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 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.

A Biblical, Philosophical and Scientific Refutation of Abortion and Infanticide

1. The Debate:

These topics have become controversial frontiers of political and religious debate in recent decades. Those labelled as pro-life are staunchly opposed to both and justify their position by appealing to the sanctity of human life. Conversely, those labelled as pro-choice are in favour of abortion and/or infanticide and justify their position by appealing to the women’s right to choose.

2. A Philosophical and Scientific Case:

Former Republican and U.S. President Ronald Reagan once said “I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.”  The pro-choice advocate must now answer this question: “Why is the right of the mother more important than the right of their child”? They must answer with an unequivocal denial of the humanity of the unborn child, or else declare their support for murder and genocide in order to be consistent. Why is it right to kill some people and not others?

As you can see demonstrated above, the debate essentially boils down to the question of “At what time in the life cycle do we classify a person as a person”? Firstly, it is an absurd contradiction to say “I want an abortion of this potential life inside of me”, as the fact that without an abortion there would be life presupposes that the foetus is alive! Otherwise, the abortion advocate must violate the law of biogenesis: that life cannot come from non-life whereby each living thing reproduces according to its own kind. If human life does not begin at conception, human life cannot scientifically begin, (moreover exist) at all!

3. A Biblical Case:

a) God condemns infanticide:

There are numerous examples in the Bible where God punishes those who commit infanticide. God's people were commanded not to imitate their neighbours who committed infanticide through child sacrifice. The law strictly instructed them to “not give any of your children to offer them to Molech” (Leviticus 18:21), prescribing the death penalty for violating this command (Leviticus 20:2–5).

Child sacrificing was also known during Solomon's reign (1 Kings 11:7). The brutal practice spread to Moab (2 Kings 3:27), Judah (2 Kings 16:3), and the northern kingdom of Israel (2 Kings 17:17). Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel condemned the practice (Isaiah 57:5; Jeremiah 7:31; Ezekiel 16:20–21).

b) God condemns abortion too:

God made man in his own image (Genesis 1:26–27). Since God is the Creator of human life, all human beings belong to God; life can only be taken (1) by God Himself or (2) by man on God’s terms. Killing without jurisdiction from God is a violation of the special dignity vested in human beings by God himself (Genesis 4:8–16, Exodus 20:13).  Every human life - from conception to natural death - is to be received as a gift from our sovereign Creator, so treated with reverence and respect, and not harmed without biblical justification.

Psalm 139 directly addresses the humanity of the unborn. In verse 13 David celebrates God's intricate involvement in his own foetal development: “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb.” David also explicitly confessed that he was sinful from conception (Psalm 51:5); which testified that he and all other people are human from conception, as all of mankind fell in Adam (Romans 5:12-21).

God's judgment fell on those who killed the unborn. Elisha wept when he foresaw the crimes of the king of Syria, who would “kill their young men with the sword and dash in pieces their little ones and rip open their pregnant women” (2 Kings 8:12). Amos prophesied against the Ammonites because they “have ripped open pregnant women in Gilead, that they might enlarge their border” (Amos 1:13).

A baby is a person from conception (Psalm 51:5 139:13-16). Therefore, a baby is in the image of God from conception (James 3:9). What does God say about shedding the blood of a person in God's image (Genesis 9:6)? God condemns it!

As every single baby is a person made in God's image, what must God think of abortion and infanticide (Genesis 9:6)? God views abortion and infanticide as murder.

4. How should abortion and infanticide be punished?

As abortion is murder (Hebrew ratsakh: the unjustified taking of human life), it should be punished as murder. The biblical punishment for murder is capital, with a reckoning demanded from fellow men; “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image” (Genesis 9: 5-6). As the reason given, man is made in the image of God remains, and the verse predates the Mosaic Law judicial laws, the “that is no longer binding” argument is invalid.

