# Do Illuminated Bibles violate the RPW?



## Myson (Jul 5, 2018)

Technically, reading the Scriptures in your own privacy isn't corporate worship which, from what I remember, is the only thing the properly RPW regulates, aside from icons. I guess do illuminated Bibles constitute icons, even if you're just reading and studying? And if so, how much is too much? Many editions of the Quran for example use stylized geometric art to accentuate the beauty of their word to them like in the link shared below. Bibles used to do the same, but fell out of style after mass production became more popular and artwork was inot really viable. Is there an actual prohibition against it? I own a KJV from Barnes and Noble that has old woodcarves of the stories throughout. Is this an RPW issue? Never really thought about it until recently.

http://islamic-arts.org/2011/the-dominating-principle-of-islamic-art-comes-from-the-quran/


----------



## Tom Hart (Jul 5, 2018)

I don't imagine there's anything wrong with a picture of Noah's ark or of David slaying Goliath. Just steer clear of images of God, and of things like icons that are intended for veneration of saints, etc. It's not an RPW issue as much as a Ten Commandments issue.

But as for me, I'll keep my plain, pictureless, black-text Bible.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 5, 2018)

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am o jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of then that hate me; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.' Exod 20: 4-6.

I. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.

In the first commandment worshipping a false god is forbidden; in this, worshipping the true God in a false manner.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.' This forbids not making an image for civil use. Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, It is Caesar's.' Matt 22: 20, 21. But the commandment forbids setting up an image for religious use or worship.

Nor the likeness of any thing,' &c. All ideas, portraitures, shapes, images of God, whether by effigies or pictures, are here forbidden. Take heed lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make the similitude of any figure.' Deut 4: 15, 16. God is to be adored in the heart, not painted to the eye."

Thomas Watson

For prudence sake alone, even pictures of Moses or the Ark are suspect. in my opinion.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jul 5, 2018)

I know this is a bit off topic, but I just read an interesting verse from John and thought I'd mention it while on images. In 1 John 4 he says that no one has ever seen God. I wonder why John wouldn't have mentioned Jesus (the human) who he spent years with, if he knew the flesh to be divine as well. Any thoughts?


----------



## Myson (Jul 5, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am o jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of then that hate me; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.' Exod 20: 4-6.
> 
> I. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
> 
> ...


I see your point. However suspect though, might it be a conscience issue?


----------



## Tom Hart (Jul 5, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> But the commandment forbids setting up an image for religious use or worship.
> 
> Nor the likeness of any thing,' &c. All ideas, portraitures, shapes, images of God, whether by effigies or pictures, are here forbidden. Take heed lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make the similitude of any figure.' Deut 4: 15, 16. God is to be adored in the heart, not painted to the eye."
> 
> Thomas Watson



You'll have to define "religious use". Personal study time? Private devotions? Children's Bibles? We're not talking about images of God only, which are of course off-limits. How about maps in the back of a Bible? Are those not images for "religious use"?


----------



## Tom Hart (Jul 5, 2018)

Myson said:


> I see your point. However suspect though, might it be a conscience issue?



To some degree, I would tend to think, as long as one doesn't violate a commandment.

There have been groups who have thought that even a metrical psalter appended to the Bible was sin. Others are opposed to including the Apostles' Creed or other creeds somewhere at the back. Maybe there's someone who thinks the colourful maps are bad. I think, however, that we can avoid such extremes.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 5, 2018)

"Religious use"

That may be trickier than meets the eye. Anything that we use to get to know God and His ways better are things of religion. So defining the term, in my opinion, is as I stated.

My opinion alone, as mentioned, for prudence sake, why do we need pictures? As Calvin mentions, 'men are idol factories'. Hence, I try and stay away from anything that may visually circumspect that prudence.

Maps? I see nothing wrong with maps-colored or black and white.

Prior to me coming to a solid conviction on Exclusive Psalmody, I believed that, 'for prudence sake alone', men should sing the Psalms only, just to be safe. Better to be correct than dead.


