On Statues (and Icons)

As the debate about statues of historical figures is a raging debate in some quarters, I think it is apropos to discuss the proper role and function of statues (as well as icons and other images) in the Bible and (genuine) Christian tradition. Here is a listing of articles on this blog and elsewhere addressing this issue:

Latter-day Saints and Religious Images

Answering a Catholic Apologist on the Veneration of Images

The Early Christian Use of the Staurogram in Manuscripts: A Visual Reference to Christ's Crucifixion?

The Synod of Elvira vs. Second Nicea on Veneration of Images

Robert Bellarmine Affirming the Veneration of Images, not the Heavenly Prototype Merely

God Commanding the Making of the Brass Serpent and Cherubim: Support for the Veneration of Images?

The Abbots of Constantinople and the Veneration of Images, not the Images' Heavenly Prototypes Merely

Joseph Pohle on Images/Icons/Statues being the (rightful) recipients of Veneration

The 1917 Code of Canon Law and the Veneration of Images 

Will Durant on the Development of the Veneration of Images

Brian E. Daley on Eusebius' and Epiphanius' Opposition to the Veneration of Images

Athenagoras vs. Second Nicea and Trent on the Veneration of Images and the Persons they Represent

Richard Price on the Late Origin of Icon/Image Veneration

Examples of Second Nicea Affirming the Veneration of Images/Icons, not the Heavenly Prototypes Merely

See also

Eric D. Svendsen, In the Image of God: A Dialogue With a Roman Catholic Apologist on the Veneration of Images (a thorough response to Robert Sungenis on the overwhelming early Christian evidence against the later defined RC/EO dogma)

John B. Carpenter, Answering Eastern Orthodox Apologists regarding Icons

Karl Joseph Von Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church From the Original Documents, vol. 5: A.D. 626 to the Close of the of the Second Council of Nicea, A.D. 787

As this topic is related to Rome's high Mariology, be sure to see my book:

Behold the Mother of My Lord: Towards a Mormon Mariology (2017)

As some RC/EO apologists tie veneration of images into with the veneration of the consecrated Host, be sure to check out the following essays examining the purported biblical and patristic evidence for the Mass as  propitiatory sacrifice and Transubstantiation:

Responses to Robert Sungenis, Not By Bread Alone (2000/2009)

Book of Mormon Central, "Insights into the Book of Mormon Internal Geography Map"

Book of Mormon Central just posted a useful video discussing the internal geography of the Book of Mormon:

Come Follow Me (Insights into the Book of Mormon Internal Geography Map)

Trinitarian Apologist Admitting that Trinitarians Do Engage in Equivocation about the Meaning and Function of the Term "God"

R. Andrew DeFord, a former Christadelphian who is now a Reformed Protestant, made the following admission that Trinitarians do engage in equivocation about the meaning and function of the term “God” (something many other Trinitarians deny):

 

“God” can be used as a personal title, like “ . . . and God said . . . “ or as a relational term like “. . . my God . . . “ Trinitarians, at time, are accused of equivocating when using the word “God” of any of three persons of the Trinity or the Trinity as a whole. This is a far charge and I do think triniarians can be sloppy with how we speak . . . When I use the term “God” of Jesus or the Spirit, I mean that they are deity. For me, to say that “Jesus is God” means that I am related to Him as a creature is related to his Creator. (R. Andrew DeFord, The Triune God and the Doctrine of the Covenant: Answering Unitarian Objections to the Doctrine of the Trinity [2018], 9)

 

 

Reformed Protestant Apologist Admits the Bible Does Not Teach Sola Scriptura and the Formal Sufficiency of the Bible

R. Andrew DeFord, a former Christadelphian who is now a Reformed Protestant, made the following admission about Sola Scriptura and the (lack of) evidence thereof in the Bible:

 

Sola Scriptura generally is defined as “scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice.” There is a problem however. How do we arrive at Sola Scriptura? As our Roman Catholic (RC) friends will gladly point out, Sola Scriptura is not articulated in the bible either. There are passages in the bible that give a fairly clear definition of the divine nature of the holy scripture, but not any clear definitions of its scope (canon) or exclusivity for defining divine truth. To make matters worse, there is no general principle for a proper interpretation of the scriptures found within its pages. (R. Andrew DeFord, The Triune God and the Doctrine of the Covenant: Answering Unitarian Objections to the Doctrine of the Trinity [2018], 13, emphasis in bold added)

 

Notwithstanding his appeal to various “proof-texts” such as 2 Tim 3:16, coupled with his dependency upon James White’s 2004 Scripture Alone book, DeFord is forced to conclude that:

 