5. Should this issue influence how I vote?

To that question I would reply with two rhetorical questions:

1. Does prayer work?
2. Are we to pray for our Governments?

If you answer yes to both (as you should) then you have your answer (yes). If you pray for your government that they would govern according to God’s moral law, but do not vote according to God’s moral law, then you are voting against God’s perceptive will. You should vote for politicians according to the same standards you pray they rule by. Just as you should not pray “God, please legalise that which you detest”, you should not vote for those who are pro-abortion or pro any other form of murder.

The stance of a politician on abortion should strongly influence your voting. You should not vote for a candidate who is pro-abortion (e.g. Barrack Obama, Bob Brown), as to do so would be to vote pro-murder. God’s view of abortion/infanticide/murder should also be your view of abortion/infanticide/murder. You must live and vote according to this truth:

A baby is a person from conception. Therefore, a baby is in the image of God from conception. God condemns shedding the blood of a person in God's image. As every single baby is a person made in God's image, God detests abortion and infanticide. You should detest them too.

(C), J. Williams, September 2011.

God's Holiness, Man's Sinfulness

In recent eschatological debates, three things stand out, the common denominator being an anthropocentric worldview. These are interpretating Scripture by humanistic standards rather than by God’s perfect standards, and consequent failures to recognise the severity of sin and the absolute holiness of God. I address these below.

1)      God’s Standard, not man’s.

Yes, there will be people spending eternity in hell: universalism (everyone will be saved) was condemned as heresy by the Council of Constantinople (533). Case Closed. Is this topic emotive? Yes; in fact, the idea of “A Christian who is indifferent to Christ saving them from hell” is rather oxymoronic.

However, human emotions are not God’s standards. If you believe what you like about God and reject what you dislike about God, are you actually believing God or yourself? As Isaiah 55:9 states “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts”. We must with meek docility embrace whatever God reveals about Himself in Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16); nothing more, nothing less (1 Corinthians 4:6). God’s standard of justice is what the Bible states God’s standard of justice is: not what we would like it to be. Thankfully, the standards and thoughts of an infinitly wise God are infinitely higher than ours.

'Disliked' Bible verses such as Psalm 11:5, Proverbs 16:4 or Isaiah 45:7 are to be believed, not suppressed. The Bible stresses the creator-creation distinction from Genesis 1:1: humans are utterly dependant on our Sovereign, self-sufficient, creator God for our very existence; we are commanded to submit to His decrees and commands, and are never permitted to question Him or Scripture. Man is accountable to omnipotent God: God is not accountable to sinful man. “No one can ward off His hand Or say to Him, ‘What have You done?’” (Daniel 4:35)

In Romans 9:22, Paul reminds objectors to double predestination of this: “On the contrary, Who are you, O man, who answers back to God?” I am stressing the biblical axiom to “Let God be found true, though every man be found a liar” (Romans 3:4). We are not permitted to answer back to God, “He does according to His will in the host of heaven And among the inhabitants of earth” (Daniel 4:35). A personal dislike for a doctrine is irrelevant as God is God and we are His creations. In Ephesians 1, Paul does not emotionally object to predestination: he praises God for it and rejoices in it! We are commanded to believe God as He reveals Himself through Scripture, not according to our fallible emotions and standards, regardless of the topic of discussion, in this instance hell.

2)      The Severity of Sin and the Holiness of God

Consequential to faliure to submit to God's standards is faluire to recongise the severity of sin and the holiness of God. After the fall, God revealed as decreed before creation that He would send His Son to willingly save His people (2 Timothy 1:9). But briefly suppose a different scenario. Suppose that after the fall, God said “I said eating from the tree would be punished by everlasting death. You ate from the tree, therefore you will have everlasting death” (Genesis 2:17). If God did not decree to provide a way of salvation, on what ground could anyone call God unfair? None - hell is what our sins justly deserve (Romans 6:23).