----------



## Tom Hart (Jul 5, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> "Religious use"
> 
> That may be trickier than meets the eye. Anything that we use to get to know God and His ways better are things of religion. So defining the term, in my opinion, is as I stated.
> 
> ...



I would tend to agree that avoiding images is better, at least in the pages of a Bible. It can be distracting, or a waste of space. But I am not willing to say that all images are wrong.

I have a children's Bible that includes pictures, although there are no pictures of Jesus. (I was looking specifically for a children's Bible with no images of God.) The passages in it are more summaries of Scripture than actual Scripture. I suppose it's meant to accompany actually reading a Bible. But isn't this using pictures for religious use? Is it wrong to have a picture of a sheep beneath the Parable of the Lost Sheep?

Where is the line? You've said maps are fine. But why? If we read of Paul's journey's and then view a map to get a better idea of them, why can't we read of the dimensions of Noah's Ark or the temple and then look at a an artist's impressions of them? Are all such pictures always forbidden, or only when they're inserted in a Bible? Yet even when they're not in the Bible (for example, if I google a picture of a Levite's outfit) am I not using that for religious use? Or why would a diagram of the Solomon's Temple be better or worse than a picture of Noah's Ark?

Of course I agree with Calvin that men's hearts are idol factories. But at the same time I'm wary of excessive prudence, which, taken to extremes, can, possibly, lead one to build rather too many hedges. Indeed, that brings us back to those same words from Calvin.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 5, 2018)

Tom,
One thing you might ponder is, if there were artists in all the ages of the church, why were no images ever part and parcel of the original manuscripts of God's word? In other words, artists have always been available; why do we not have any depictions included as helps for us when the original manuscripts were penned? Possibly there was no need or making any images would be a break in the RPW, which all the men of God knew and hence, refrained from such a thing.


----------



## Afterthought (Jul 5, 2018)

An old thread: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/picture-graphic-bibles.86921/


----------



## Tom Hart (Jul 6, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> Tom,
> One thing you might ponder is, if there were artists in all the ages of the church, why were no images ever part and parcel of the original manuscripts of God's word? In other words, artists have always been available; why do we not have any depictions included as helps for us when the original manuscripts were penned? Possibly there was no need or making any images would be a break in the RPW, which all the men of God knew and hence, refrained from such a thing.



I don't think that's necessarily a bad point, although it raises a few practical problems. Maps weren't part of the original manuscripts either, but you have already said that you have no issue with them, even if you have so far given no reason.

I ask again: How far do you take this? What is the limit?

Is a children's Bible allowed to have pictures or not?

What is the difference between a map, a diagram of the temple and a picture of Noah's Ark?

Is there a difference between a picture inserted in a Bible and an image in book on biblical archaeology? Both are arguably some kind of "religious use".


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 6, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> I don't think that's necessarily a bad point, although it raises a few practical problems. Maps weren't part of the original manuscripts either, but you have already said that you have no issue with them, even if you have so far given no reason.



I don't believe maps are worshipful nor do I believe they have a propensity to stumble anyone.



> I ask again: How far do you take this? What is the limit?



Prudence is the goal.



> Is a children's Bible allowed to have pictures or not?



No. This would be a break in the RPW.



> What is the difference between a map, a diagram of the temple and a picture of Noah's Ark?



A map is a generalization; a diagram or the ark would be specific. 



> Is there a difference between a picture inserted in a Bible and an image in book on biblical archaeology? Both are arguably some kind of "religious use".



The bible is God's word. God's word never contained pictures-and for good reason. A book on archaeology is not religious.


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 6, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> I don't believe maps are worshipful nor do I believe they have a propensity to stumble anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am okay with pictures in children's bibles, so long as they do not contain images of any member of the Godhead. After all Kids bibles are not really bibles, they are rather books that help illustrate the stories of the Bible for small children. Pictures and images can be great teaching aids for adults and kids, but like most things..we can take them too far.

