The Reformed Christians Guide to Facebook:

Firstly, Facebook is not to be viewed as or treated by any Christian as a replacement for attending church on Sunday. This goes for every Christian.  Hebrews 10:24-25, “let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.”

To quote the Belgic Confession, “The marks by which the true Church is known are these: If the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if it maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin; in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church. Hereby the true Church may certainly be known, from which no man has a right to separate himself.” Simply, the sacraments cannot be administered on Facebook. Excommunication cannot be carried out on Facebook. You are not physically assembling with other Christians when on Facebook. Facebook is not a church service. You must attend a church.

However, Facebook can still be used as a helpful and edifying medium for theological fellowship, debate and discussion on Facebook. And, there is lovely international dimension to this – I have had the pleasure of meeting and praying for Christians from every continent (inhabited by mankind) through Facebook. So, here is a short guide to some of the better Reformed Groups on Facebook.

1.       Calvinism Fellowship, Debate, and Discussion

Undoubtedly the most active Calvinist group on Facebook. The group (CFDD) is actively moderated, and “exists primarily for dialogue and fellowship between Calvinists", though non-Calvinists are still welcome to join, learn and participate. If you obey the rules, you will learn some theology, and benefit from and enjoy the fellowship in this group, away from a lot of the nastiness in groups that are not moderated. The members mostly get along, so you might even have some fun … once you are up to date with the jokes.

2.       Reformed Christian Coffeehouse

A more relaxed version of CFDD (the group described above). Probably more theological diversity, but if you are Christian and respectful, chances are, you will be invited to have coffee with other Christian friends. This group is in many ways that scenario.

3.       Calvinism: The Group That Chooses You

Created in the aftermath of the closure of the original “Calvinism: The Group That Choose You”, due to controversies over Kinism [refutation of Kinism here]. This group is a new Kinist-free group, and a replacement of the original. Similar to CFDD, this group exists for moderated dialogue and fellowship between Calvinists, while allowing pleasant non-Calvinists to participate where appropriate.

4.       The Godly Home | Christian Parenting & Marriage

This group isn't so much a place for debating lapsarianism or eschatology – it is more for those who are already married with children or gearing towards that direction. If you are a high school student who just wants to debate baptism – this is not the place. The Godly Home is a closed group designed to “help Christian parents in their pursuit to train their children up in God's word as well as be a resource to encourage godly marriages.”

5.        The Book Club

I have never met an informed Calvinist who does not enjoy reading. Though not incredibly active, this is a group where Reformed Christians are able to discuss what they are reading. The books discussed are more likely to be out of print than on the New York Times best-seller list – so to those like-minded people who read mostly dead theologians – there is no need to worry.

6.       Reformed Covenant Theology

This is a closed group for dialogue and fellowship between Christians who understand the Bible by covenant theology.  This group is not incredibly active, but there are often worthwhile threads untangling deeper aspects of God’s covenantal relationships and dealings with His creation.

7.       The Reformed Steakhouse

Similar to Reformed Covenant Theology in some ways. Though the Reformed Steakhouse is not as active as it once was, there are still some threads well worth reading.

8.       Reformed Baptist Fellowship & Theology Forum

Another CFDD spin off. As the name suggests, this is a group exists primarily for dialogue and fellowship between Reformed Baptists, while allowing other Christians to participate on the side. Even as a Reformed Paedobaptist, there are many beneficial discussions in this Baptist group. They are not the Baptists who think Jesus only drank grape juice, or play antichrist guessing games.

9.       Presbyterian and Continental Reformed Fellowship and Discussion

Yet another CFDD spin off, and the Paedobaptist equivalent to the Reformed Baptist group. Even though you will likely disagree with either the Reconstructists or the Westminster Seminary-ites, this group contains many ‘iron sharpening iron’ discussions and debates on a variety of topics from perspectives within [Confessional] Reformed Theology.

10.   The Men of Calvinism Fellowship, Debate, and Discussion

CFDD is basically the Superman of Reformed Theology on Facebook. A lot of spin-offs, but all for different purposes.  The Men of CFDD is a closed version of CFDD, to discuss topics relevant to guys.  The group members are close, so unless you know someone in it, or are known by a member from elsewhere, you won’t be let in.

11.   The Women of Calvinism Fellowship, Debate and Discussion

Another off shoot of CFDD. Designed the same as the men's group, but for women, rather than men. I could not tell you what exactly is discussed in there - and even if I could, I probably wouldn't understand it.

12.   CFDD Prayer Request Group

And I’ll conclude with one final spin off of CFDD. This group, administrated by Calvinists, is a closed group deigned to be a place where Christians [Calvinist or not] can share prayer requests – the group is not for theological debate. Just as with the two previous groups, only Christians are allowed in the CFDD Prayer Request Group.

13.       Christians AGAINST the Heresy of Calvinism & TULIP

A place for Open Theists, Pelagains, Moral Government Theorists, Sinless Perfectionists and everyone else condemned by the early church to be united in misrepresenting Calvinistic Christians, despite being corrected about 237 times. A group to stay out of, in order to avoid formulaic straw-men and not waste time. My point is: use your time on Facebook wisely. You should have higher priorities. You should use theological interaction on Facebook for mutual benefit from Christian discussion and fellowship, not to waste time.

I hope that the Reformed Christians on Facebook find this useful and helpful. But even more so, I hope you all attend church this Sunday, and the Sunday after that.

©Jonathan Williams, December 2012.

Kinism: What is it? What should I think & do about it?

Recently, Kinism has once again become an issue of theological discussion, division and contention. This issue has broken Christian friendships and caused tears. The best thing that we can do for Kinists is pray for them, and edify the body of Christ despite what Kinists believe. Below is a brief definition of Kinism, a quick refutation of Kinism, then lastly a practical Christian response to Kinism.

(1) A Brief Definition of Kinism:

Kinism is the belief that the God-ordained social order for man is tribal and ethnic rather than universal. Mankind was designed by its God to live and to thrive in extended family groups, in that people of the same ethnicity are to clan together, to the exclusion of those of other ethnicities. This is dangerously unbiblical.

(2) A Quick Refutation of Kinism:
(a) The verses/concepts commonly appealed to by Kinists:

(1) Genesis 1:25: "according to kind" is not talking about Japanese and English - an example of a violation of that would be man and animal, or dog and reptile. Leviticus 18:23, 1 Corinthians 15:39.

(2) Genesis 9:20-27: The descendants of Canaan were infamous for their idolatry and sexual perversion. Nothing to do with race. Skipping over the fact that NOAH said "‘Cursed be Canaan" right at that time!

(3) Genesis 11:1-9: Their sin involved a failure to spread through the earth, Genesis 11:4b (stemming from pride).

(4) Israel as separated from other nations: The point was faith - there was capital punishment for apostasy and non-Israelites (by natural birth) joined the nation of Israel. Those who were not nationalistically Jews could by faith join the people of Israel, and would then receive the sign of circumcision that identified them with God's covenant people.

