You are currently browsing the daily archive for July 2nd, 2009.
Jason Stellman has a helpful post exploring some of the issues for those of us committed to a robust Reformed Confessionalism here.
The issue is this: suppose we were to meet a Bible word or phrase used in an unusual way- the example Jason uses is Peter Liethart’s interpretation of Romans 6:7 where Paul says we are ‘justified from sin’. Leithart views this text as using justification lingo as a synonym for sanctification.
Should we then rework the structure of our doctrine of justification to include sanctification? Read the rest of this entry »
At the last meeting of Covenant Presbytery we examined a man from another presbytery who had accepted a call within our bounds and was transferring to our care. During the course of his presbytery exam he was asked the standard question about exceptions to the Westminster Standards. He replied that he took exception to Larger Catechism 109, which reads,
Question 109: What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?
Answer: The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; tolerating a false religion; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature: Whatsoever; all worshiping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense: Whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God has appointed.”
His exception stated that he did not consider images of the incarnate Christ for the purposes of Christian instruction to violate the second commandment. It was argued by another presbyter that LC109 could not mean that such images were forbidden. LC109, he said, only prohibits the making of images of the divine essence or nature, which no one has seen or can see. Furthermore it was argued that LC109 must not be taken to exclude images of Jesus’ humanity for use in non liturgical contexts, since (mental) images of Christ’s humanity would have been unavoidable during the time of his earthly ministry. The incarnation itself, in other words, would have forced men to break God’s law as soon as they looked at Christ, and any time they remembered what they saw of Christ.
I have been reflecting on, and debating this issue ever since, and in my view the arguments offered above fall foul of a form of Nestorianism.
