostolic faith and practice have little choice in the matter it seems.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

This one is quite typical of older Churches in Canada and the US, and almost identical to the Church where I grew up. The rich symbolism all leads to the worship and veneration of Christ and the Holy Trinity.

• The Statue of our Risen Lord shows us Christ's victory over death.
• The Crucifix shows us the sacrifice that Christ made on our behalf.
• The purple paraments (used during Lent and in some Churches during Advent) are the colour of royalty, and show us Christs kingship; as does the Cross and Crown on the lectern.
• The frontal on the Altar shows the "Lamb of God" standing on the Book with the seven seals... from Revelation.
• The Last Supper teaches Christ's Institution of the Eucharist.
• The eight sides on the Pulpit and Baptismal Font teach us about our Lord's Passion which began with His entry into Jerusalem on the first Palm Sunday, and ended with His resurrection on Easter Sunday, eight days later.
• The three Crosses on the Pulpit also teach about the crucifixion.
• The three panels of the table of the altar, the three panels of the back of the altar, the three steps in the base of the candle holders (and in most Churches, the three steps up leading to the altar all symbolize the Trinity. Most altars also have either the word "Holy" or "Sanctus" carved or applied to the back, just above the table, symbolizing again the three Holys of the Trinity.
• The seven candles on each side symbolize the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit.
• The two single candles are sacramental, and are lit only during the celebration of the Eucharist in the Mass, not during other services such as Matins, Vespers etc.
• The communion rail (not shown) symbolizes the seperation of Heaven and Earth; and how Heaven and Earth come togeather during the reception of Christs Body and Blood during the Eucharist (the communion of the Saints).
• The Sanctuairy lamp (also not shown) symbolizes two things; the eternal adoration of the faithfull, living and dead of our Lord (communion of the Saints again); and the Eternal presence of our Lord, not just in the Church, but everywhere!
• The Pascal Candle, also not shown, is lit during the season of Easter and Christmas, and at baptisms and funerals, symbolizes Christ as the light of the world.
• In this Church, the windows depict Scripture; the baptism of our Lord on the left, and the "Good Shepherd" on the right. In the Church I grew up in there was a round window above the Altar with a stained glass Icon of Christ.

I'm sure that there is more going on here that I have missed.

The point is that when one sits in Church, and looks to the chancel, one can only think about our Lord God, Father Son and Holy Spirit.

This is a more modern, simple Altar, yet much of the same symbolism exists.

The colour of the red paraments symbolize two things; the colour of the fire of Pentecost, and the Colour of blood, the Dove with the Halo is symbolic of the Holy Spirit. They are used on Pentecost Sunday, and on feast days which commemorate Martyrs. Again, the simple cross, and the other symbolism draws us to our Triune God.

Just as we all hold the Bible as God's revealed word; icons (all religious symbols) are used also to reveal God's word to us.

 

[laconicstudent]

I liked the older one.

Not that the more modern one is necessarily "bad", it just seems perfunctory by contrast.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I liked the older one.

Not that the more modern one is necessarily "bad", it just seems perfunctory by contrast.

Me too actually, but when Word and Sacrament come together in the Liturgy Heaven and Earth come together timelessly, the time and place and furnishings matter little because as Scripture says, it is a foretaste of the feast to come!

 

[Hairy Tic]

If Catholics were to remove all the images they have/distribute in their churches, how would that affect their doctrine or faith? Is the suggestion completely outrageous to the Catholic faith?

Apologies for my ignorance of Catholicism, the question is actually an attempt to understand it better.

## Images are:

• an extension of the fact of the Incarnation

• therefore, sacramental

- & Catholicism is a religion of visible signs mediating invisible spiritual goods. The Incarnate Word of God is the Supreme Sign, the Supreme & Exemplary Sacrament of God. The Church its seven sacraments are derived from this. This is is why there recognition of Saints & veneration of their relics, & how a book, a preacher, can be the means of sanctification. This is why there are sacramentals: holy water, holy pictures, holy images.

Catholicism - Christianity - is a religion of recurring patterns & themes & analogies; & that is one of them.

 

[Hairy Tic]

Spoken like a crypto-Calvinist!

Such is indeed the argument made by Iconoclasts; yet such theological argument is weak in that it picks and chooses it's way through Scripture, then draws all the points together, creating their own context; yet out of context with Scripture as a whole.

It is my understanding that the Orthodox Church have one or more Icons which may indeed have been "written" by the hand of St. Luke, the Apostle. If one of our Lord's own Apostles "wrote" Icons; then those of us who hold a traditional understanding of the Apostolic faith and practice have little choice in the matter it seems.

## Thanks

I think the Calvinist type of argument is too OT - it doesn't allow for the sheer difference made by the Incarnation of God. It does seem consistent with the doctrine of imputation - can the world be really different, if justified man is not really different ?

Ain't theology great ?

 

[CryptoLutheran]

## Have you been reading St. John of Damascus ? It sounds like it.

Nope, wish I could say I have; though I did have him in mind in part due to second-hand sources talking about his arguments during the Iconoclast controversy.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Hairy Tic]

The Scripture says not to make a graven image in order to worship it.

That was before God made something even better, that is the model for our practice

There is a big difference between having a picture on the wall and using that picture for religious worship. If images in general were sinful, then all of our photo albums, family pictures, artworks, etc are all illegal, which of course is nonsense.