(5) Verses that talk about boarders: Yes, there are boarders and nations. There is a difference between nations being defined by citizenship regardless of culture, and nations being limited to races within that culture. Remember how Paul appeals to his Roman citizenship (Acts 22:25, c.f Romans 9:3)

 

(b) Seven reasons why Kinism is dangerously unbiblical:

(1) All men descend from Adam (Acts 17:26), then Noah (Genesis 6-10). So, there is really only one race (Genesis 1:26-27). Nelson Mandela and I both trace back to Noah, and before that Adam.

(2) Joseph (Semitic) married Asenath (Egyptian). Genesis 41:50.

(3) Moses married a Cushite woman (area now Ethiopia-Sudan). God punished Aaron and Miriam for criticising their inter-racial marriage. Numbers 12:1.

(4) What about those who joined the nation of OT Israel? Were their children just not to marry? What about Rahab - a Canaanite? Joshua 2:9-13, 6:17, 25, Matthew 1:5.

(5) How will they hear without a preacher? (Romans 10). The expansion of the people of God, is through the means of bringing the gospel to the nations (Matthew 28). This involves mixing with people of other cultures. Knism completely undermines the spread of the gospel.

(6) Kinism, replaces union with Christ with genetics (Galatians 3:28). Kinism is a practical denial of the Work of Christ, where he tore down the dividing wall between nations, so made people of all nations in covenant with God fellow citizens. Ephesians 2:11-22.

(7) Paul refereed to Himself as teacher of the Gentiles (Acts 26:4, 1 Timothy 2:7), which could not be the case if Paul was a Kinist.

(3) A practical Christian response to Kinism:

A Christian may marry one single Christian of the opposite gender who is not of certain relations or wrongly divorced, all according to the laws of the land. If a man from Canada married a woman from Ethiopia, and lived next to a man from Russia married to a woman from Brazil on one side, and a man from China married to a woman from Germany on the other side, brilliant. If there is a huge cultural divide between a man from Pakistan and a woman from New Zealand, it may be unwise to marry, but it would not be sinful. In a few years, they might be perfectly compatible to in wisdom marry and raise a family together.

I don't take this issue lightly. Within Christianity, I divide over damnable heresy, and beliefs that undermine Christian unity or common society. Sadly, Kinists do both: they would say that it was sinful for a British Christian man to marry a Korean Christian woman, and they would tell me to geographically separate from my Sudanese friends in order to stick to ones own race. If Kinist beliefs were popular, they would tear apart churches, communities, families and missions. It is to preserve Christian unity, care for the body of Christ and take our earthly duties seriously that we divide over Kinism.

I do believe that some Kinists are saved. And, I am thankful that they believe that all people are created in God's image, and can only find salvation in Christ. I really pray and wish each Kinist would abandon Kinism so that they can put such crucial orthodox beliefs into practise, and long for the day when all of God's elect from all nations (all those who trust in Christ alone) will be glorified as the eschatological church in Christ, in everlasting fellowship with Jesus Christ, who was born in Bethlehem.

(C) Jonathan Williams, November - December 2012.

Permission to use any ideas above, but please acknowledge the original author if you choose to directly quote this article.

Why Every Christian Should Vote for Mitt Romney

ROMNEY RYAN 2012. This will be my final pre-election post. I am supporting Mitt Romney. Prominent Christians including Joel Beeke and Wayne Grudem are too. 

In 2008, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano vetoed a bill to ban partial-birth abortion - the seventh piece of pro-life legislation she vetoed. She vetoed every single pro-life bill she met. Who did Napolitano defeat to succeed as governor? Matt Salmon - a Mormon.

"I believe marriage should be preserved as an institution for one man and one woman." - Mitt Romney
"I think same-sex couples should be able to get married” - Barack Obama

"I support the reversal of Roe v. Wade" - Mitt Romney
"Roe vs. Wade protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom" - Barack Obama

"I will appoint conservative, strict constructionists to the judiciary." - Mitt Romeny.
Obama appointed the pro-infanticide Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

Five out of the nine current Supreme Court justices have been serving for 18-26 years, and there is expected to be 2-3 appointments in the next presidential term. Romney's Supreme Court appointments will be more conservative than Obama's. The effects of who wins this election - Obama or Romney - will be felt for longer than four years - the effects will be felt for decades. The life of the unborn child ought to be protected, and homosexuality is a final indicator of a debauched society. For the unborn, for the family and for society - for the short term and for the long term, I could not in good conscience do anything other than support Mitt Romney.

Vote. And vote for Mitt Romney.

Parents Should Be Allowed To Let Their Children Die!

“You love only those who deserve it” “[A weak person] certainly does not deserve [love]. He certainly is beyond it" “Each man must live as an end in himself and follow his own rational self-interest" "A 'moral commandment' is a contradiction in terms” “Any laws restricting or prohibiting abortion are invasions of the rights of mothers” “The parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.” Do these beliefs fit in the Christian worldview? Are they compatible with Christianity? Should a Christian promote this ideology? Those questions are rhetorical. The above quotes are all from Ayn Rand who wished to be remembered as "the greatest enemy of religion", particularly of Christianity, which she called the "kindergarten of communism" and “the great poison of mankind”; and Murray Rothbard who stated that “the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children” as he “either had to go on to anarchism or become a statist.”

Last month, I received an email from mises.org that correctly labelled Ayn Rand "one of the most important philosophical influences on contemporary libertarianism." Unfortunately, many Christians are advocating libertarianism and supporting politicians whose ideology had been shaped by Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard. One prominent libertarian, Ron Paul said "I especially value Mises.org” and having read “about everything Ayn Rand wrote”, Paul agrees that "she contributed tremendously" to modern libertarianism, including that “she had a lot of influence on me”. Ron Paul considers Murray Rothbard (whose photo hangs on his congressional office’s wall) “the founder of modern libertarianism”, saying after his death “America has lost one of her greatest men, and the Freedom Movement one of its greatest heroes: Murray N. Rothbard”. Paul praised Rothbard as “an inspiration” who “influenced thousands of students. I was one of them, for he taught me about economics and liberty.” We will now investigate what these important and tremendous founders of and influences on modern libertarianism had to say about a very important issue: abortion.

"The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man's absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that every woman has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute dominion over her body and everything within it. This includes the fetus. Abortion should be looked upon, not as "murder" of a living person, but as the expulsion of an unwanted invader from the mother's body. Any laws restricting or prohibiting abortion are therefore invasions of the rights of mothers.” - Rothbard

"This means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.” - Rothbard

"In the libertarian society, then, the mother would have the absolute right to her own body and therefore to perform an abortion; and would have the trustee-ownership of her children, an ownership limited only by the illegality of aggressing against their persons and by their absolute right to run away or to leave home at any time. Parents would be able to sell their trustee-rights in children to anyone who wished to buy them at any mutually agreed price." - Rothbard

"Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?” - Ayn Rand

Why any Christian would identify with, support or spread this unbiblical ideology is beyond me. As a Christian, I repudiate a system where a person who “contributed tremendously” taught that the weak are beyond love, “the influential founder” believed that parents should be allowed to let their children die, and both key figures supported abortion. As a Christian, I will never again call myself a libertarian or do anything that will support the unbiblical and inhumane ideological movement that is libertarianism. I pray for the end of the influence of libertarianism, and bpraise the Lord that I do not live in “the libertarian society”.

