question about crosses

[Mjh29]

Worship of God Via Natural Images (vs. Jim Drickamer)

The words of Reformed Baptist elder Jim Drickamer will be in italics.

Some of our Protestant brethren (mainly Calvinists but some other denominations as well) have an almost obsessive fear of any image associated with worship at all, thinking that all such manifestations are examples of idolatry and undue exaltation of a “graven image”.

Fear of true idolatry potentially being present is absolutely prudent, as that is a serious sin. An irrational, almost obsessive fear (often exhibited by those of the Reformed persuasion) of every image necessarily being 1) a graven image, and 2) idolatrous in terms of how it is being viewed and used by Catholics, is unreasonable. Usually critiques of same result from incorrect premises and an inadequate understanding of the Catholic rationale for such things. This particular article was not about man-made images, but about images in nature that represented God, by God’s own statements and revelations of Himself.

Exodus 20: 4-5

One must not make a mere man-made item a replacement for God (idolatry).

“This has led some fanatical elements to oppose even crucifixes and statues of Christ as idols. In other words, all images whatsoever are collapsed in this wrongheaded mentality into the category of the “graven image” in the Ten Commandments.”\

I would contend that very few people are so stupid as to think that a wooden crucifix or plaster statue of Christ is Christ Himself, and to be worshiped. They are simply devotional aids, just as virtually all Christians would accept painted portraits of Jesus as pious items that help us reflect on our wonderful Lord and Savior and what He has done for us, making it possible to be saved from our sins and go to heaven one day.

“But the Bible doesn’t take this view at all...Exodus 33:8-10 Note that the pillar of cloud is:
1) a creation (water, if a literal cloud;
2) visual, hence an image; and
3) thought to directly represent God Himself.

This...is about the prohibition of any images associated with God and worship: not just man-made ones. It’s a larger, more all-encompassing subject matter, directed to those opposed to any and all religious images in worship, whether man-made or natural. The biblical texts provided decisively refute this silly view, in my opinion. This passage...is precisely and perfectly relevant to my subject matter. I deal with man-made religious objects in these two papers:
Bible on Physical Objects as Aids in Worship
Crucifixes: Abominable Idols or Devotional Aids?

Exodus 33:8-10 Drickamer: This verse also says that when the people saw the cloud, they would rise up and worship. It does not, however, say they would worship the cloud, the image. So the cloud is not a forbidden image.

They were worshiping God, with the cloud as a direct visual image of Him or “representative” of Him being right there in the location where the cloud was. Of course it’s not forbidden. It’s in the Bible. So it wipes out the most extreme iconoclastic position: extending to all images whatever: even natural ones.

It’s also a supernatural manifestation, which is a major difference compared to any true idol made by the hands of men; but that would make no difference for those who mistakenly hold that any image whatsoever associated with God is impermissible. The problem comes when God Himself expressly sanctions such images, and worship in conjunction with them, as here.

But the issue is not whether an image is associated with God. It depends on how the image is associated with God. In the image of the cloud, it is associated with God, because He is the Creator of the image. No man made it. This is permissible according to the commandment. On the other hand, if an image is associated with God, because a man made it in a likeness which reminds him of God, then it would be forbidden. A man made it.

So you contend that there can be no such thing as a legitimate statue of Christ or a crucifix? They must necessarily be idols? If so, I think it’s beyond silly, as is the whole iconoclastic heresy that the Church condemned many centuries ago. Those are the direct images of God in play. They’re not idols, nor are they themselves worshiped; they are devotional aids to help concentrate one’s mind on God.

The same iconoclasts (opposers of images) have to explain away things like the burning bush (Ex 3:2-6), which is not only fire, but also called an “angel of the Lord” (Ex 3:2), yet also “God” (3:4, 6, 11, 13-16, 18; 4:5, 7-8) and “the LORD” (3:7, 16, 18; 4:2, 4-6, 10-11, 14) interchangeably. An angel is a creation (as is fire and cloud); yet God chose to use a created being and inanimate objects to visibly represent Him. Several similar instances occur in the Old Testament.