The logic must be consistent. Maps may not be worshipful to you, but they could potentially be for others. What if the map maker includes a tree on the map...on the map?..oh no! I can't use the map now? I think not. God had his buildings constructed with images of things after all (I am not using those verses to say we should, but rather to show in context God at one time did command his people to make symbols in his house if worship)

Scott I am assuming you do believe that drawing pictures is okay (artwork and crafts outside of the bible), but your problem is having any image included in a "Bible"? Is that correct?

The best and hardest line to draw in the sand should be forbidding images of the godhead...and worshipping any form of an mage as God. Going any further cannot logically be maintained. Should a Christian get rid of his bible if it has a cross engraved on the cover? Would it be sinful to show a cartoon image of David and Goliath if I were to teach that lesson to kids in SS?

I looked at the illuminated bibles, as I had never heard of them before. My biggest concern with the images I saw, is that is soon becomes obvious that the human publishers are trying to make the words of God more beautiful...as if that were even possible. So I would avoid the illuminated bible mainly because it seems weird...and I have not really studied on it.....haha


----------



## Gforce9 (Jul 6, 2018)

Grant.Jones said:


> Maps may not be worshipful to you, but they could potentially be for others.



Grant,
I will only comment on this section: definitions and elements of worship have been removed from the "hand" (imaginations) of man for good reason- we will most certainly pervert them. We don't decide what is worship or "worshipful to me" (subjective) but God has already decided what it is (objective).


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 6, 2018)

Gforce9 said:


> Grant,
> I will only comment on this section: definitions and elements of worship have been removed from the "hand" (imaginations) of man for good reason- we will most certainly pervert them. We don't decide what is worship or "worshipful to me" (subjective) but God has already decided what it is (objective).


Forgive me, I am not sure I follow. Could you explain?

The point I was trying to make from my comment was that Scott determined that maps were not worshipful. I was not agreeing or disagreeing with him (truthfully I do not see them as worshipful for myself). But knowing man, we can make an idol of worship out of anything. In other words, technically it is logically plausible that one could worship the image of a map (which would of course be idolatry).


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jul 6, 2018)

A few chapters after forbidding the use of images of Himself, God commands Moses to make a tabernacle with statues of cherubims, carvings of pomegranates, knops (whatever those are), flowers, all sorts of things. Solmon's temple had statues of oxen in it.
The only things we must not do are: worship images of any sort, nor make images of God for any purpose. Drawings, statues, pictures, etc are not unclean in themselves, unless they purport to be of God, and are lawful for all sorts of decorative use. The fact that some people use lawful things for bad purposes does not mean we should outlaw the lawful things.
Otherwise we could not eat, because some folk are gluttons.


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 6, 2018)

Gforce9 said:


> Grant,
> I will only comment on this section: definitions and elements of worship have been removed from the "hand" (imaginations) of man for good reason- we will most certainly pervert them. We don't decide what is worship or "worshipful to me" (subjective) but God has already decided what it is (objective).


For curiosity and clearly besides your original point,

Would you forbid your children from coloring in a color booklet (ex. at home or during SS)..lets say a depiction of a whale illustrating Jonah's Story?


----------



## Gforce9 (Jul 6, 2018)

Grant.Jones said:


> Forgive me, I am not sure I follow. Could you explain?
> 
> The point I was trying to make from my comment was that Scott determined that maps were not worshipful. I was not agreeing or disagreeing with him (truthfully I do not see them as worshipful for myself). But knowing man, we can make an idol of worship out of anything. In other words, technically it is logically plausible that one could worship the image of a map.



My only point is that (in contrast to what it appeared to me you were saying, possibly errantly on my part) the "power" of deciding matters of worship are not in the hands of man. When we speak in terms of "to me", we are already into trouble.....





Grant.Jones said:


> For curiosity and clearly besides your original point,
> 
> Would you forbid your children from coloring in a color booklet (ex. at home or during SS)..lets say a depiction of a whale illustrating Jonah's Story?