(C), Jonathan Williams, August 2012.

The Christian View on Homosexuality: Part 2 – By What Standard?

This week, I plan to release three blog posts dealing with the issue of homosexuality; specifically in regards to so called ‘same-sex marriage’. I will reiterate that God defines marriage, and He defined it as being between one man and one woman.

In yesterday’s first instalment, I briefly outlined the biblical perspective on homosexuality. Today’s second instalment is an article that I wrote to refute a pro same-sex marriage television advertisement. Later this week, I will release a more comprehensive essay that deals with the subject in relation to how Christians can engage politically on this issue, and refute the common objections to the Biblical position on marriage. The issue that Ideal with in this article is at the very foundation of the issue: presuppositions.

“Get up” and support Gay Marriage because I think it is “the right thing to do”:

On December 3, the ruling Australian Labor Party (ALP) held a ‘conscience vote’ on the issue of gay marriage. The party voted to in favor of changing their official party doctrine to support gay marriage by a margin of 208 votes to 184. Liberal Party leader, Tony Abbott, rejected calls for the opposition to likewise hold a conscience vote on the issue. Abbott, who opposes gay marriage said in an interview with Sky News that "the fundamental duty of every politician is to keep his or her commitments”, so because  “every single one of us went to the last election saying marriage is between a man and a woman”, his party will not hold a conscience vote. In the absence of a conscience vote within the Coalition, the bill will be unable to obtain a parliamentary majority, which will mean that gay marriage will remain illegal in Australia.

In the weeks before the Labor Party conference, the Australian left wing lobby group “Get Up” created a public petition promoting gay marriage, which they delivered to the ALP Conference on the day of the conscience vote.

“Get Up” is a group of radical leftists. For example, in 2006, they lobbied the Government to release David Hicks (a terrorist found guilty of providing material support for terrorism) into the Australian community. Although the views of “Get Up” do not represent the majority of leftists on every issue, their advertisement has been very popular among those in favour of gay marriage.

So, according to the campaign, why should gay marriage by legalized? The advertisement used a technique wherein they made the protagonist appear genuine and likeable to force the audience to positively empathize with the protagonist, before it was revealed that he was a homosexual. This is nothing but an appeal to subjective and emotional reasoning.

Suppose that Craig created a home video showing snippets of his life. In the video, you saw Craig enjoying a cruise, laughing at a theme park, playing beach cricket, spending time with his family and helping other people move furniture. Craig so far seems like a genuine and likeable guy. But, in the final scene, he takes a ring out of his pocket, gets down on one knee, and proposes: not to a woman, not even to a man, but to a toddler. You can substitute “toddler” for “dog” or “mother” if you would rather. Do you still think Craig is a genuine guy?

Apart from the proposal being man to man, rather than man to toddler, the “Get Up” add is exactly the same. It proves nothing; the debate on gay marriage is still at square one: is it moral for a man to marry another man (or is it moral for a man to marry a toddler)?

The video concludes with firstly a famous political slogan from the Whitlam era (“It’s Time”) [my American readers can substitute Obama’s slogans about change], then secondly with a plea to “end marriage discrimination”. Said otherwise, the advertisement asserts that “now is the time to legalize gay marriage”. The problem is that “now is the time to legalize gay marriage” is nothing but a subjective opinion. If I were to present the rebuttal of “I disagree”, on what ground could the gay marriage advocate say that their opinion is right, but my opinion is wrong? By what objective moral standard can the gay marriage proponent prove that their position is correct? A subjective opinion is just that.

The ‘Get Up’ campaign slogan is “the overwhelming majority of Australians support full marriage equality and it is the right thing to do”. Why is legalising gay marriage “the right thing to do”? By what objective standard is legalising gay marriage “the right thing to do”? The reason why you cannot think of an answer is because there is no answer. If God does not exist, then absolute morality cannot exist. If God does not exist, no one cannot prove that anything is moral or immoral; in fact morality cannot exist, period. But, proponents of gay marriage are already borrowing from and supressing the Christian worldview in asserting that morality exists.

“Helping other people is ‘the right thing to do’” is only your opinion. “Legalising gay marriage is ‘the right thing to do’” is only your opinion. “Legalising adult to toddler marriage is ‘the wrong thing to do’” is only your opinion.

Only if the God of Christianity who has revealed Himself in the Bible is presupposed, can objective morality exist. Morality expresses the holy and righteous nature of God. Something is moral because it is in conformity to the character of God. Something is immoral because it is not in conformity to the character of God. God’s commands are in conformity to His character. So, according to God, is homosexuality moral or immoral?

“If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act;…” – Leviticus 20:13

“Realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching.” – 1 Timothy 1:9-10

“But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” – Mark 10:6-9

By God’s standard, the only objective standard, legalising gay marriage is not “the right thing to do”. Homosexuality is a sin. That is the objective truth.

(c) Jonathan Williams, Created December 2011, Updated April 2012.

The Christian View on Homosexuality: Part 1 – A Biblical Introduction

This week, I plan to release three blog posts dealing with the issue of homosexuality; specifically in regards to so called ‘same-sex marriage’. I will begin by noting that God defines marriage, and He defined is as being between one man and one woman.

In today’s first instalment, I will briefly outline the biblical perspective on homosexuality. In tomorrow’s second instalment, I will release an article that I wrote to refute a pro same-sex marriage television advertisement. Then later this week, I will release a more comprehensive essay that deals with the subject in relation to how Christians can engage politically on this issue, and refute the common objections to the Biblical position on marriage.

The Bible on Gay Marriage:

God instituted marriage at creation to be between one man and one woman:

Genesis 1:26-28 “Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Genesis 2:24 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.”

God commands marriage to be between one man and one woman:

Matthew 19:4-6 “And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

Mark 10:6-9 “But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.  “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh, so they are no longer two, but one flesh. “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

Homosexuality is sin; it is an abomination:

Leviticus 18:22 “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female, it is an abomination.”

Leviticus 20:13 “If there is a man who lies with a male as those tho lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act;…”

Romans 1:24-28 “Therefore God gave them over tin the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonoured among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason, God gave them over to degrading passions; for their woman exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural and in the same way also the abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, me with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their sin. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.”

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals … will inherit the kingdom of God.”

1 Timothy 1:9-10 “realising the fact that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men, and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching.”

Jude 7 “just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.” (C.f. Genesis 19:5)

Governing authorities are required to illegalise same-sex marriage:

Governments are instituted by God “for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right” (1 Peter 2:14). Same-sex marriage is a final hallmark of a sinful nation; God destroyed the exceedingly sinful (Genesis 18:20) Sodom over homosexuality (Genesis 19:5, Jude 7). God commands Governments to restrain sin (1 Peter 2:13-14); in functioning to restrain/punish sin and maintain good order in society (Romans 13:1-4), Governments are to oppose and punish homosexuality (Romans 1:26-27).