Of course they are sinful. God says in Exodus 20:

4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

If people take photographs of their relatives - they are sinning. For the relatives are "in the earth beneath" -& God says: Thou shalt not make unto thee...any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You are teaching disobedience to God, & rebellion against His Law.

• God hates photography - you have His own infallible, inspired, inerrant, perfect Word for it.
  
• He hates Arlington Cemetery;
  
• the Lincoln Memorial is an abomination unto Him;
  
• the images carven on a mountain of four Presidents He loathes - for He has strictly forbidden them.
  
• The idol-money of America with its engravings of dead men is clearly forbidden - but Evangelicals ignore their own innumerable idols of gold, silver, copper, bronze & nickel & paper; & accuse others of idolatry. Worse than that, they teach idolatry of money by their Prosperity Gospel.
  

So by the usual argument, the US Evangelical practice is a mass of idolatry, disobedience, apostasy & worship of false gods: it is an ocean of undiluted hypocrisy.

Don't get me started on Protestant statues in public places. More Evangelical idolatry - why do they not denounce them, & threaten the country with the fury of the indignation of the wrath of God for its shameless idolatry ? Real Christians would behave like Daniel & his three friends, who were ready to die rather than worship idols. US Evangelicals ? No such courage - instead they collaborate. How many burning fiery furnaces are they in danger of ? None.

But if someone sets up a crucifix and then kneels in front of it as if to use it for worship, then that is idolatory. We worship and fellowship with God and Christ directly, as Jesus said, we worship God in spirit and in truth.

Even kneeling before the cross is idolatory, because the symbol is made into an idol of worship. Also the crucifix with Christ hanging on it is inaccurate because Christ is no longer on the cross. He has risen from the dead and is at the right hand of the Father in heaven. Statues of the Virgin Mary can either be statues, or idols depending on whether people kneel in front of them or not. The excuse that they are using the statue as a respresentative of the person being worshipped is not an excuse against idolatory.

It is interesting to note that when Constantine made Christianity the state religion of Rome,

## He didn't - Theodosius the Great did, in 382; & it was not a generic Christianity, but the Catholic & Christian faith.

the great influx of pagans into the church caused major changes. The pagan temples became ornate Christian temples (or churches), the Vestal Virgins were replaced by Catholic nuns, the multiplicity of Roman gods replaced by canonisation of "saints" which many Catholics pray to, pagan priests were replaced by the Catholic priesthood, and the pagan ceremonies replaced by the Mass. So the RCC has a definite pagan influence from Roman times, and a lot of the worship can be compared with the pagan worship of Romans, including the ceremonies and worship of statues.

## The NT was written in a "pagan" language - Greek. The "argument from pagan influence" is meaningless, until those who use it take the trouble to distinguish the different types of "pagan influence". There are many types. Writing is "pagan" - we owe it to the Sumerians, who worshipped about 3,000 gods. The word "Bible" we owe to the Greek place name Byblos, which is the Greek version of the place-name Gubla, a port famous in antiquity as a holy place of the goddess Isis.

You forgot to mention that the Biblical titles of Jesus all have pagan sources. Zeus was called "Saviour" long before Jesus. The Kings of Persia were called "King of Kings" centuries before John called Jesus by that title. The Homeric Hymns are centuries older than the hymns in the New Testament. Scipio Africanus & Alexander the Great were both begotten by gods, long before Jesus. Gilgamesh, priest-king of Uruk, 2700 years before Jesus, was one third-man & two-thirds god. The Goddess Inana died and was raised after three days - just like Jesus. The hero Etana ascended into heaven, just like Jesus.

So two can play at that game Your argument confuses similarity with significance. It ignores the ideas behind Catholicism, and is impressed only by the external similarities - when these exist. It is so focussed on Catholicism, that it totally ignores all other possible sources of similarity between "paganism" & Catholicism. So it routinely accuses Catholicism of having features which are found only elsewhere - say, in the Gnostic sects.

It would take a book, or several books, to unravel the confusions in the usual "argument from similarity with paganism".

Of course, many modern Catholics will not accept this, and there are many who put their faith exclusively in Christ and do not take the worship of Mary and the saints seriously.

## This is the usual old confusion & false opposition

Let's translate that sentence into "Evangelicalese"

"Of course, many modern Evangelicals will not accept this, and there are many who put their faith exclusively in Christ and do not take the use of the Bible and prayer seriously."

The logic of the Evangelical complaint sets Christ against His servants. It confuses communion with them - thus with Him - with desertion of Him. This is like saying that if a man holds outs his hand to someone drowning to save him, the person drowning must ignore the oustretched hand, & be satisfied only by the person whose hand it it is.

There is none of this overscrupuluousness in political matters. Evangelicals do not say "We are Christians, so we acknowledge only Christ, not the officials of our county, not our Congressmen, not our Senators, not the state authorities, not the federal authorities, not the Presidency of the USA". On the contrary - Evangelicals have been very friendly to the Republican Party. And in Christian matters - do they accept the NT books ? Did Jesus write them ? No. Did He ever mention them ? No. Did the NT ? No. So they are quite happy to accept a load of old books not even mentioned in the NT, but they are queasy about respecting the woman without whom no NT would exist in any form.

They are happy to honour dead Americans, many of whom may well be damned anyway - but those people of every age whom God has honoured & through whom He has glorified His Name they call dead and refuse to honour. But the enemies of God who are in Hell they have no problem about honouring. This makes no sense at all.

But we need to ensure that we are worshiping and serving the God of the Bible and not some deity made up from imagination and fantasy.

## That is why we have the Church to teach us