I have touched on this topic on a couple of entries before, referring to my agreement with John Frame. This was kind of a no brainer, but since by American Fundamentalist influence, many in the Presbyterian churches, particularly the OPC, are hard against having pictures of Jesus Christ, I find it necessary to open a topic on this. The superstitious mentality of these is really not far from the Muslims' ban on pictures of Mohammed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
PCA seems<\/a> to be okay with it, but not OPC<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here's Frame's 5 points rebuttal(based on Justin Taylor's summary)<\/a>, in his The Doctrine of the Christian Life<\/em>, under IMAGES IN WORSHIP<\/strong> & IMAGES OF JESUS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Frame, John M.. The Doctrine of the Christian Life (A Theology of Lordship) (p. 481). P&R Publishing. Kindle Edition.:<\/p>\n\n\n\n I have touched on this topic on a couple of entries before, referring to my agreement with John Frame. This was kind of a no brainer, but since by American Fundamentalist influence, many in the Presbyterian churches, particularly the OPC, … Continue reading \n
Frame<\/strong>: Scripture does not teach purely and simply <\/strong>that God cannot be pictured. Christ, God incarnate, was picturable: could be seen, felt, touched as well as heard. His face could be held in memory and such mental images were not sinful. To deny this is docetism<\/strong>. Here lies the sharp difference between Old vs. New Covenants<\/strong>: from emphatically no form (Deu 4:15<\/strong>) to emphatically form (1John 1:1ff., etc.)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
Frame<\/strong>: Jesus in both his natures, deity was in one sense circumscribed<\/strong> since all its fullness dwelt in him; though in another sense<\/strong>, God was active beyond the body<\/strong> of Jesus. To picture Jesus is to picture a divine person<\/strong>, not one nature or other. To venerate such a picture would be wrong, but the opponents have yet to give an adequate argument against pedagogical use of such pictures<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
Frame<\/strong>: A picture does not<\/strong> become a \"lie<\/strong>\" simply by being non-exhaustive<\/strong> [to insist full \"representation\" exhaustively in art exhibits poor imagination\/creativity, a sign of foolishness, a biblicist's own trap<\/strong>]. We don't know how Jesus looked but we know something about His looks: male, Semitic, in midlife, wearing a robe, etc.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
Frame<\/strong>: only <\/strong>those intended for use <\/strong>in worship<\/strong>, not elsewhere.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
Frame<\/strong>: True.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"