Marriage is a creation institution common to both believers and unbelievers – providing a foundation for the continuation and development of society. The ability to have children is intrinsic to marriage (Genesis 1:28). Children are born through a mother and a father. If two men are two women are allowed to marry, that would mean that a child does not need both a mother and a father. Children can only be produced by one man and one woman; children need both a mother and a father (Genesis 2:24). So called same-sex marriages by definition cannot biologically produce children, so cannot be called marriages.

Societies consist of families; families are the building blocks of societies. This has been God’s framework since creation (Genesis 2:24). A society cannot continue or survive without a future generation. To have a future generation is only possible through the reproductive acts of a father and a mother. If procreation is abstracted from marriage, the private and public context for parental responsibility, societal order and the intrinsic responsibility for a biological father to care for his children are removed. Governments must regulate marriage as being between one man and one woman to protect the very foundation of society.

Conclusion:

According to God, marriage is the union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. If you define marriage as anything else, you must appeal a standard. By what standard ought marriage by defined by? If marriage is not defined by God, it cannot be defined at all. If governing authorities are not permitted to illegalise so called same sex marriage, then by what standard are they permitted to illegalise incestuous marriage? As Christians, we must begin with God – the very foundation of morality. This point will be demonstrated in our second instalment.

©Jonathan Williams, April 2012.

Zacharias Ursinus on Common Grace

My intention in this post is to answer one question: Is the doctrine of common grace (including the free offer of the gospel) a Reformed Doctrine? Whether or not the author of the Heidelberg Catechism taught common grace in his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism will decisively answer this question.

Did Ursinus teach Common Grace?

The following is a non-exhaustive collection of quotes from Zacharias Ursinus’ commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism that will answer the question at hand. As his commentary explains and expounds on the actual Heidelberg Catechism, it goes without saying that his commentary conveys the theology of the Heidelberg Catechism.

“The wisdom of man reasons and concludes differently, as is evident from the objection which we often hear: He who withdraws, in the time of temptation, that grace, without which it is not possible to prevent a fall, is the cause of the fall. But God withdrew, from man, his grace, in the trial through which he was called to pass, so that man could not but fall. Therefore, God was the cause of the fall of man.

Ans. The major proposition is true only of him who withholds grace, when he is obligated not to withdraw it; who takes it from him who is desirous of it, and does not wilfully reject it; and who withholds it out of malice. But it is not true of him who is not bound to preserve the grace which he at first gave; and who does not withdraw it from him who desires it, but only from him who is willing for him so to do, and who, of his own account, rejects the grace that is proffered him; and who does not therefore, withhold it because he envies the sinner righteousness and eternal life; but that he may make a trial of him to whom he has imparted his grace. He who thus forsakes any one, is not the cause of sin, even though it necessarily follows this desertion and withdrawal of grace. And in as much as God withheld his grace from man in the time of his temptation, not in the first, but in the last manner just described, he is not the cause of his sin and destruction; but man alone is guilty for wilfully rejecting the grace of God.” (p. 34-35)

Ursinus speaks of a grace that is “withdrawn”, “not preserved” and “rejected”. This grace cannot be said to be the effectual saving grace given by God to only His elect.

“The reason why all are not saved through Christ, is not because of any insufficiency of merit and grace in him for the atonement of Christ is for the sins of the whole world, as it respects the dignity and sufficiency of the satisfaction which he made but it arises from unbelief; because men reject the benefits of Christ offered in the gospel, and so perish by their own fault, and not because of any insufficiency in the merits of Christ.” (p. 106)

Ursinus called the sufficiency of the atonement “grace”. Also note, that Ursinus explicitly states that the “benefits of Christ [are] offered in the gospel” to those who “perish” and “reject”. Further, Ursinus believes that the offer of Christ in the gospel to the non-elect is an act of God’s grace.

“That all are, therefore, not saved through the grace of Christ, is to be ascribed to the unbelief of those who reject the grace that is freely offered.” (p. 107)

Again, Ursinus stated that the “grace of Christ” is “freely offered” to those who “reject that grace”.

“Hence the devils are said to tremble, because they do not apply to themselves what they know of God; that is, they do not believe that God is to them what they know him to be from his word, merciful, gracious.” (p. 114)

Ursinus stated that the devils do not believe what they know him to be to them from His word: merciful and gracious to them. They know that He is gracious to them, but they do not believe it.

“The evils of guilt as far as they are such, that is, sins, have not the nature of that which is good. Hence God does not will them, neither does he tempt men to perform them, nor does he effect them or contribute thereto; but he permits devils and men to do them, or does not prohibit them from committing them when he has the power to do so. Therefore these things do indeed also fall under the providence of God, but not as if they were done by him, but only permitted. The word permit is therefore not to be rejected, seeing that it is sometimes used in the scriptures. … (Gen. 20:6; 31:7. Ps. 105:14. Acts 14:16.)

But we must have a correct understanding of the word lest we detract from God a considerable portion of the government of the world, and of human affairs. For this permission is not an indifferent contemplation or suspension of the providence and working of God as it respects the actions of the wicked, by which it comes to pass that these actions do not depend so much upon some first cause, as upon the will of the creatures acting ; but it is a withdrawal of divine grace by which God (whilst he accomplishes the decrees of his will through rational creatures) either does not make known to the creature acting what he himself wishes to be done, or he does not incline the will of the creature to render obedience, and to perform what is agreeable to his will. Yet he, nevertheless, in the meanwhile, controls and influences the creature so deserted and sinning as to accomplish what he has purposed.” (p. 153-154)

Here, Ursinus attributed the restraint of sin to God’s grace. In permitting man to sin (providentially, not morally), God withdraws His grace; God’s grace cannot be withdrawn if it was never active. Ursinus believes that God’s providential restraints of sin are acts of His ‘grace’.

“Hence God does not will those things which are sins, neither does he approve of them, nor produce them, nor further or desire them, but merely permits them to be done, or does not prevent their commission, partly that he may exercise his justice in those who deserve to be punished, and partly that he may exhibit his mercy in forgiving others. The scripture hath concluded all under sin that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ, might be given to them that believe; Even for this purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show forth my power in thee. (Gal. 3:22. Rom. 9:17.) It is for this reason declared in the definition of the doctrine of divine providence, that God permits evil to be done. But this permission as we have already shown, includes the withdrawal of divine grace by which God, 1. Does not make known to man his will, that he might act according thereto. 2. He does not incline the will of man to obey and honour him, and to act in accordance with his will as revealed.”(p. 160)

Once again, Ursinus attributed the restraint of sin to God’s grace. The referencing of Romans 9 puts it beyond doubt that the reprobates are included in Ursinus affirmation that it is of God’s grace that he providentially restrains sin in the non-elect.