These are more, very poor examples. The burning bush was not man made nor was it worshipped. It is not prohibited. An angel is not man made, but at times when men did worship angels, as in Revelation 22: 8-9, they were told to stop and only worship God. Thus, Dave, you have not yet provided an example of a man made image that God permitted men to worship.

Of course I haven’t, because it wasn’t the purpose of my paper, which you seem unable to grasp. I dealt with the man-made images in the two papers (links) I cited above...

2 Chronicles 7:1-4

They bowed down to the fire, precisely because it represented God. If it didn’t represent Him, then they would be committing idolatry (worshiping fire as God). But the text makes clear that their actions were good and permissible.

I think the bottom line deals with worship. The worship of an image is sinful. It should not be done. This would include images of Christ. An image of Christ should not be worshipped. Instead, Christ should be worshipped.

That’s exactly what we Catholics do: we worship Christ: through images at times.

The commandment from Exodus 20 prohibits making an image. I worry about splitting hairs. If I have an image I did not make, is that permissible? I would be concerned with images particularly in the sanctuary of a church. It seems to me that having images in a place of worship might lead people inadvertently to think they should worship them. At the very least, I think the church leaders should make it clear to everyone that worshipping the idols is forbidden.

. . . which the Catholic Church has always done. Everyone understands that these are visual aids to devotion to God...

see Worship of God Via Natural Images (vs. Jim Drickamer) for full text

I agree. I am very much reformed, and I still wear a cross I received as a gift from my grandmother before she passed. It is not only a constant reminder of how much she loves me, but of the sacrifice Christ made for me.

 

[eldios]

I got an Olive Wood cross the other day (a necklace). After I got it, I did some research and I guess it's a Gothic style cross. Is it still Holy? I'm adding a picture of the cross. I want a cross to wear so I can hold it when I pray and because wearing one just makes me feel safer. And I can't wear metal.

View attachment 392

Jeremiah 10
14: Every man is stupid and without knowledge; every goldsmith is put to shame by his idols; for his images are false, and there is no breath in them.
15: They are worthless, a work of delusion; at the time of their punishment they shall perish.

Deuteronomy 4:
8: “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;
9: you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Psalm 97
7: All worshipers of images are put to shame, who make their boast in worthless idols; all gods bow down before him.

 

[Sword]

Wow thing about us Christians is we are free to fight about every thing and anything we love a fight . we love to argue all day in the Christian forums. Its what we were created for pushing our gospel on the internet world where we dont have to face anyone. and can hide behind a computor all day. Telling how it is. We are kings of our domian and no one will tell us anything if we dont agree with you then we will find scripture that contradicts you. any one can do it. its so easy to use scripture in any way you like. If you belive it thaters a scripture for it. Just ask us any time and we will set yu stright for sure. We know it all and we are all correct always its the other clowns who are wrong. Or so the average Christian thinks. and unfortyunatly believes. I had to ban/ignore about four Christians, in here. Its pathertic the way we are all acting. The Christians talks about fear the lord to the unbelievers. But the Christians has no such fears of God . They dare to tell Gods word and have no clue if its correct or not which can be clearly seen in here any day of the week. Why dont we take Gods word serliouly when He say there is a strictor judgment for the teachers?
They are totally fearless as there mouth runs like a tap on what they think, with a total disregaurd for that warning. I find that very hard to understand.

 

[eldios]

Wow thing about us Christians is we are free to fight about every thing and anything we love a fight . we love to argue all day in the Christian forums. Its what we were created for pushing our gospel on the internet world where we dont have to face anyone. and can hide behind a computor all day. Telling how it is. We are kings of our domian and no one will tell us anything if we dont agree with you then we will find scripture that contradicts you. any one can do it. its so easy to use scripture in any way you like. If you belive it thaters a scripture for it. Just ask us any time and we will set yu stright for sure. We know it all and we are all correct always its the other clowns who are wrong. Or so the average Christian thinks. and unfortyunatly believes. I had to ban/ignore about four Christians, in here. Its pathertic the way we are all acting. The Christians talks about fear the lord to the unbelievers. But the Christians has no such fears of God . They dare to tell Gods word and have no clue if its correct or not which can be clearly seen in here any day of the week. Why dont we take Gods word serliouly when He say there is a strictor judgment for the teachers?
They are totally fearless as there mouth runs like a tap on what they think, with a total disregaurd for that warning. I find that very hard to understand.