I will preface my statement by the expressing my utter contempt for the "childishness" with which our society (and often the church) treats youngsters. Children are far smarter than we oft treat them and the perpetualization of childishness is reaping disastrous results in the culture and in many sectors of the church. /rant. That said, a coloring book at home or in S.S., wouldn't make me convulse. Teaching kids systematic theology is probably far more beneficial than coloring pictures in the business of knowing God.......


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 6, 2018)

Gforce9 said:


> My only point is that (in contrast to what it appeared to me you were saying, possibly errantly on my part) the "power" of deciding matters of worship are not in the hands of man. When we speak in terms of "to me", we are already into trouble.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Trust me, I do share agreement and sentiment with both your point and your preface...mostly with kids 5 and over.

Well maybe this will make you happy that my kids color and are catechized with systematic theology...haha

My 4yr. old little girl...knows GCP Catechism Questions 1-35.

My 18-month old little girl knows GCP Catechism Question #1. Right now she thinks the answer to the rest of the questions is the same "God"...haha but I am not stressing.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Myson (Jul 6, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> A few chapters after forbidding the use of images of Himself, God commands Moses to make a tabernacle with statues of cherubims, carvings of pomegranates, knops (whatever those are), flowers, all sorts of things. Solmon's temple had statues of oxen in it.
> The only things we must not do are: worship images of any sort, nor make images of God for any purpose. Drawings, statues, pictures, etc are not unclean in themselves, unless they purport to be of God, and are lawful for all sorts of decorative use. The fact that some people use lawful things for bad purposes does not mean we should outlaw the lawful things.
> Otherwise we could not eat, because some folk are gluttons.


I've always found that point poignant. No images... But... Here's some images you have to have. The point (I believe) is that images and symbols can be an aid or a hindrance and should be be taken with caution but not rejected.


----------



## Myson (Jul 6, 2018)

It's also worth noting that "images" need not necessarily be pictures like stained glass windows or medieval catholic imagery. "Images" is such a broad term to begin with. Words are obviously images when written in books. What may look like an image to us may simply be a stylistic rendering of words in Arabic, which ultimately just comes down to font! Might not geometric shapes and patterns (as in the jpeg attached at the top) which can add, not to the words of Scripture, but to the transmission of these words via temporal medium of books, be "images" but not a kind of worship? The thing with symbols is that they're utterly meaningless in and of themselves and we give them meaning. Seeing a few different colored squares on a page can be something I find beautiful and aesthetically appealing, but not "mean" anything and therefore not be a religious aid. The covers of Bibles may be of different binding and material that may be beautiful, but mean nothing in and of itself, so why not the same application on the pages?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 6, 2018)

Myson said:


> But... Here's some images you have to have.



What are you referring to? God commanding a thing and the creature responding is not one and the same with man taking it upon himself to indulge his mind.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Myson (Jul 6, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> What are you referring to? God commanding a thing and the creature responding is not one and the same with man taking it upon himself to indulge his mind.


Sure, but I think the larger point is that images, in and of themselves, are not sinful in every and all types of worship. Whether these images can continue to be applied isn't really an issue I meant in that particular post, only that God isnt opposed to images themselves (unless they depict him) since he commanded they use them. I'm not even saying that anyone here was even arguing such a strict distinction, it was more of a "Yeah I guess I hadn't really connected the dots there."


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 6, 2018)

Myson said:


> only that God isnt opposed to images themselves (unless they depict him) since he commanded they use them.



Again, God commanding a thing and men fabricating, are not one and the same and really shouldn't be compared.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jul 7, 2018)

Myson said:


> I've always found that point poignant. No images... But... Here's some images you have to have. The point (I believe) is that images and symbols can be an aid or a hindrance and should be be taken with caution but not rejected.