Ursinus on the Free Offer of the Gospel and Related Doctrines:

I demonstrated above that Ursinus taught what is known as the free offer of the gospel, and further that he attributed the free offer of Christ to all men to God’s grace. The following quotes from Ursinus commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism further prove that Ursinus held to the fee offer of the gospel, and saw no problem with God desiring things that He did not decree:

“By the heart we are to understand the affections, desires, and inclinations. When God, therefore, requires our whole heart, he desires that he alone should be loved above everything else; that our whole heart should be stayed on him, and not that a part should be given to him and a part to another.” (p. 24)

“But it is not true of him who is not bound to preserve the grace which he at first gave; and who does not withdraw it from him who desires it, but only from him who is willing for him so to do, and who, of his own account, rejects the grace that is proffered him.” (p. 35)

“We deny the minor proposition, because God, although he punishes sin with eternal punishment, does nevertheless yield much as it respects his right. He exhibits great clemency, for instance, towards the reprobate, for he defers the punishment which they deserve, and invites them to repentance by strong and powerful motives. And as to the punishment which he will inflict upon them in the world to come, it will be lighter than they deserved. So he also exercises great mercy towards the faithful, for he has, from his mercy alone, without being bound by any law or merit on our part, given his son, and subjected him to punishment for our sake. We also deny the major proposition, if applied either to him who is endowed with such wisdom that he can discover a method of exercising mercy without violating his justice, or when applied to him who, whilst he executes his justice, does not rejoice in the destruction of man, but would rather that he be saved. As a judge, when he passes the sentence upon a robber that he deserves to be put to the torture, and yet does not take pleasure in his punishment, exhibits great equity and clemency, even though he seems to exact the most rigorous demand of the law, so God is far more equitable and clement, although, in his just judgment, he punishes sin, for he does not delight in the destruction of the wicked, (Ez. 18:23; 33:11.).” (p. 69-70)

“The reason why all are not saved through Christ, is not because of any insufficiency of merit and grace in him for the atonement of Christ is for the sins of the whole world, as it respects the dignity and sufficiency of the satisfaction which he made but it arises from unbelief; because men reject the benefits of Christ offered in the gospel, and so perish by their own fault, and not because of any insufficiency in the merits of Christ.” (p. 106)

“That all are, therefore, not saved through the grace of Christ, is to be ascribed to the unbelief of those who reject the grace that is freely offered.” (p. 107)

“God s mercy appears in this: 1. That he wills the salvation of all men. 2. That he defers punishment, and invites all to repentance. 3. That he accommodates himself to our infirmity. 4. That he redeems those who are called into his service. 5. That he gave and delivered up to death his only begotten Son. 6. That he promises and does all these things most freely out of his mercy. 7. That he confers benefits upon his enemies, and such as are unworthy of his regard. Obj. 1. But God seems to take pleasure in avenging himself upon the ungodly. Ans. Only in as far as it is the execution of his justice.” (p. 127)

“The natural law, the knowledge of general principles natural to men, the difference between things honest and base, engraven upon our hearts, teach that there is a providence: for he who has engraven upon the heart of man a rule or law, for the regulation of the life, has a regard to the actions of men. God now has engraven such a rule upon the heart of man, and desires us to live in conformity thereto. Therefore he must also govern the lives, actions and events of his creatures. “The Gentiles show the work of the law written in their hearts.” (Rom. 2:15.)” (p. 148)

“There are four terms in this syllogism, for in the major proposition, the want of righteousness signifies the desertion and withdrawal of grace actively, which is a most just punishment of the creature sinning, and is thus from God; whilst in the minor it is to be understood passively, signifying a want of that righteousness which we ought to possess, which, when it is willingly contracted and received by men, and exists in them contrary to the law of God, is sin which is neither wrought nor desired by God.” (p. 159)

“Hence God does not will those things which are sins, neither does he approve of them, nor produce them, nor further or desire them, but merely permits them to be done, or does not prevent their commission, partly that he may exercise his justice in those who deserve to be punished, and partly that he may exhibit his mercy in forgiving others. The scripture hath concluded all under sin that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ, might be given to them that believe; Even for this purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show forth my power in thee. (Gal. 3:22. Rom. 9:17.) It is for this reason declared in the definition of the doctrine of divine providence, that God permits evil to be done. But this permission as we have already shown, includes the withdrawal of divine grace by which God, 1. Does not make known to man his will, that he might act according thereto. 2. He does not incline the will of man to obey and honour him, and to act in accordance with his will as revealed.”(p. 160)

“God does indeed will that all should be saved, and that, both on account of the desire which he has for the salvation of all, and also because he invites all to seek salvation.” (p. 292)

“As the gospel is the savour of life unto life when it is believed, and is the savour of death unto death when it is despised, so Christ, when he is eaten, quickeneth, and when he is despised, judgeth. Christ now is despised, when he is offered to the unbelieving in the word and sacraments, and is rejected by their unbelief.” (p. 428)

“On account of the general command of God with respect to guarding against the profanation of the sacraments, both in the Old and the New Testament. In the Old Testament, God would not allow wicked and obstinate offenders to be included among the number of his people, but required them to be excluded from their fellowship. Much less would he permit them to come to the sacraments of his church. “The soul that doeth aught presumptuously, (whether he be born in the land, or a stranger,) the same reproacheth the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Because he hath despised the word of the Lord, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall be utterly cut off” (Num. 15:30, 31.) God did indeed desire all to come to the Passover, that is, all the members of his church; but he did not regard the rebellious and obstinate as included in the number of those who were in covenant with him. Hence he commanded them to be excluded from his people.” (p. 442)

“Because he desired that the incestuous man “be delivered unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor. 5) that is, he desired him to be dealt with in such a manner, that notwithstanding his life might be prolonged, and he repent, his flesh might be subdued by sincere contrition, the old man mortified, and the new man quickened. Hence he did not desire that he should be put to death.”(p. 458)

“There are four classes of things concerning which men give commandment. These are, first, divine precepts, which God desires, that men should propose unto themselves for their observance, not, however, in their own name, but by the authority of God himself, as being the ministers and messengers, and not the authors of these precepts.” (p. 519-520)

“Obj. 2. The Holy Scriptures attribute to God the different members of the human body, and thus declare his nature and properties. Therefore it is also lawful to represent God by images. Ans. There is a difference between these figurative expressions used in reference to God, and images; because in the former case there is always something connected with those expressions which guards us against being led astray into idolatry, nor is the worship of God ordinarily tied to those figurative expressions. But it is different in regard to images, for here there is no such safeguard, and it is easy for men to give adoration and worship to them. God himself, therefore, used those metaphors of himself figuratively, that he might help our infirmity, and permits us, in speaking of him, to use the same forms of expression; but he has never represented himself by images and pictures; neither does he desire us to use them for the purpose of representing him, but has, on the other hand, solemnly forbidden them.” (p. 527)

“Obj. 6. All that is necessary is, that men should not, by the preaching of the gospel, have images in their hearts. Therefore it is not necessary that they should be removed from our churches. Ans. We deny the antecedent; because God not only forbids us to have idols in our hearts; but also before our eyes, seeing that he does not merely desire us to be no idolaters, but to avoid even the appearance of idolatry, according as it is said; “Abstain from all appearance of evil.” (1 Thess. 5:22.).” (p. 534)