The reason Christians like you act like this is because none of you have ever head the voice of God and forced to obey ALL His commandments like us servants experienced.

 

[Job]

That’s exactly what we Catholics do: we worship Christ: through images at times.

I'm curious. How does one worship through an image? Would you mind explaining how this is done?

Thanks.

 

[epostle1]

I'm curious. How does one worship through an image? Would you mind explaining how this is done?

Thanks.

Sometimes we miss things in the Bible, though they are right in front of us. Some of our Protestant brethren (mainly Calvinists but some other denominations as well) have an almost obsessive fear of any image associated with worship at all, thinking that all such manifestations are examples of idolatry and undue exaltation of a “graven image”. This has led some fanatical elements to oppose even crucifixes and statues of Christ as idols. In other words, all images whatsoever are collapsed in this wrongheaded mentality into the category of the “graven image” in the Ten Commandments. But the Bible doesn’t take this view at all. Here is one striking example:

Exodus 33:8-10 (RSV) Whenever Moses went out to the tent, all the people rose up, and every man stood at his tent door, and looked after Moses, until he had gone into the tent. [9] When Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the door of the tent, and the LORD would speak with Moses. [10] And when all the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the door of the tent, all the people would rise up and worship, every man at his tent door.

Note that the pillar of cloud is:
1) a creation (water, if a literal cloud);
2) visual, hence an image;
and
3) thought to directly represent God Himself.

It’s also a supernatural manifestation, which is a major difference compared to any true idol made by the hands of men; but that would make no difference for those who mistakenly hold that any image whatsoever associated with God is impermissible. The problem comes when God Himself expressly sanctions such images, and worship in conjunction with them, as here.

The same iconoclasts (opposers of images) have to explain away things like the burning bush (Exodus 3:2-6), which is not only fire, but also called an “angel of the Lord” (Exodus 3:2), yet also “God” (Exodus 3:4, 6, 11, 13-16, 18; 4:5, 7-8) and “the LORD” (Exodus 3:7, 16, 18; 4:2, 4-6, 10-11, 14) interchangeably. An angel is a creation (as is fire and cloud); yet God chose to use a created being and inanimate objects to visibly represent Him. Several similar instances occur in the Old Testament. Moreover, the Jews “worshiped” fire as representative of God in the following passage:

2 Chronicles 7:1-4

When Solomon had ended his prayer, fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices, and the glory of the LORD filled the temple. [2] And the priests could not enter the house of the LORD, because the glory of the LORD filled the LORD’s house. [3] When all the children of Israel saw the fire come down and the glory of the LORD upon the temple, they bowed down with their faces to the earth on the pavement, and worshiped and gave thanks to the LORD, saying, “For he is good, for his steadfast love endures for ever.” [4] Then the king and all the people offered sacrifice before the LORD.

 

[epostle1]

According to Reformed Protestant iconoclastic thinking, they were worshiping a cloud and fire. I say they were worshiping God *through* those images. If not, then the Bible wouldn't have presented these things positively. They would have been condemned as idolatry. But they were not.

Idolatry (biblically defined) is a matter of the heart. It isn't just a matter of plaster and wood. Idolatry requires one to be substituting any created thing for God Himself. Using something as a visual or devotional aid is not *necessarily* or always doing that. One is worshiping God by means of the visual aid.

For a crucifix (for example) to be "idolatry" (as some Protestants hold) one would have to believe the hyper-ridiculous thing that a piece of plaster is
1) actually God, or a god;
and
2) meant to replace the one true God as a substitute (an idol).