I hesitate to call even OT temple decorations an "aid". They were necessary furniture, and were made to be decorative, but I don't believe they were to "aid" worship. Would you call varnished pews and aid? A place to sit is necessary; that they are beautiful is a bonus, but at the end of it all they are a circumstance. Likewise, a bound book with God's word printed in it is a circumstance. The binding and font is not an aid to worship, and should not be allowed to be a distraction. If you want to doodle designs in your copy, or buy one with designs doodled in, is indifferent. If you cannot have illustrations without sinning in your heart, then you should not have them. If illustrations don't cause you to sin, then all things are lawful, as long as your liberty doesn't cause your brother to stumble.
I can only wonder: why would anyone want anything other than a plain, readable font? It's the words were after; the voice of the Shepherd feeding His people. What more glory could you desire in a book?


----------



## Cymro (Jul 7, 2018)

The decorations or funiture of differing sorts were not just decorative but depicted an inner spiritual lesson, or a teaching method to the people in their minority. But the reality has come, so that these forms have been done away with. What was glorious has been superceded by a greater glory.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Tom Hart (Jul 8, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> I don't believe maps are worshipful nor do I believe they have a propensity to stumble anyone.



Agreed. Nor do I think pictures of boats or diagrams of buildings are particularly worshipful, however. Is this merely a matter of opinion?



Scott Bushey said:


> Prudence is the goal.



Certainly.



Scott Bushey said:


> No. [A children's bible with pictures] would be a break in the RPW.



How so? A children's bible such as the one I mentioned above, which is not Scripture but rather includes a number of summaries of Bible stories as well as some application questions. (In fact, this one calls itself a book of Bible stories, not a "Bible".) Does the RPW apply to every Christian book?



Scott Bushey said:


> A map is a generalization; a diagram or the ark would be specific.



Why does that matter?



Scott Bushey said:


> The bible is God's word. God's word never contained pictures-and for good reason. A book on archaeology is not religious.



So if I have my Bible open to read it while I am simultaneously consulting a book on biblical archaeology, that's fine. But if those same pictures are bound in the same volume as the words of Scripture, we've crossed a line? Is it only "religious use" when the images are in the Bible?

Imagine that, while reading the Bible I encounter the word "ox". "Hmm," I say to myself. "I don't really know what an ox looks like." Am I allowed to search the internet for a picture of one? Would that be "religious use"? Or is the only problem when that ox (or altar, or ephod, or whatever) is pictured in a Bible?

And what about BibleHub and other similar websites? They often have advertisements next to Scripture. Does that mean we can't use those websites?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Jul 8, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> God commanding a thing and the creature responding is not one and the same with man taking it upon himself to indulge his mind.



I agree.

The images in the temple were commanded by God as part of Israel's worship. Not that they were to worship those images, but that they were to make use of them in some sense, according to God's commands.

And images are not in themselves bad. Art is not forbidden. But worship is different. Man is not permitted to worship as he pleases, making images after his own fancies.

What I've been saying about illustrations in Bibles is a different point. I'm saying that images in Bibles (ie. the ark, diagrams of the temples, as well as maps) are not worship.

I will say again that, as a matter of preference, I don't care for images in Bibles. But are all images necessarily sin? I'm not at all convinced of that.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 8, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> Does the RPW apply to every Christian book?



If the intent is to extrapolate on God's word, yes.

In regard to pictures of the Ark:


Tom Hart said:


> Why does that matter?



Most will see pictures of the ark to possess some level of holiness; hence, their response will most likely cause people to stumble. Consider the 'Holy land' and the Ark exhibit.

Your example of oxen:
I do not believe an oxen in itself would be seen as holding any holy connotation; however, if it were a picture of the priests sacrificing an oxen....



Tom Hart said:


> images in Bibles (ie. the ark, diagrams of the temples, as well as maps) are not worship.



There aren't any images in the bible.....Do the original autographs have images?


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 8, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> If the intent is to extrapolate on God's word, yes.
> 
> In regard to pictures of the Ark:
> 
> ...


1. So if I use the Sammy Shepard book, which is a fictional story about a sheep and a good Shepard..... (it has many pictures of sheep and a Shepard not meant to depict Christ) to teach my children how Christ acts as our shepard and teach them the scriptures that show this.....you would see this as sin?