“The preface is contained in the words, Oar Father which art in heaven. This again consists of two parts: a calling upon the true God contained in the words, Our Father, and a description of the true God expressed by the words, Who art in heaven. Christ will have us to pray in this way, because God desires to be called upon with due honor, which consists, 1. In true knowledge. 2. In confidence. 3. In obedience. Obedience comprehends true love, fear, hope, humility and patience.” (p. 626)

“Neither ought the magistrate to whom it belongs to inflict punishment, to remit it except for just and weighty reasons; for God desires that his justice and law should be put into execution.” (p. 653)

“That which is good, and which accompanies afflictions and the cross, we should not pray for deliverance from; but afflictions and the cross itself, which are evil in themselves, being destructive to our nature, from these we should pray for deliverance, as Christ himself also prayed when he said, Let this cup pass from me, that is, let it pass from me in as far as it is a destruction and evil, in which sense the Father himself did not desire it. But in as far as the death of Christ was a ransom for the sins of his people, in so far both Christ and the Father desired it; ‘Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.’ (Matt. 26:39.)” (p. 656)

Conclusion:

There are more affirmations of common grace in Ursinius’ commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism; I did not even go into how common grace relates to the covenant and the sacraments in the theology of Zacharias Ursinus, and I only included quotes where the word ‘grace’ was explicitly used.

To answer our initial question: Is the doctrine of common grace (including the free offer of the gospel) a Reformed Doctrine? Yes. This is clearly demonstrated from Zacharias Ursinus commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism.

Appendix:

Of course, Ursinus’ affirmation of common grace is completely in line with historic Reformed Theology; to give three examples:

John Knox said, "After these common mercies, I say, whereof the reprobate are often partakers, he openeth the treasure of his rich mercies, which are kept in Christ Jesus for his Elect. Such as willingly delight not in blindness may clearly see that the Holy Ghost maketh a plain difference betwixt the graces and mercies which are common to all, and that sovereign mercy which is immutably reserved to the chosen children.” (On Predestination, p. 87)

Westminster Divine, Robert Harris said, "There are graces of two sorts. First, common graces, which even reprobates may have. Secondly, peculiar, such as accompany salvation, as the Apostle has it, proper to God’s own children only. The matter is not whether we have the first sort of graces, for those do not seal up God’s special love to a man’s soul, but it must be saving grace alone that can do this for us."

John Calvin said, “But we ought to consider, that, notwithstanding of the corruption of our nature, there is some room for divine grace, such grace as, without purifying it, may lay it under internal restraint. For did the Lord let every mind loose to wanton in its lusts, doubtless there is not a man who would not show that his nature is capable of all the crimes with which Paul charges it.” (The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 2, Chapter 3:3)

The 2nd Commandment and Pictures of Jesus

The purpose of this study is to answer what constitutes a violation of the second commandment, especially in regards to pictures of Jesus Christ.

Exodus 20:4-6 (NASB) states “You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing loving-kindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.”

1.       Pictures of Christ: A Theological Study:

a)      God Revealed Himself:

Suppose that you are talking casually with a friend, when he pulls a photograph out of his pocket of a man who is five foot eight with broad shoulders and straight blonde hair, claiming that it is a picture of Jesus. The question that should naturally arise is ‘how do you know that is a picture of Jesus?’

The response will appeal to an authority: if the authority appealed to is other than God, the theocentric origin of the second commandment is completely overthrown. God is the Lord your God, God brought the Israelites out of slavery, God is the jealous God, God visits the iniquity of people and God shows loving-kindness. The 10 commandments are God’s commandments: God spoke them.

Because God has not revealed Himself through that picture, and Jesus Christ is fully God, that picture cannot but be a violation of the second commandment; there is no Divine evidence that God revealed himself through that picture. God revealed Himself in certainty; we are not to guess about God. Man is not permitted to represent God apart from how He has revealed Himself.

b)      The Second Commandment:

The Hebrew word for ‘not’ in verse four is ‘lo’, which constitutes an absolute and unequivocal prohibition. Whatever is forbidden in the second commandment is absolutely forbidden. There are two related but different commands within the second commandment; the first prohibits man from making an image of God, the second prohibits worshipping or honouring that idol. The second clause is dependent on the first clause – God prohibits man from making an idol, and God prohibits man from worshipping any idol that man makes.

God reveals Himself, therefore man-made images cannot represent God, and man-made images are idols that cannot accurately depict or serve God. In the first clause, God prohibits humans from attempting to visibly represent Him. Numerous ancient cults (e.g. Egyptian) attempted to visibly represent God in various created and creaturely forms. Such idols are not God. God is “the LORD your God”; any attempt to visibly depict God in any way that He has not revealed Himself is to depict God as an idol.

In the second clause, God forbids men from worshiping Him through an idol. God forbids idolatry because He is Lord and God. God is to be worshipped and served: if an image of God does not bring you to worship Him, it is an idol. But if the image does being you to worship God, you are worshiping a man-made depiction of God, which is an idol. God must be worshipped as He commands and desires.

While Moses was in the mountains with God, the Israelites built a golden calf to symbolise God. Exodus 32:8 states, “They have quickly turned aside from the way which I commanded them. They have made for themselves a molten calf, and have worshiped it and have sacrificed to it and said, ‘This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt.’” The verse lists two ways in which the Israelites violated the second commandment:

Firstly, they disobeyed the first clause of the second commandment by building the golden calf as an image of God (Exodus 20:4). Secondly, they disobeyed the second clause of the second commandment by worshiping the golden calf (Exodus 20:5). The Israelites sinned against God in both making and worshipping the Golden calf. Making an image of God is sinful; it is a violation of the second commandment in itself.

Pagan traditions that surrounded the Israelites made images of their gods and worshiped these images of their gods. In Deuteronomy 4:16 God commanded the Israelites not to “act corruptly and make  a graven image for yourselves in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female…” To make a graven image is to act corruptly. To make a graven image of God is a violation of the second commandment.

2.       Objections Answered:

The two common objections to this position are as follows:

(a)    “There is no problem with making an image of Jesus, a problem only arises if that image is worshipped”.

The first clause of the second commandment which condemns making an image of God in itself refutes this argument. Moreover, this argument would prove too much: it would also therein permit making images of God the Father, as long as one does not worship that image.

(b)   “Jesus was a man, therefore we may make an image of him.”

God is one in essence; therefore to make an image of Christ is to make an image of God. Therefore any image of Jesus Christ must depict him as only man, which is contradicted by the Incarnation. In the Incarnation, the Second Person of the Trinity did not relinquish His deity: He added to it by taking on a full human nature. The Divine and human natures are united in one person, therefore any image of Christ cannot do justice to the doctrine that His two natures are united in one person, without positing that it is permissible to make an image of the pre Incarnate Second Person of the Trinity.

To be consistent, those who use ‘argument b’ must believe one of the following heresies in order to not make an image of God. The only options are to deny the unity of two natures in one person (Nestorianism), deny that God is one in essence (Tritheism), reject the deity of Christ altogether (Ebionism, Arianism), or assert that Christ no longer was fully God or fully man (Monophycitism).

Any image of Jesus Christ must represent both his divine and human natures. As Jesus Christ is fully God, any image of Him cannot represent His deity, and therefore does not represent the Jesus Christ revealed by God in Scripture.