I submit that virtually no Christian in the history of the world who knows ANYTHING about the faith has ever done such a silly thing. They're obviously worshiping Jesus (God) by means of the visual aid.

I can see how a Protestant would object to a statue of Mary or other saint, because they falsely think veneration is worship, and that belongs only to God. I can't understand (even under Protestant premises) the objection to a statue of Jesus or a crucifix: not since the incarnation and Jesus Himself being the "image [Gk., "eikon"] of the invisible God." Protestants have no objection, oddly enough, to statues of Luther in front of seminaries, or huge statues of John Calvin and three other guys in Geneva on the "Reformation Wall."

The Ten Commandments don't forbid all images, but only "graven images," which were specifically intended to literally be gods to be worshiped. God had represented Himself visually in all kinds of ways: the burning bush, the pillar of cloud, theophanies and the Angel of the Lord, and finally Jesus Himself Who IS God, and quite visual.

Statues of Calvin, Farel, Beza, and Knox

The idols of Calvin, Farel, Beza, and Knox are preserved by God because they are, you see, good Protestant idols (just like the little statues of Mary in the manger every Christmas in millions of Protestant homes!). Statues of our Lord and Savior and Redeemer and God the Son, Jesus Christ, on the other hand, are evil, pagan "Catholic" idols.???

 

[tabletalk]

For a crucifix (for example) to be "idolatry" (as some Protestants hold) one would have to believe the hyper-ridiculous thing that a piece of plaster is
1) actually God, or a god;
and
2) meant to replace the one true God as a substitute (an idol).

I agree with #1.
But why would a pagan (for instance) *mean to replace the one true God*, since they do not believe in the one true God?

 

[Helen]

Interesting thread for today's " atmosphere".
For years I was strongly against crosses worn as jewellery. The cross cost Jesus everything...a high price ....for us, for His love and obedience for His Father.
But now, I occasionally wear one now. With the threat of ' another religion' taking over our countries....with many things that once marked us as Christian countries now bowing down to the god of " political correctness" , the one sided use of " free speech" now...When I wear a cross it is as a testimony that I am a believer ...and , if in a month, year, or decade , it gets me beheaded....then so be it.
Just my two cents.

 

[Job]

Sometimes we miss things in the Bible, though they are right in front of us. Some of our Protestant brethren (mainly Calvinists but some other denominations as well) have an almost obsessive fear of any image associated with worship at all, thinking that all such manifestations are examples of idolatry and undue exaltation of a “graven image”. This has led some fanatical elements to oppose even crucifixes and statues of Christ as idols. In other words, all images whatsoever are collapsed in this wrongheaded mentality into the category of the “graven image” in the Ten Commandments. But the Bible doesn’t take this view at all. Here is one striking example:

Exodus 33:8-10 (RSV) Whenever Moses went out to the tent, all the people rose up, and every man stood at his tent door, and looked after Moses, until he had gone into the tent. [9] When Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the door of the tent, and the LORD would speak with Moses. [10] And when all the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the door of the tent, all the people would rise up and worship, every man at his tent door.

Note that the pillar of cloud is:
1) a creation (water, if a literal cloud);
2) visual, hence an image;
and
3) thought to directly represent God Himself.

It’s also a supernatural manifestation, which is a major difference compared to any true idol made by the hands of men; but that would make no difference for those who mistakenly hold that any image whatsoever associated with God is impermissible. The problem comes when God Himself expressly sanctions such images, and worship in conjunction with them, as here.