Still, we have no passage that directly states that the Scripture alone is the only rule of faith. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is arrived at not by a codified explanation somewhere in the bible, but by the authority of its author. There is no Scripture that proclaims, “Because God wrote the bible, you must look to it and it alone for . . .” (Ibid., 17)

 

For a full discussion of Sola Scriptura, including an exegesis of 2 Tim 3:16-17 and other common “proof-texts” abused by Protestants to support this man-made tradition, see:

 

Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura

D&C 29:12 and the Contingent Nature of God's ("Firm") Decrees

In D&C 29:12, we read the following:

 

And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, and it hath gone forth in a firm decree, by the will of the Father, that mine apostles, the Twelve which were with me in my ministry at Jerusalem, shall stand at my right hand at the day of my coming in a pillar of fire, being clothed with robes of righteousness, with crowns upon their heads, in glory even as I am, to judge the whole house of Israel, even as many as have loved me and kept my commandments, and none else.

 

In this passage, we read of how the Father issued a “firm decree” that the Twelve Apostles who were with Jesus during his ministry at Jerusalem would play some role in judgment (for a discussion of this, as well as Joseph Smith’s role therein, see Joseph Smith Worship? Responding to Criticisms of the Role and Status of the Prophet Joseph Smith in Latter-day Saint Theology).

 

However, among the Twelve who were with Jesus at this time was Judas, who lost his apostleship and had to be replaced (see Acts 1:15-26; v. 20 shows Judas lost the apostleship). So, Judas will not play a role therein.

 

Why is this important? It shows that God can issue a “decree” and that does not make the fulfilment, ipso facto, a necessity in salvation history, but it remains contingent. Such is consistent with an “Open” view of the future, God’s decrees, foreknowledge, and other issues. While they all held to more “traditional” understanding of God’s foreknowledge, note the following from four Latter-day Saint commentators on this passage:

 

Hyrum M. Smith and Janne M. Sjodahl, Doctrine and Covenants Commentary

 

A firm decree] Our Lord prepared a special reward for His first Apostles. He promised them, while yet with them in the flesh, that, seated on thrones of glory, they should judge the twelve tribes of Israel. Here we are informed that the promise had been ratified by the Father and that a firm decree had been issued, making that fact known. When our Lord comes to judgment, His Apostles will take the places promised to them, arrayed in the robes of their office.

 

Stephen E. Robinson and H. Dean Garrett, A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants, Vol. 1

 

12. Mine apostles, the Twelve . . . , and none else. Jesus' original New Testament Apostles (except Judas) shall judge the righteous members of the house of Israel who have died in the Lord—in other words, those who were faithful covenant members when they died (see Matthew 19:27–28; Luke 22:30). Notice the delegation to these brethren of tasks we normally think of Jesus himself as performing.

 

There are many other examples of such contingent foreknowledge such as:

 

D&C 124, William Law, and Open Theism

Luis Dizon (Catholic) on 1 Peter 3:21 and Baptismal Regeneration

I started browsing through the blog of Luis Dizon (Catholic revert). While I disagree with him on many issues, I have to agree with much of his criticism of Talmage’s Great Apostasy (a very dated work) and other naïve criticisms of “mainstream” (esp. Roman Catholic) Christianity.

 

He has a very good post on a topic I have discussed in great detail:

 

Some Notes on 1 Peter 3:21

 

This is a response to Protestant Michael Heiser on 1 Pet 3:21 and whether it teaches baptismal regeneration (it does).

 

I myself have addressed this text in some detail at:

 

Refuting Douglas Wilson on Water Baptism and Salvation (cf. Chad Pierce on the Salvific Efficacy of Water Baptism; Flood Typology and Participation in 1 Peter and Jean Daniélou on Flood Typology and Water Baptism)

Other relevant posts include the following:

Jerome D. Quinn on Titus 3:5 and Baptismal Regeneration

Acts 10:47, Cornelius, and Baptismal Regeneration (cf. Does Cornelius Help Refute Baptismal Regeneration? and. Was Cornelius Converted Before Acts 10?)

Baptismal Regeneration in Ephesians

Paul S. Williamson on Baptismal Regeneration in Ephesians

Andrew Lincoln on Paul's Theology of Water Baptism in Ephesians 5:26

J. Paul Sampley on Baptismal Regeneration and Ephesians 5:25-27 

On the related issue of imputed righteousness (which informs a lot of the errant arguments against baptismal regeneration and other doctrines), see:

Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness

 

 

Examples of Mortals being called the Angel of Yahweh in the Old Testament

 

Haggai

 

Then spake Haggai the Lord's messenger (מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה) in the Lord's message unto the people saying, I am with you, saith the Lord. (Hag 1:13)

 

Levitical Priest

 

For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts (כִּי מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה־צְבָאוֹת הוּא). (Mal 2:7)