3.       Pictures of Christ: A Historical Study:

Below I have compiled thirty quotes from numerous Reformed confessions and theologians, spanning from the Reformation to the present day:

“Since God as Spirit is in essence invisible and immense, he cannot really be expressed by any art or image. For this reason we have no fear pronouncing with Scripture that images of God are mere lies. Therefore we reject not only the idols of the Gentiles, but also the images of Christians. Although Christ assumed human nature, yet he did not on that account assume it in order to provide a model for carvers and painters. Images are forbidden by the law and the prophets (Deut. 4:15; Isa. 44:9).” – Second Helvetic Confession.

“The sins forbidden in the second commandment are …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.” – Westminster Larger Catechism

“What does God require in the second commandment? That we in no wise represent God by images, nor worship him in any other way than he has commanded in his word.  Are images then not at all to be made? God neither can nor may be represented by any means; but as to creatures, though they may be represented, yet God forbids us to make, or have any resemblance of them, either in order to worship them, or to serve God by them.” – Heidelberg Catechism

“We declare, on the contrary, that the making of images of the Trinity is absolutely forbidden. We neither know the spiritual nature of the angels nor the true physical appearance of Christ and the apostles. Thus, the images made of them are without resemblance, and it is vanity to make an image and say: That is Christ, that is Mary, that is Peter, etc. … In the first place, one may make no images of God whatsoever; that is, of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” – Wilhelmus a Brakel

“The majesty of God is defiled by an absurd and indecorous fiction, when he who is incorporeal is assimilated to corporeal matter; he who is invisible to a visible image; he who is spirit to an inanimate object; and he who fills all space to a bit of paltry wood, or stone, or gold.... Hence it is manifest, that whatever statues are set up or pictures painted to represent God, are utterly displeasing to him, as a kind of insult to his majesty" – John Calvin

"Now we must remark, that there are two parts in the Commandment—the first forbids the erection of a graven image, or any likeness; the second prohibits the transferring of the worship which God claims for Himself alone, to any of these phantoms or delusive shows." – John Calvin

“The Reformed tradition has taught that Christians should not make or use any images of Christ, however sincere their motives and however careful they are not to worship such images. For example, the Westminster Larger Catechism (Q. 109) includes the following among the things forbidden in the second commandment: "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." – David Van Drunen

‎"It is not lawful to have pictures of Jesus Christ … because, if it does not stir up devotion, it is in vain, if it does stir up devotion, it is a worshipping by an image or picture, and so a palpable breach of the second commandment.” - James Durham

“The preceptive or commanding part is expressed in two things, verse 4. and 5. at the beginning. 1. That no image be made: And 2. That it be not worshipped. … Men are forbidden to make either similitudes or likeness, that is, no sort of image, whether that which is engraven in, or hewn out of stone, wood, silver, &c. or that which is made by painting; all kinds are discharged.” – James Durham

“May we not have a picture of Christ, who has a true body? By no means; because, though he has a true body and a reasonable soul, John 1:14, yet his human nature subsists in his divine person, which no picture can represent, Psalm 45:2. Why ought all pictures of Christ to be abominated by Christians? Because they are downright lies, representing no more than the picture of a mere man: whereas, the true Christ is God-man” - James Fisher

“The prohibition: we are here forbidden to worship even the true God by images.…  It is certain that it forbids making any image of God (for to whom can we liken him?) or the image of any creature for a religious use. It is called the changing of the truth of God into a lie, for an image is a teacher of lies; it insinuates to us that God has a body, whereas he is an infinite spirit. It also forbids us to make images of God in our fancies, as if he were a man as we are. … When they paid their devotion to the true God, they must not have any image before them, for the directing, exciting, or assisting of their devotion. Though the worship was designed to terminate in God, it would not please him if it came to him through an image.” – Matthew Henry

“God cannot be represented by an image.  We ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. We wrong God, and put an affront upon him, if we think so. God honoured man in making his soul after his own likeness; but man dishonours God if he makes him after the likeness of his body. The Godhead is spiritual, infinite, immaterial, incomprehensible, and therefore it is a very false and unjust conception which an image gives us of God.” – Matthew Henry

“With Egypt fresh in their memories, Israel was aware that other gods’ were worshipped with the help of idols. The second commandment, however, does not refer to the worship of alternative gods – that had been dealt with in the first commandment – but to the worship of the true God in a false way, and it lays down an absolute prohibition of the use of visible representations as an adjunct to worship. God is not to be worshipped by any human contrivance (idol), nor identified with any aspect of the visible created orders.” – Alec Motyer

"Pictures of Christ are in principle a violation of the second commandment. A picture of Christ, if it serves any useful purpose, must evoke some thought or feeling respecting him and, in view of what he is, this thought or feeling will be worshipful. We cannot avoid making the picture a medium of worship. But since the materials for this medium of worship are not derived from the only revelation we possess respecting Jesus, namely, Scripture, the worship is constrained by a creation of the human mind that has no revelatory warrant. This is will-worship. For the principle of the second commandment is that we are to worship God only in ways prescribed and authorized by him. It is a grievous sin to have worship constrained by a human figment, and that is what a picture of the Saviour involves." – John Murray

“Many there are who, not comprehending, not being affected with, that divine, spiritual description of the person of Christ which is given us by the Holy Ghost in the Scripture, do feign unto themselves false representations of him by images and pictures, so as to excite carnal and corrupt affections in their minds. By the help of their outward senses, they reflect on their imaginations the shape of a human body, cast into postures and circumstances dolorous or triumphant; and so, by the working of their fancy, raise a commotion of mind in themselves, which they suppose to be love unto Christ.” – John Owen

“The beauty of the person of Christ, as represented in the Scripture, consists in things invisible unto the eyes of flesh. They are such as no hand of man can represent or shadow. It is the eye of faith alone that can see this King in his beauty. What else can contemplate on the untreated glories of his divine nature? Can the hand of man represent the union of his natures in the same person, wherein he is peculiarly amiable? What eye can discern the mutual communications of the properties of his different natures in the same person?” – John Owen

“Thou shalt not make any likeness of anything” for use in worship. This categorical statement rules out not simply the use of pictures and statues which depict God as an animal, but also the use of pictures and statues which depict him as the highest created thing we know­ as human. It also rules out the use of pictures and statues of Jesus Christ as a man, although Jesus himself was and remains man; for all pictures and statues are necessarily made after the “likeness” of ideal manhood as we conceive it, and therefore come under the ban which the commandment imposes.” -  J.I. Packer

“The point here is not just that an image represents God as having body and parts, whereas in reality he has neither. … But the point really goes much deeper. The heart of the objection to pictures and images is that they inevitably conceal most, if not all, of the truth about the personal nature and character of the divine Being whom they represent.” – J.I. Packer

“God did not show them a visible symbol of himself, but spoke to them; therefore they are not now to seek visible symbols of God, but simply to obey his Word. If it be said that Moses was afraid of the Israelites borrowing designs for images from the idolatrous nations around them, our reply is that undoubtedly he was, and this is exactly the point: all manmade images of God, whether molten or mental, are really borrowings from the stock–in–trade of a sinful and ungodly world, and are bound therefore to be out of accord with God’s own holy Word. To make an image of God is to take one’s thoughts of him from a human source, rather than from God himself; and this is precisely what is wrong with image–making.” – J.I. Packer

“We are forbidden either to make or to worship any image representing God, or to give either inward or outward worship, either with heart or knee or body to any creature or image." – Samuel Rutherford (English modernised by myself).

