Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Debate: "Are Images of Christ Acceptable?" | Lucas vs. Wesley.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 апр 2024
- In this episode, Wes and Lucas debate their first public disagreement over if images of Christ are in violation of the second command to have no images of God.
Welcome to the Laymen's Lounge! A new weekly series on Method Ministries where Wesley Todd and Lucas Curcio discuss various topics related to Christians and the Church.
Join us every Wednesday at 3 PM for new episodes!
#debate #christiandebate #theology #iconography
Become a Patreon supporter!
patreon.com/Me....
Method Ministries puts out content that is focused on teaching the Biblical Method of God's Word, to spread Scriptural holiness throughout the land, and to teach Scriptural Christianity. If you're looking for an online ministry that can help you with this path then subscribe to the channel!
Also subscribe on Spotify and Rumble!
Follow on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter.
To me there is a clear difference between an icon and an idol. God did not prohibit iconography as he commanded the construction of Cherubim on the Ark and into the curtains of the Tabernacle, the Bronze Serpent, and iconography throughout the whole Temple. Even within paganism, there was a distinction between iconography and the idols they offered sacrifices and worship to. Colossians 1:15 says the Son is the image (or icon) of the Father.
You two sound like you get your information about Catholicism and Orthodoxy from a fourteen year old’s Twitter account. You’re embarrassing yourselves and you don’t even know it (or don’t even care). Why don’t you interact with someone who is actually an experienced Catholic before you recite something you’ve read online? What this generation accepts as a valid source of truth is ridiculous.
Also, Christ did also walk on earth in Eden with human form (Gen 3:8) so the prohibitions in the 10 commandments don't change after the NT incarnation, but apply to his human form as well.
I got born again in the summer of 2010. I never had any problems with images of Jesus. To the contrary actually, I love to see a well made image of Jesus, whom I love. Actually we may have quite good knowledge of what Jesus looked like from what was shared orally until there were pictures.
Also in Isa 53:2, where it says Jesus didn't have any appealing appearance I believe is a reference to how he looked hanging, beaten on the cross (Isa 53:3 fw).
I was once "attacked" by a Christian because I wear a crucifix. He said I was sinning wearing it. I feel it's just sad we have to make such an issue over what is no issue imo. Christ love! ✝️
I would say that, because we accept the hypostatic union of the Chalcedonian Definition, images of Christ also fall under the prohibition within the 10 Commandments.
Nicea 2 leans into an nestorian understanding of Christ
I love this debate. I'm team Lucas here, though.
Didn't Chris Himself (pre-incarnate), descend onto two icons (the cherubim on the ark of the covenant) and speakfrom there?
It's hard to argue that God doesn't approve of the use of icons, whe He used them Himself.
There's got to be a middle ground here. I'd really like to both watch Veggietales and rage at EOs. lol
Methodism is the middle ground.
If there is incense in heavenly worship and prayer, why is it bad for the church on earth? Didn't the 3 Magi bring frank"INCENSE" as Jesus as a sign the He was God?
Also in the old testament, they talk about offering incense
@@coltsavage4490 here's a great one, Malachi 1:11 "..., My Name has be glorified among the gentiles; and in every place INCENSE shall be offered to my name, and a pure offering, for My name shall be great among the Gentiles,"
If that verse is fulfilled in new testament Christianity, how could we think that the early church didn't use incense??
Worship of crosses and trinity is idol worship
We both agree that worshipping art and statues is wrong.
@@methodministries Worshiping that angel Jesus is idol worship.
@@adamlopez3561 Again. We both agree that worshipping Angels is sin. But Jesus isn't an Angel. He's God the Son. Amen.
I don’t see anyone in my church or churches I visited worshipping a cross. I know revere Jesus for being God and humbling Himself and to take on the cross. His act of love is merciful and we praise Him for that. When you saying worshiping the Trinity is idolatry, sorry bud but that is who God is, He’s Triune
@@thebark_barx6231 Any worship given to Jesus is idol worship because Jesus will never be God.
Here is the challenge I find:
Given the hard stance on imagery of Christ, the very person of Christ would have been an idol. He would have been the image of God in creation.
I do not find the position tenable and I find it moderately in conflict to the Trinitarian position. God the Son has been the image of the invisible God, even through the Old Testament.
Consider, part of the very purpose of God the Son coming in the form of a human is for the purpose of bringing us closer to him. In some sense, trying to create this divide where the very image of Christ is sinful is creating a separation which was bridged in the very act of the incarnation.
