Using a Cross or Crucifix?

[Cappadocious]

bsd, I would recommend reading Augustine on the Trinity to understand what is meant by 'image of the Father.'


On the Trinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also On the Incarnation by St. Athanasius of Alexandria.

 

[JM]

The rule for posting is: Do not teach or debate in any Congregational Forum unless you are truly a member and share its core beliefs and teachings.

I am not advocating the adoption of Neoplatonism. But the fact is, the philosophy and cosmology contemporary and immediately following Christ was largely neoplatonic.

Which is why we are called to renew our minds to scripture, the revelation of God, not the philosophy of the world.

The Scriptures were composed, largely, by Hellenistic Jews. So if we want to understand what words like symbolon meant to the people of the time, we can't simply read our modern understanding back into the text. That's anachronistic.

...and we can't assume 8th century understandings of 1st century documents are correct. We need to allow clear passages of scripture to give us a fuller understanding of other passages.

The fact is, the Jewish and Greek Christians borrowed from Plato and Aristotle and Heraclitus and whatnot.

Not always for their betterment obviously. Using Greek language and ideas to express biblical truth is one thing, using pagan philosophy to redefine truth is another.

The ancient Jews borrowed from the Phoenician empires, Babylon and Persia.

Yes and God reprimanded them often for their sin and whoring after other gods.

Everyone borrows.

Very hasty generalization being made...as if borrowing pagan philosophical ideas is a good thing, always. That's like saying, 'no body perfects' to excuse your own sin.

The Jews were called out from among the nations, they were not created ex-nihilo out in the wilderness sometime around 2000 BC.

Now you're playing games. God's people are called out from all nations, to not be like them and to renew their minds after the revelation of God.

The question is, how do we deal with borrowing today?

That is the question.

I wrote, "We cannot forget the polemics against the use of images that predate the Reformation such as the works of Claudius of Turin, the Council of Frankfurt and Libri Carolini."

Your response:

Sure we can. This discussion does not have to do with icons, by the way, it had to do with the use of the Cross.

It has to do with your suggestion of reading pagan Greeks to understand the Bible. It has everything to do with the use of images and symbolism.

I posted, "It is true that once the State and church became one it tried to make Christianity more palatable for the Greek pagans by allowing images."

Your reponse:

Baseless conjecture that is only contradicted by historical and archaeological evidence.

I sited two sources in my post, you ignored them.

See also:
Development of Christian Doctrine, Cardinal Newman
William L. Gildea, "Paschale Gaudium," in The Catholic World, 58, March, 1894
A. C, Flick, The Rise of the Mediaeval Church, 1909

Thanks for pointlessly derailing the thread.

Just a reminder, this is the Reformed forum and the promotion of non-Reformed doctrine is not permitted...unless you can somehow alter the rules with Aristotelian philosophy, you must abide by the rules.

lol

jm

 

[Cappadocious]

...and we can't assume 8th century understandings of 1st century documents are correct.

I agree with you.

We need to allow clear passages of scripture to give us a fuller understanding of other passages.

Sure. But that's not all.

Not always for their betterment obviously. Using Greek language and ideas to express biblical truth is one thing, using pagan philosophy to redefine truth is another.

Once again, I agree.

Yes and God reprimanded them often for their sin and whoring after other gods.

He didn't reprimand them for calling him El Shaddai or for putting gate guardians on the ark.

Very hasty generalization being made...as if borrowing pagan philosophical ideas is a good thing, always.

I never said that. I said that it is prudent to understand the significance of particular words to particular people at particular times. Whether or not that use, or the greater philosophy, is "good" or "bad" was not part of the debate.

It has to do with your suggestion of reading pagan Greeks to understand the Bible.

I suggested the reading of various philosophers, plato, aristotle, and the continentals, to better understand "the history of ideas, the philosophies and cosmologies available to the Jews and Christians of the first millennium." That is reasonable.

I sited two sources in my post, you ignored them.