“Those who make pictures of the Savior, who is God as well as man in one inseparable person, either limit the incomprehensible Godhead to the bounds of created flesh, or confound his two natures like Eutyches, or separate them, like Nestorius, or deny his Godhead, like Arius; and those who worship such a picture are guilty of the same heresy and blasphemy.” – Philip Schaff

“God is a spiritual, invisible, and incomprehensible being, and cannot, therefore, be represented by any corporeal likeness or figure. … The Israelites were expressly forbidden to make any image of God. In Deut. iv. 15, 16, Moses insists that "they saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake to them in Horeb, lest they should corrupt themselves, and make them a graven image." And, therefore, he charges them (ver. 23) "to take heed lest they should forget the covenant of the Lord their God, and make them a graven image." The Scripture forbids the worshipping of God by images, although they may not be intended as proper similitudes, but only as emblematic representations of God. Every visible form which is designed to recall God to our thoughts, and to excite our devotions, and before which we perform our religious offices, is expressly prohibited in the second commandment.” - Robert Shaw

"I cannot conceive of a greater wounding of the heart of Christ than to pay reverence to anything in the shape of a cross, or to bow before a crucifix!" – Charles Spurgeon

“This commandment forbids, on the other hand, every form of will-worship, or such as is false, requiring that we neither regard or worship images and creatures for God, nor represent the true God by any image or figure, nor worship him at or by images, or with any other kind of worship which he himself has not prescribed.” - Zacharias Ursinus

“We may here remark, that the words of the second commandment forbid two things. They first forbid us to make and to have images, saying: Thou shalt not make unto thyself any graven image, nor the likeness of anything, & then they forbid us to worship images and likenesses with divine honour, saying : Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them.” - Zacharias Ursinus

“The law does not, therefore, forbid the use of images, but their abuse, which takes place when images and pictures are made either for the purpose of representing or worshiping God, or creatures. That these are all positively forbidden in this commandment, may be argued, 1. From the design of this commandment, which is the preservation of the worship of God in its purity. 2. From the nature of God. God is incorporeal and infinite ; it is impossible, therefore, that he should be expressed, or represented by an image which is corporeal and finite, without detracting from his divine majesty … To whom then will ye liken God? 3. From the command of God. Take ye, therefore, good heed unto yourselves, (for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire,) lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any  figure, the likeness of male or female ; the likeness of any beast that is (Deut. 4 : 15, 16.) 4. From the cause of this prohibition, which is that these images do not only profit nothing, but also injure men greatly, being the occasion and cause of idolatry and punishment. In short, God ought not to be represented by any graven image, because he does not will it, nor can it be done, nor would it profit anything if it were done.” – Zacharius Ursinus

“Why may we not make use of images for a help in our worship of God? Because God has absolutely forbidden it. … Is it not lawful to have images or pictures of God by us, so we do not worship them, nor God by them? The images or pictures of God are an abomination, and utterly unlawful, because they do debase God, and may be a cause of idolatrous worship. Is it not lawful to have pictures of Jesus Christ, he being a man as well as God? It is not lawful to have pictures of Jesus Christ, because his divine nature cannot be pictured at all; and because his body, as it is now glorified, cannot be pictured as it is; and because, if it do not stir up devotion, it is in vain; if it stir up devotion, it is a worshipping by an image or picture, and so a palpable breach of the second commandment." - Thomas Vincent

“Is it wrong to make paintings or pictures of our Saviour Jesus Christ? According to the Larger Catechism, this is certainly wrong, for the catechism interprets the second commandment as forbidding the making of any representation of any of the three persons of the Trinity, which would certainly include Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity, God the Son. … As interpreted by the Westminster Assembly, the second commandment certainly forbids all representations of any of the persons of the Trinity, and this coupled with the truth taught in the Westminster Standards that Christ is a divine person with a human nature taken into union with himself, and not a human person, would imply that it is wrong to make pictures of Jesus Christ for any purpose whatever” – Geerhardus Vos

“The Bible presents no information whatever about the personal appearance of Jesus Christ, but it does teach that we are not to think of him as he may have appeared "in the days of his flesh," but as he is today in heavenly glory, in his estate of exaltation (2 Cor. 5:46). Inasmuch as the Bible presents no data about the personal appearance of our Saviour, all artists' pictures of him are wholly imaginary and constitute only the artists' ideas of his character and appearance. … [Liberals] inevitably think of Jesus as a human person, rather than thinking of him according to the biblical teaching as a divine person with a human nature. The inevitable effect of the popular acceptance of pictures of Jesus is to overemphasize his humanity and to forget or neglect his deity (which of course no picture can portray). In dealing with an evil so widespread and almost universally accepted, we should bear a clear testimony against what we believe to be wrong.” – Geerhardus Vos

“If it is not lawful to make the image of God the Father, yet may we not make an image of Christ, who took upon him the nature of man? No! Epiphanies, seeing an image of Christ hanging in a church, brake it in pieces. It is Christ's Godhead, united to his manhood, that makes him to be Christ; therefore to picture his manhood, when we cannot picture his Godhead, is a sin, because we make him to be but half Christ - we separate what God has joined, we leave out that which is the chief thing which makes him to be Christ.” – Thomas Watson

“The Second Commandment teaches us how we are to worship. We are to worship God only as He had commanded us to worship him. Anything that man devises, invents, or imagines corrupts the true reverence and worship of God. This commandment is frequently violated when Christians have pictures of Jesus. When it is said that they are legitimate because they are not used in worship, we reply that they are not legitimate because one cannot have a proper thought of feeling with respect to Christ other than that of reverenced and worship”. – G.I. Williamson

“The second commandment is broken when men attempt to make a graven image or a picture of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible teaches us that there is one God. It teaches us to worship the three persons, the father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory. But Paul tells us that we "ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone graven by art and man's device" (Acts 17:29).” – G.I. Williamson

4.       Conclusion:

God revealed Himself by His own authority; men cannot and may not represent God by a man-made image. God is an infinite Spirit; because God is spiritual and invisible, He cannot be represented as a visible image. For an image to stir devotion is to worship God by an image.

Christ’s Divine nature cannot be pictured. An image of God cannot contemplate His divine nature, or the union of the two natures in one person. Christs deity united to His humanity constitutes the Person of Christ; but a picture of Christ cannot capture His deity. An image of Jesus Christ must depict Him as a mere man, whereas He is the God-man: God Incarnate.

“You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing loving-kindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.”

In the second commandment, God commanded man not to make a representation of God, or worship God by images. We are not to make or worship any images of God: That includes of Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity, God the Son.

© Jonathan Williams, March 2012.