The same iconoclasts (opposers of images) have to explain away things like the burning bush (Exodus 3:2-6), which is not only fire, but also called an “angel of the Lord” (Exodus 3:2), yet also “God” (Exodus 3:4, 6, 11, 13-16, 18; 4:5, 7-8) and “the LORD” (Exodus 3:7, 16, 18; 4:2, 4-6, 10-11, 14) interchangeably. An angel is a creation (as is fire and cloud); yet God chose to use a created being and inanimate objects to visibly represent Him. Several similar instances occur in the Old Testament. Moreover, the Jews “worshiped” fire as representative of God in the following passage:

2 Chronicles 7:1-4

When Solomon had ended his prayer, fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices, and the glory of the LORD filled the temple. [2] And the priests could not enter the house of the LORD, because the glory of the LORD filled the LORD’s house. [3] When all the children of Israel saw the fire come down and the glory of the LORD upon the temple, they bowed down with their faces to the earth on the pavement, and worshiped and gave thanks to the LORD, saying, “For he is good, for his steadfast love endures for ever.” [4] Then the king and all the people offered sacrifice before the LORD.

You must have misunderstood. I was asking how worship is conducted through an image? Is the image used sort of like a mediator between the individual and God? I don't know. I was just curious.

 

[epostle1]

You must have misunderstood. I was asking how worship is conducted through an image? Is the image used sort of like a mediator between the individual and God? I don't know. I was just curious.

No. An image or statue is not a mediator. It's a visual aid. Prayers do not stop at images or statues. They help ascend the mind to God. Finally, we don't need them, we like them. The same as Protestants like their statues of the reformers.

 

[101G]

I got an Olive Wood cross the other day (a necklace). After I got it, I did some research and I guess it's a Gothic style cross. Is it still Holy? I'm adding a picture of the cross. I want a cross to wear so I can hold it when I pray and because wearing one just makes me feel safer. And I can't wear metal.

GINOLJC, still learning, wear the cross if it help you to pray. again I say, wear it if it HELP you to pray. but I commend others here in your instruction, which is right. the reason why I say this is your name says it all "still learning". as you learn one will grow out of the need for a cross to pray. but we all are still learning ourselves. we must meet people on their level of faith and encourage them (as here) in their growth. just because the mature knows it not holy, good, but unto the learning maybe not. but in due time the learning will learn. so if it help you to pray to God, pray with it. but seek God in how to pray, for the Holy Ghost will instruct you.

may God bless you and keep you.

 

[Job]

It's a visual aid.

Who is this?

 

[tabletalk]

No. An image or statue is not a mediator. It's a visual aid. Prayers do not stop at images or statues. They help ascend the mind to God. Finally, we don't need them, we like them. The same as Protestants like their statues of the reformers.

Not quite the same, according to the Second Council of Nicaea. Images are commanded to be venerated, by the god you worship. It is not optional, nor the same as Protestants liking statues of the reformers.

 

[epostle1]

Who is this?

It's a digital image of a statue delivered to your monitor/phone where it appears as an image of Jesus with children....but it helps to be there.

 

[epostle1]

Not quite the same, according to the Second Council of Nicaea. Images are commanded to be venerated, by the god you worship. It is not optional, nor the same as Protestants liking statues of the reformers.

Is the Second Council of Nicaea the time you place as the alleged falling away? Is that what you mean by "the god you worship"?
"commanded to be venerated"??? Got a quote? It looks like those bible cults got a hold of you. Here's the canons of the Second Council of Nicaea for your convenience. Second Council of Nicaea - 787 A
Such a command has never been given by the Church. You are bearing false witness but I know you don't know any better.

 

[Job]

It's a digital image of a statue delivered to your monitor/phone where it appears as an image of Jesus with children....but it helps to be there.

Do you believe it to be a true image of Jesus?

 

[Job]

"commanded to be venerated"??? Got a quote? It looks like those bible cults got a hold of you. Here's the canons of the Second Council of Nicaea for your convenience. Second Council of Nicaea - 787 A
Such a command has never been given by the Church. You are bearing false witness but I know you don't know any better.

Freudian slip?

I went to the link you provided and ran across this.

Anathemas concerning holy images

1. If anyone does not confess that Christ our God can be represented in his humanity, let him be anathema.
2. If anyone does not accept representation in art of evangelical scenes, let him be anathema.
3. If anyone does not salute such representations as standing for the Lord and his saints, let him be anathema.
4. If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the church, let him be anathema.