Two objections: 1. We don't know what Jesus looked like. He WAS the perfect image of the invisible God; but all our attempts at portraying Him aren't. There aren't any early accounts of His physical appearance, which also testifies to the fact that for the Early Christians it wasn't a thing of chief importance to preserve this knowledge. Moreover, I think that our relationship with Jesus (as with any other person) should be based on truth, and not fabrications. How would you feel if, let's say, one of your friends told you that he has an image of you hanging on the wall to remind himself of you, or to tell his children about you? Would be kinda weird, wouldn't it? And now imagine you go to this friend's house and it turns out that the image doesn't even depict you, but a person of a different ethnicity, hair color, facial features etc. (We know that depictions of Jesus are inaccurate like that, especially the modern Western ones which don't even portray Jesus as Middle Eastern).
2. The temptation to worship. Any image of Christ will inevitably lead to the temptation to worship the image. Who would't want to venerate his Savior when he sees Him? But we know worshiping images is sinful.
@@libatonvhs In reverse order:
The temptation to worship exists in all aspects of humanity. This is hardly an objection which is isolated to this issue. There are some who engage in Bible worship - that is, worshiping the Bible rather than the God who gave it to us. I recognize the objection you give, but it is no more or less significant to this issue as it is to any other aspect of our worship.
The portrayal issue isn't really an issue in my estimation. I understand trying to compare that to a circumstance where I am in, but that doesn't bother me. Why? Because that's how my children drew/draw me as their skills develop. Ever have a child say, "I drew a picture of you!" and show you a "horrendous" depiction in 2D with maligned teeth and stringy hair?
I don't scold them and tell them that doesn't look like me, nor do I tell them to throw the image away. Instead, I appreciate the love and affection my children show towards me.
Here is another wrench to throw into this:
If we are not supposed to even imagine an image in our minds of the appearance of God, then how do you read, "The Holy Spirit descended in the form of a dove" during Jesus's baptism? It is a distinct and concrete description of the "appearance" the Holy Spirit took in that moment. Unlike the description Wes brings up in Revelation, there is no ambiguous expression or glorified emphasis. It is simple, comparable, and clearly a visual description.
However, if we take the imagery instruction in the best light and position, then we absolutely must skip over this verse in order to maintain true worship and avoid all idolatry. The Holy Spirit is no less God than Christ Jesus, so the same principles ought to apply, yes?
@@darthnocturnis3941 I'm not sure what you mean by Bible worship. If you're aware of any Christians who bow down before physical copies of the Bible (I don't know any), then yes, that would be idolatrous as well and I'd condemn that. But if you mean holding the Word of God itself in high esteem, then by definition it cannot be idolatrous, because the Word of God is not a physical reality.
As for the portrayal issue, I would maintain that it is still an issue. Your children actually know what you look like and don't base their mental representations of your person on the drawings they make for themselves. That's not the case with modern Christians.
Lastly, you're addressing a point that was made by one of the guys in the video, namely, that even visualizing Biblical scenes containing Jesus (or the Holy Spirit) is idolatrous. I wouldn't go so far, mainly because it's restricted to the mental realm. We're not making unto ourselves a graven image. It's just what our brains do when we read the text.
@@libatonvhs Yes, I am referring to people who deify the Bible, to varying extents. That is the point I am bringing.
Here's the contradiction: Your analogy is no different from mine in that regard. Whether it's my friend or my children, they are portraying me. The only difference between my children and my friend is their capacity to do so accurately. Thus, I find the objection meaningless in that extent.
The contradiction I see:
Jesus says that whosoever thinks is guilty of committing the sin. If a physical image of Christ is idolatrous, then the mental image must also be idolatrous. We also must acknowledge the instructions we are given to "take captive every thought" by Paul. The short of the point I am making, is that we cannot draw a line merely at a physical expression being idolatrous, but the mental act is also affiliated, as it would disrupt our worship before God.
To that end, I think that Wes (the one who opposes icons) is logically and practically consistent with his belief. I also contend that if we are to start dividing what we do in our mind from what we do in the body, we begin to open the doors to what is permitted in the mind. For example, Christ never said that thinking about murdering someone isn't guilty of murder; but is that truly appropriate? No, I would think that such a thought would be inappropriate, even in absence of a specific word from Christ. Perhaps it is fine to think about stealing? Or to think about telling self-serving lies?
We cannot draw that line. If the image of Christ and God is idolatrous in the flesh and in material form, then it must also be idolatrous in our thoughts and spirits.
@@darthnocturnis3941 But God draws that line in the Second Commandment: 'Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image'. Mental image is not a graven image. It's impossible to worship it. That being said, I do think that visualizing God the Father in some physical way would be a sin. So I guess more nuance is needed. Have a nice day.