[AnalogReigns]

Interesting, I fully agree with you on the use of images, for education and comtemplation...and I'm a Presbyterian too, but, I acknowlege such a position is out of sinc with the Westminster standards...so how is it you are still OP???

[jude24]

I acknowlege such a position is out of sinc with the Westminster standards...so how is it you are still OP???

I, too agree and I too adhere to the Westminster standards as a Presbyterian. But that doesn't mean I fully agree with every detail within the Westminster standards. They - until recently - said that the Pope was Antichrist. I don't believe that, nor does the OPC, BPC, or PCA. The Westminster standards are subject to interpretation and revision. Thus, if the WCF were to be interpeted as prohibiting icons as teaching-tools, than I would repudiate that interpretation.

That said, WCF 21.1 does not prohibit iconography, but rather says "[God] may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture." Any Eastern Orthodox worth his salt will tell you those icons are not used to "worship God" via a "visible representation." I personally, in conjunction with the WCF, have no problem with visual representations of Christ that are not intended to be worshipped, but as teaching tools. It's when we start equating God with that crucifix on the wall, or Jim Cavaziel on The Passion of the Christ that the icon has became an idol.

(I also recognize that my position is in violation of the 2d Helvetic Confession of Faith. Too bad ;-).)

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Interesting, I fully agree with you on the use of images, for education and comtemplation...and I'm a Presbyterian too, but, I acknowlege such a position is out of sinc with the Westminster standards...so how is it you are still OP???

Two answers.

1.) IN THE FIRST PLACE, as Presbyterian Laymen, you and I actually are not under the strict requirement to fully adhere to every specific clause of the Westminster Confession of Faith; rather, that is the Duty of our Overseeing Presbyters. As Laymen, we are bound only by the Four Affimations of Membership (here I offer a common example):
• Trusting in the gracious mercy of God, do you turn from the ways of sin and renounce evil and its power in the world?
• Do you turn to Jesus Christ and accept Him as your Lord and Savior, trusting in His grace and love?
• Will you be Christ’s faithful disciple, obeying His Word and showing His love?
• Do you promise to be a faithful member of this congregation, and commit yourself responsibly to the teaching, fellowship, government and discipline of The Church?

Provided that a Lay Member has pronounced these Four Affirmations before his Ruling and Teaching Elders and before his Congregation (as you and I have both done, upon entry into Communicable Voting Fellowship), it is permissible for a Layman Presbyterian to personally explore varying interpretations of Scripture and Tradition, provided that he does not deliberately contravert the commands of his Local Ruling Elders, or offer his Local Congregation a "Word of Instruction" (that is, a Lay Sermon) without the oversight of his Ruling Elders.

Having never taken Clerical Vows, I am operating within my Rights as a Presbyterian Layman to discuss the propriety of Orthodox Iconography, so long as I do not deliberately contravert the commands of my Local Ruling Elders (I have never done so, nor will I).

2.) IN THE SECOND PLACE, even the Presbyterian Clergy themselves have a Right of Appeal against anything, literally anything in even the Westminster Confession of Faith itself provided that they can prove their Objection to a General Assembly on the basis of Scripture Alone.

Even the hallowed Westminster Confessions HAVE been amended in the past; We Presbyterians submit even our General Councils and Universal Confessions to the God-Ordained Principle of Semper Reformanda, "The Reformed Church, Always Reforming!" ANY AND EVERY Confession of Bishops and Presbyters may always be subjected to inspection and clarification, under the bar of Sola Scriptura; as very well stated by the Eastern Orthodox Saint Brianchaninov:

"Has some good thought come to you? Have you felt some good impulse or inclination in your heart? Stop! Check it with the Gospel."Blessed Vladyka Ignatij (Brianchaninov)

Given, then, that the Ark of the Covenant represented the greatest Material Icon in the history of the Church, and was fully Biblical; I can, as I have said before, hardly begrudge the 10th Century Greeks their stained-glass Icons for converting and educating illiterate pagan Russians.

In sum: As long as we Protestants aren't expected to pray to Icons (sorry, we Protestants still feel that such an act would be Idolatry), we are able to appreciate the use of Icons for Education and Contemplation purposes.

And, as a Presbyterian, I am within my rights as a Layman to consider such things.

Best, OP