Huge if true! ✝️
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (126)
sorted by:
So what do we do, since most of us have never seen Jesus in person? Are we just not allowed to have a mental image of him at all, because nothing we imagine could be accurate?
How would you respond if I were to tell you you couldn't quote the Bible because individual verses could be taken out of context and spun to mean things they really don't? Because that happens a lot. Just look at any Christian denomination whose teachings you disagree with.
Speaking of, "decades" are nothing over the span of the millenia we've had the Church for. Iconoclasm has been considered a heresy for at least 1,200 years, and plenty of art from centuries before that that somehow escaped condemnation (What I'm saying is, this teaching isn't a deviation). There's plenty to read on that if you care so much about preventing people from worshipping Jesus in this way. Or maybe just read Galatians and see what Paul has to say about the old law.
I hear you, but let’s take a step back and consider why the Reformed tradition takes such a strong stance on the Second Commandment.
The central issue here isn’t about images of Christ being "helpful" in contemplating the Incarnation. It’s about what Scripture clearly commands in the Second Commandment, which forbids the making of graven images or any likeness of God to be used in worship (Exodus 20:4-5). The concern is that any image, even if well-intended, can easily become a stumbling block to true worship of God. The Bible is clear that God is Spirit (John 4:24), and Christ, in his glory, transcends anything we could represent in material form.
The Protestant position holds that since the Scriptures are sufficient, we don’t need to resort to physical images to aid in worship. Our worship should be "in spirit and truth" (John 4:24), guided by the Word alone. While I understand the historical precedent of using images, we see those practices as a violation of God’s command, not merely a matter of preference. The potential danger is that these images can foster idolatry, even if it’s not the intention of the worshippers. The human heart is prone to idol-making, and images, even of Christ, can quickly move from aids to objects of devotion in themselves.
As for Scripture, the fact that it’s often misused by others doesn’t invalidate its authority. The correct reading of Scripture, in context, is clear: the second commandment forbids any visual representation of the divine, including the portrayal of Christ. The fact that some Church Fathers or councils affirmed iconography doesn't change the biblical mandate. We take Paul’s teachings on the sufficiency of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17) and the fact that God has revealed himself fully in Christ as reason enough to reject all visual representations. Christ isn’t reduced to a likeness, and his glory shouldn’t be diminished by our human attempts to capture him in a material form.
On Galatians, Paul clearly teaches that the old law doesn’t save, but that doesn’t mean we’re free to disregard God’s commandments, especially the moral law. The moral law, which is summarized in the Ten Commandments, still holds authority. The church’s abandonment of the old ceremonial law doesn’t mean we can ignore the ethical and moral teachings that remain in effect.
Now what did Jesus say about the law? He was quite clear.
So, from a historical Protestant perspective, the argument against religious imagery isn’t just about tradition or preference, it’s about fidelity to God’s Word. Worshipping Christ in truth means worshipping him as he has revealed himself in Scripture, without adding to that revelation through human-made images. Even if the concern is simply for "aids" in worship, we can be faithful without them, holding to the sufficiency and finality of God’s self-revelation through Scripture and the person of Christ.