Definition of anathema
1 Something or someone that one vehemently dislikes.
2 A formal curse by a pope or a council of the Church, excommunicating a person or denouncing a doctrine.
2.1 A strong curse.
anathema - definition of anathema in English | Oxford Dictionaries


Do you stand by this?
.

 

[tabletalk]

Is the Second Council of Nicaea the time you place as the alleged falling away? Is that what you mean by "the god you worship"?
"commanded to be venerated"??? Got a quote? It looks like those bible cults got a hold of you. Here's the canons of the Second Council of Nicaea for your convenience. Second Council of Nicaea - 787 A
Such a command has never been given by the Church. You are bearing false witness but I know you don't know any better.

Job has a good reply in post #38. I'm not familiar with the *alleged falling away*. When I say the *god you worship*, I'm admitting I don't worship the same god as the Catholic Church, that's all. And it looks like the Second Council of Nicaea does command (require) the veneration of images.

 

[epostle1]

Do you believe it to be a true image of Jesus?

No. God gave us creative abilities and a brain, He expects us to use them. The true image of Jesus is found on the face of our neighbor, especially the poor.

Job has a good reply in post #38. I'm not familiar with the *alleged falling away*. When I say the *god you worship*, I'm admitting I don't worship the same god as the Catholic Church, that's all. And it looks like the Second Council of Nicaea does command (require) the veneration of images.

I did ask for a quote. I gave you the canons of that council, you gave no quote from the said council, yet you still want to stick to a false accusation. Is it that you believe anti-Catholics over and above original documents? Again, veneration of images cannot be commanded or required because they are personal devotions and impossible to quantify. The whole notion of veneration of images being commanded or required is absurd. It's not much different from admiring the "image" of the artist on the cover of your favorite Christian CD. If your pastor commands or requires you to play certain CD's he would be overstepping his authority.

Freudian slip?

I went to the link you provided and ran across this.

Anathemas concerning holy images

1. If anyone does not confess that Christ our God can be represented in his humanity, let him be anathema.
2. If anyone does not accept representation in art of evangelical scenes, let him be anathema.
3. If anyone does not salute such representations as standing for the Lord and his saints, let him be anathema.
4. If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the church, let him be anathema.

Definition of anathema
1 Something or someone that one vehemently dislikes.
2 A formal curse by a pope or a council of the Church, excommunicating a person or denouncing a doctrine.
2.1 A strong curse.
anathema - definition of anathema in English | Oxford Dictionaries
Do you stand by this?
.

No.
The Church hasn't used the term "anathema" for over 200 years.
It originally comes from St. Paul.
anathema: To translate the word etymologically and literally, it can mean “accursed”; even “devoted to destruction.”
Many thought it meant being damned to hell. Naturally, Protestants are rather offended by this, and rightly hold that any Church that would pronounce eternal damnation on someone is not acting according to God’s will — which is that all men should be saved (1 Timothy 2:4).

Through generations of use, beginning even with the usage of St. Paul in the New Testament, anathema came to mean something other than its literal, etymological meaning — particularly in Latin, and particularly in the councils of the Church. Anathema sit (“Let him be anathema”) became a legal formula, something repeated by the councils to announce a particular, traditional judgment. When the councils pronounced holders of a doctrine anathema, it marked a formal excommunication from the Church: nothing more and nothing less.

Excommunication, too, is often misunderstood; even though it is a biblical doctrine that many Protestants practice (I have heard them refer to it euphemistically as “disfellowship,” but the concept is the same): to remove one who is unrepentant in sin or incorrigibly teaching error from one’s church body, as St. Paul recommended in 1 Corinthians 5, even using language evocative of anathema (“deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh”, v. 5).

But the Catholic Church’s model of excommunication is just as St. Paul’s: it is not a pronouncement of eternal damnation, but a disciplinary measure designed to motivate the sinner to repentance and reconciliation.