16487Re: John Frame and Images
- Aug 10, 2008Hi Larry,
--- In email@example.com, "Larry Bray"
>Nice try/your effort is appreciated, but you really haven't replied to
> I tried to reply to the last post by Bob but yahoo was having
> problems, so i'm posting it as a new thread.
Bob's argument in substance, much more refuted it. Neither have you
demonstrated that it is frivolous, irrelevant or immaterial.
> The issue of the bronze serpent has nothing to do with whether or notThat is not the point of my argument. Rather the issue of the bronze
> God commanded something to be done. Rather, it has to do with the fact
> that it can't be considered idolatry because God commanded it. God
> would not command Israel to commit idolatry.
serpent has to do with whether God commanded an image to be made to
instruct the Israelites. And if God not only can, but has done so, so
too man. Thus JFrame. But this is not only an arrogant confusion, it is
> The issue of images of Jesus for certain purposes outside of worshipIf images of Christ are lawful for pedagogical (teaching) purposes
> has nothing to do with the RPW since it is outside of worship that
> they are used.
outside the worship of God, why not in worship? After all JFrame wants
to say worship is teaching, whether prayer, song or sermon in his
efforts to justify his introduction of "forms" into the
element/circumstance distinction in the reformed exposition of the 2nd
But if in worship, the RPW necessarily raises its hand and asks the
awkward question where God has commanded images in his worship. We know
God explicitly did so in the OT temple worship. But that is now
fulfilled by Christ . . . .
> This simply shows that Frame does fall within reasonable expectationsFrame does not fall within reformed expectations of Scripture
> of Scripture interpretation. Some of the main reasons i think he's
interpretation, which also encompasses a reasonable expectation that
Scripture is not only one, but perspicuous/clear, sufficient and
> The command in Ex 20 against idolatry has within it 2 distinctAgreed.
> prohibitions regarding idols - don't make them(have them), don't
> worship them. Frame looks at the distinction of the 2nd prohibition as
> being a clarification of the 1st part rather than distinct from it.
> The apostles were the only ones that could create an image of JesusRather weak/lame. Again, for JF, why worry about apostolic example, when
> since they saw what He looked like...and they didn't. This shows that
> there was no break in OT/NT teachings regarding idolatry.
we have God's example in the temple or with the serpent?
> If there was a shift from not making to making images it would haveAgreed, but not according to JFrame. He again mistakes/insists the
> been mentioned in the NT as the history of the Church prior to the NT
> shows a non-negotiable prohibition on images of God.
practice or action of God is an approved example that man can
follow/imitate. That it is lawful to make images, even of Christ, for
But the Scripture tells us that without faith it is impossible to
please God and that most necessary faith cometh by hearing and hearing
by the Word which is preached by those who are sent.
Even further, contra JFrame, there is no mention at all in Rom 10 of
pictures, plays or puppets.
In other words, whether I agree with JFrame 100% or not is immaterial.
Rather his doctrine and hermeneutic not only undercuts the sufficiency
and clarity of Scripture, it also usurps the sufficiency and
efficiency of the divinely appointed means of preaching to communicate
and teach its truths.
Of course, that's a funny position to take for someone who claims to be
a preacher and teacher of God's word, but if he is trying to work
himself out of a job, that's fine by me. I can only hope he long enjoys
standing by the freeway onramp with the ubiquitous cardboard 'will work
for food' sign.
cordially in the Word become flesh,
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>