That's not how you "cite a source" in any meaningful way. All you did was name two secondaries and quote 1-2 sentence excerpts from their popular works.

Anyway, if this sort of discussion is veboten on this subforum, so be it. BSD, feel free to talk about this in GT or send me a PM. Be well.

 

[WisdomTree]

Here I was thinking that iconoclasm was more or less dead in Reformed theology now days...

 

[AndOne]

Just curious - do any reformed folk post in the OBOB or Orthodox forums?

 

[JM]

Just curious - do any reformed folk post in the OBOB or Orthodox forums?

I ask questions there once in a while but that's about it.

Toll Houses is a good topic to discuss.

Anyway, if this sort of discussion is veboten on this subforum, so be it.

It is and I thank you for following the rules. Often we have Reformed Calvinistic folks who are not familiar with the answers biblical covenant theology has to offer to the zealous believers of other denominations including the Eastern Orthodox denomination. It would be unseemly for me to visit the Eastern Orthodox denominational forum and start giving answers to those asking Eastern Orthodox church members.

I must also apologize for being so aggressive in responding to Capa.

Having attended an Eastern Orthodox church for 2 years when I first became a believer I experienced first hand the 'veneration' of images. The learned answers offered online are not what I found to be practiced by the laity and I found it, at first disconcerting and latter idolatrous. Most of the time the Divine Liturgy was nothing but background noise to the chattering of old ladies who once in a while would stop to approach the Icons and kiss them only to return to talking about their grandchildren. It was suggested that I buy an Icon charm and wear it like an amulet, 'they are windows to heaven' as if some divine power could be found in the Icon itself to protect me. Another sweet little old lady told me I needed to pray to Mary for Jesus to hear my prayer. My experience with the Orthodox doesn't match up with the learned answers and zeal of the online Orthodox convert. This has made me a little touchy on the subject of Icons, crosses, religious paraphernalia and religiosity in general. The Orthodox were instrumental in pushing me further and further into the scriptures.

Calvin was correct when he said that man is an Idol factory.

Here I was thinking that iconoclasm was more or less dead in Reformed theology now days...

I think this is a question? If you visit Reformed forums you'll find most will not allow you to post pics of Christ. The Puritan Board is one such forum. If you post images of Christ it is removed with a noticed that something in the post broke the second commandment. It would be difficult to find any confessionally Reformed folks allowing images of Christ or the Holy Trinity to be depicted in their churches, especially for worship, but I'm sure you could find a few mainliners that have given only lip service to the Second Commandment.

A quote from Dr. Robert Letham,

Where We Agree. Reformed theology believes in icons too. The idea of image (eikôn) is a biblical category — man made in the image of God, Christ the image of the invisible God. However, beyond this, everything is iconic for the Reformed. God has imprinted evidence of His own beauty and glory throughout creation. “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork” (Ps. 19:1–2). What Calvinism did was to enable a this-worldly appreciation of beauty. By eliminating art and sculpture from church worship, it drove it into the world, placing the aesthetic in the context of general revelation, as the witness to God in the world rather than as the focus of the worship of God in the church. The result was the enormous flowering of creativity in post-Reformation culture, centering not on the supernatural realm of angels and demons, but on the world around reflecting the glory and beauty of God.[end quote]

On the Second Commandment: Make No Graven Image | Reformed Bible Studies & Devotionals at Ligonier.org

 

[Cappadocious]

the chattering of old ladies who once in a while would stop to approach the Icons and kiss them only to return to talking about their grandchildren.

May God bless their divine piety.

Truly.

 

[bsd058]

May God bless their divine piety.

Truly.

Sounds an awful lot like pagan worship to me. But that's just me.

 

[JM]

That was my impression, these women were just pleasing an impersonal deity and going back to their discussion.

 

[JM]

I think Gill is right, "Though all pictures, paintings, and sculptures, are not forbidden hereby, only such as are made for, and used in, divine worship; but not which are for ornament, or for the use of history; and to perpetuate to posterity the memory of men, and their actions"

The Second Commandment | Feileadh Mor