Originally posted by Eric B:
You keep throwing out this charge of gnosticism and Nestorianism, but I acknowledge an incarnational reality. I still don't see where this gives us the license now to worship things; including things not even claimed to represent Christ (saints, Mary, etc), or to draw pictures off the top of our heads and say it is Christ.
I don't believe anyone is giving license to
worship things. I just don't thing there is anything wrong with
showing respect to those things which represent Christ and those whom He has made holy.
(And, yes, you "
acknowledge an incarnational reality", but one wonders given the implications of the Incarnation whether you grasp this consistently.)
Where does he get this from? Where does scripture ever tell us to worship things we have drawn?
It's not
worshipping "things". It's worshipping Christ by
honoring (treating with respect) those things which represent Christ, whether it's the cross, the gospel book, or His icon. As John of Damascus wrote, it's not worshipping
matter, but it's worshipping the God who became matter for our sake. Honoring those visible representations of Christ (He became visible, so he could thereby be depicted) testifies to the truth of the incarnation.
Would you
spit on a picture of Christ or the cross or the Bible? Why not, since they are just representations and not the things itself. However, it's because of what (or Who) these things
represent that you wouldn't (I hope) spit on them. Spitting on them would indicate a disrespect for Who they represent. Conversely, kissing an icon, a cross, or the Bible shows respect for Christ whom these things represent, not worshipping those things themselves.
If you have the incarnate Christ standing before you, you can worship Him; but none of us do today. He has gone back up to HEaven. But where does it say we can substitute something our habds have made; and we don't even know what He looked like?
First, no one is substituting something made by hands for the risen and ascended Christ.
No one pretends that Christ and the icon is the exact same, just as no pious Jew, when he kissed the Torah book, thought the Torah was exactly equivalent to God. The Jew had no notion that he was
substituting something written by the hands of man on a material object for God; rather he was kissing the Torah because what it represented--God's word. And the icon of Christ represents the Eternal Word of God who became man for our sake.
Second, who's to say there was not a oral tradition of His
general physical appearance that was depicted, at first crudely on cave walls and paintings in house churches, then on painted icons when the perscecutions ceased? (This is not to say that
all latter artistic representations of Christ--say as a blonde-haired blue eyed European--are accurate). Icons are somewhat stylized since they represent sanctified and transfigured humanity, so an exact photographic representation is not needed to depict Christ or His saints. The point is, God became Man for our salvation and this Man can be depicted artistically. Since the icon represents Christ, one can honor Christ by honoring the icon.
Again, one is no more
worshipping matter by kissing an icon than a pious Jew would be worshipping a material scroll by kissing the Torah book.
Once again; God may have allowed all of that in the OT (And "Angels of the Lord" often represented His actual presence, anyway). But in Revelation; when John twice worships the angel; he is told "See you do it not: for I am your fellow servant
Yet it was the
worship of the angel for which John was rebuked. It was
an angel, not
the Angel of the Lord.
...license here to go back to worshipping things, and to do so is to "return to the weak and beggarly elements, unto which all of you desire again to be in bondage" (Gal. 4:9)
But no one is
worshipping "things". They are honoring those whom the icons represent. (The "beggarly elements" refers to the old covenant practices that the Judaizers were attempting to impose on the NT gentile Christians.)
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Now, as we are talking of images and worship, let us analyse the exact meaning of each. An image is a likeness of the original with a certain difference, for it is not an exact reproduction of the original. Thus, the Son is the living, substantial, unchangeable Image of the invisible God (Col. 1.15), bearing in Himself the whole Father, being in all things equal to Him, differing only in being begotten by the Father, who is the Begetter; the Son is begotten. The Father does not proceed from the Son, but the Son from the Father.
And here is a colossal mistake religionists have made for centuries (and in Genesis 1:26 as well). This is not talking about
physical appearance Jesus does not
look like God
physically; for God is not physical. Christ's being in the image of God is defined by Him by "the works that I do" (John 14), and of course Hi ssinless perfection. So there is still no license to worship created things here.</font>[/QUOTE]Of course there is no license to
worship created things, be they gospel books, icons, crosses, etc. But one certainly can treat with respect those things which represent Christ, the God-Man whom we
do worship. The Son is indeed (from eternity) the image of Father in the ways described above and the Son (in time) became Man, and is still God-Man.
The Cheribim were not themselves worshipped; and they were not living things worshipping other things. They were just representations of Heavenly realities...
...as are icons.
...and this has nothing to do with what we worship; especially today in the NT where we look directly to the spiritual realities.
Spiritual realities such as in the Incarnation, Transfiguration, Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension, which while spiritual all had a real physical aspect to them. The spiritual reality is that because of Christ becoming physical, we can in Him hope for the resurrection from the dead--spiritually and physically--and the redemption/transfiguration of creation--spiritually and physcically.
The physical gestures of kissing icons expresses our faith in and reverence for spiritual reality. Or else, if the physical is totally unimportant, why do folks
bow in prayer or
stand when the Scripture is read? (Or are these physical actions also "beggarly"? And why use beggarly bread or wine or water
at allin communion or baptism since it's only the "spiritual" that counts?)
Once again, we today are the spiritual Temple; but we can't see an actual "temple". There needs to be no visible representation of a temple. The spiritual reality is sufficient.
But we are also
visible. Or else why have a visible gathering to worship at all? One can contemplate the "spiritual" reality while fishing.
However, the true spiritual reality, is that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, died a physical death for our sins, and rose from the grave in a physical body and ascended with that body up into heaven. We, too, one day will have resurrected physical bodies as Christ does. We're not ultimately going to be disembodied spirits.
And since the ark was one of the things in the temple, what just-want-peace said is truly fitting: "the ark will not be found prior to the rapture simply because so many people would tend to 'worship' any physical part of the ark as HOLY, regardless of their true relation with God".
No one is suggesting that the mere veneration of holy representations is sufficient (or even the main thing!) regarding one's relationship with God. However, in the context of an obedient, prayerful life, such respect for these items is not idolatry, but a demonstration of the incarnational and eschatological aspects of our faith in Christ.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Of old, God the incorporeal and uncircumscribed was never depicted. Now, however, when God is seen clothed in flesh, and conversing with men, (Bar. 3.38) I make an image of the God whom I see. I do not worship matter, I [16] worship the God of matter, who became matter for my sake, and deigned to inhabit matter, who worked out my salvation through matter.
The Israelistes actually saw a visible sign of God on the mountaintop. Being afraid of this; they did exactly what this person is suggesting. They fashioned a goldan calf, not as some "other god"; but to represent the true God they saw Moses with. But did God accept that? Of course not!</font>[/QUOTE]Actually God says in Deuteronomy 4:15-18 says that: "Take careful heed of yourselves,
for you saw no form when the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of fire, lest you act corruptly and make yourselves the carved image in the form of any figure: the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground or the likeness of any fish in the water beneath the earth." (So of course God didn't accept being depicted as a golden calf!). However, when Christ came, things were different. Jesus who was in the very form of God came in the likeness of man (Phil 2:5-7) and His glory was beheld (John 1:14). Until Christ came no one had seen the Father at anytime, but Christ has declared Him (John 1:18), and Jesus Himself said to the disciples, "He who has
seen Me has
seen the Father" (John 14:9). Depicting Christ on an icon is a testament to this truth. And showing respect to this icon, expresses our gratitude to God for this historical truth and our eschological hope in our ultimate salvation, both body
and spirit.
