Intent of Westminster Larger Catechism 109 Regarding Pictures of Christ’s Humanity

Status
Not open for further replies.
NaphtaliPress

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
I have posted this 2009 article very slightly modified at Naphtali Press.
From Chris Coldwell, “In Brief: The Intent of Westminster Larger Catechism 109 Regarding Pictures of Christ’s Humanity,” The Confessional Presbyterian journal 5 (2009) 227–228; 323.
The Intent of Westminster Larger Catechism 109 Regarding Pictures of Christ
 
Andres said:
VanDrunen 1, Gentry 0
Click to expand...

What went trough Gentry's mind anyway?

And VanDrunen is the one who has his PhD from Loyola! Those who insinuate any sort of jesuit influence should read this article!

Well done Dr. VanDrunen!
 
I don't know; part of the circumstances is Dr. Gentry is making an aside during another and still wrong stance on xmas.
If he were addressing the issue head-on maybe he'd been more circumspect.
FYI. For those who do not have the 2009 CPJ, the VanDurnan has not been posted; you get to see that in that issue. The snippet is only my squib tacked on as it were addressing the original intent issue.
In his piece, Dr. VanDurnan does an amazing job summing up the historical confessional stance in short space; the footnotes are really long too!
 
Just came across a brief editorial by William Childs Robinson on this same subject. I like his conclusion :

But this editorial ought not to end on a negative note. Our King of love is a largehearted, generous sovereign. If He directs us away from man-made representations it is in order that He may invite us to the worship-center. He has ordained for us, namely, the Lamb standing in the midst of the throne as he has been sacrificed -- the High Priest who ever lives to intercede for us. Instead of focusing the eyes of our bodies on a picture, let us focus the eyes of our faith upon the living Christ at God's right hand -- and then His power and grace and wisdom will enrich and uplift and ennoble the worshipper.
Click to expand...

[excerpted from The Southern Presbyterian Journal, 10.9 (27 June 1951): 6.]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top