We cannot belittle sin; we must recognise it as cosmic treason that deserves eternal punishment by an eternally holy God. God does not owe mankind anything; if something intrinsic to man obligated Christ to die on the cross, there would be no gospel of grace. That hell is what man deserves since the fall on account of personal performance is what universalism ignores: it ignores the severity of sin “If Thou, Lord, shouldst mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand? (Psalm 130:3) and destroys the holiness of God “Holy, Holy, Holy is the LORD” (Isaiah 6:3). God caanot pardon any sinner without receiving due satisfaction through the penalty for sin being fully paid, as a Holy and Righteous God cannot overlook sin, but must justly react against it. (Exodus 23:7, Numbers 14:18, 1 John 1:5).

Universalists have it around the wrong way; A holy God sending people to hell is not unjust, but for a holy God NOT to punish sin with everlasting death would be unjust! As “All His ways are just” (Deuteronomy 32:4), a just and holy God must punish every sinner as they deseve; we are either justified by faith on the ground of Christ's perfect righteousness, or condemned for unbelief and sin on the ground of our utter unrighteousness.

3)      Sola Christus

On Sola Christus (English: Christ Alone) universalism stands diametrically opposed to the gospel. Firstly on a practical level, if everyone goes to heaven regardless of whether or not they believe Christ and Him crucified, then evangelism is a complete waste of time.

Attacking the crux of the gospel, if everyone is saved regardless of whether or not they believe Christ and Him crucified, then there would be more than one way to be saved, contracting Acts 4:12. If there is more than one way to be saved, then Christ died for no reason as salvation could be attained outside of Christ, contradicting Galatians 2:21 (c.f. 1:8-9). The Bible says that salvation is by God's grace alone wherein he declares us righteous only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, received by faith alone. (John 14:6, Ephesians 1:7, 2:8-9).

4)      Dealing with some final objections:

a)      How can a loving God send people to hell? That question wrongly makes God’s attribute of love (wrongly using man’s, not God’s definition of love) superior to all His other attributes. God’s justice means salvation is impossible apart from Christ. If God’s is not just, His standards and love are arbitrary. Also, who do Psalm 5:5, 11:5; Romans 9:13, Ephesians 1:4-5 say are and are not the objects of God’s love? Be careful not to reject common grace though (Matthew 5:43-48).

b)      How could God punish men eternally for sins committed during a finite time on earth? That question wrongly presupposes that sinners will cease sinning upon entering hell. The opposite is true: those in hell will continue to sin for eternity (Pr. 1:24-31, Rev. 9:20-21, 16:9-11). Regardless, as no person is eternally perfect or Divine (Heb. 2:17, 4:15), payment for their earthly sins is impossible anyway.

c)       (1) God will accomplish all his purpose (2) He decreed to save everyone. Therefore won’t everyone be saved? If premises (1) and (2) are both correct, then the conclusion is true; otherwise God fails. However, while premise 1 is true of God's decree (Isaiah 46:9-11, Job 23:13, Psalm 135:6), premise 2 is false of God's decree (Proverbs 16:4, Romans 9:22). However, we must be careful not to confuse God's decreetive will (What God ordains) with His preceptive will (what God commands). God by precept desires the repentance of all people in the later sense (the obedience of his creation).
d)      Do those who never hear the gospel go to hell? Yes, No one is saved outside of Christ (John 14:6). If those who never hear the gospel are saved, then evangelism is the worst thing a Christian could do. They are condemned ‘without excuse’ on account of their sins (Romans 2:14-15) and for rejecting ‘God’s eternal power and divine nature’ clearly revealed to them in creation (Romans 1:18-20). They are condemned for their sins and unbelief.

5)      Conclusion:

The historic doctrine of hell is true: not universalism. If there are not literal people who will literally spend eternity in a literal hell, then there cannot literal people who will literally spend eternity in a literal heaven either. (Daniel 12:2, Matthew 25:46). Anyone whose name is not written in the book will be in hell “forever and ever” (Rev. 20:11-15). This is God’s justice, by His perfect standard! We cannot neglect the wretched character of man, or any attribute of God.

(C) J. Williams, 2011.