2. If I teach my kids the passage of scripture that deals with a fig tree, And then I take them into my backyard and show them what a fig tree looks like (noting we are not worshipping the tree)...It seems your logic what Call this sin. Is that correct?

3. What Sunday school literature do you use for kids in your church?

4. Do you think the logical conclusions of your post would mean that much of the kids literature published by GCP (publishing arm of OPC and PCA) is disobedient? They have images to help teach the Bible, but they do not use images of any member of the trinity (to my knowledge).


I think the logical conclusion of your view may be taking the RPW beyond it’s intent (at least as I understand it to deal with our corporate worship services).


----------



## Tom Hart (Jul 8, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> There aren't any images in the bible.....Do the original autographs have images?



No, they don't, as you've already established, and which I fully agree with.

It seems to me you are saying something to the effect of "Bibles shouldn't have any images (well, maps are OK) because the Bible has never had images (but maps are OK)."

Most of my questions have not been answered. I apologize if they seem tedious, but I really do wish to grapple with the applications of what you're saying.


----------



## Tom Hart (Jul 8, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> If the intent is to extrapolate on God's word, yes.



Are you saying that under no circumstances may we view images of anything mentioned in the Bible?


----------



## Tom Hart (Jul 8, 2018)

Grant.Jones said:


> 1. So if I use the Sammy Shepard book, which is a fictional story about a sheep and a good Shepard..... (it has many pictures of sheep and a Shepard not meant to depict Christ) to teach my children how Christ acts as our shepard and teach them the scriptures that show this.....you would see this as sin?
> 
> 2. If I teach my kids the passage of scripture that deals with a fig tree, And then I take them into my backyard and show them what a fig tree looks like (noting we are not worshipping the tree)...It seems your logic what Call this sin. Is that correct?
> 
> ...



Good questions.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## augustacarguy (Jul 8, 2018)

I think it depends upon the illumination used: candles or stage lighting. [emoji85]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 8, 2018)

Grant.Jones said:


> 1. So if I use the Sammy Shepard book, which is a fictional story about a sheep and a good Shepard..... (it has many pictures of sheep and a Shepard not meant to depict Christ) to teach my children how Christ acts as our shepard and teach them the scriptures that show this.....you would see this as sin?



From the author:
"In _Sammy and His Shepherd_, veteran children’s writer Susan Hunt takes youngsters on a delightful trip through Psalm 23 from the point of view of a sheep named Sammy."

Obviously, a child may not be familiar w/ the relationship at first. However, a parent reading this tale would intend to extrapolate that Christ is the real shepherd of the sheep, in the final teaching.

The author goes on:
"Each chapter of _Sammy and His Shepherd_ is an exploration of a passage from Psalm 23. As they work through the book, children will grow in their understanding of the metaphors the psalmist used in composing this beloved poem. But more important, they will gain a deeper appreciation for the one who is the subject of the psalm: the Good Shepherd, Jesus Christ. Captivating illustrations by Corey Godbey help Sammy and Precious come to life for children. A special section in the back of the book provides Bible passages, discussion questions, and activities to reinforce the lessons of each chapter."

Having said the above, as mentioned earlier, why do we need books like this?



> 2. If I teach my kids the passage of scripture that deals with a fig tree, And then I take them into my backyard and show them what a fig tree looks like (noting we are not worshipping the tree)...It seems your logic what Call this sin. Is that correct?



I don't believe the fig tree example would be an issue for me.



> 3. What Sunday school literature do you use for kids in your church?



I am in a PCA church. As u know, they are quite liberal; in my opinion, the bible is sufficient alone.



> 4. Do you think the logical conclusions of your post would mean that much of the kids literature published by GCP (publishing arm of OPC and PCA) is disobedient?



I would say so, yes. Much of this is rooted in the idea that the HS needs special help aids when it comes to children-to which, I disagree.



> I think the logical conclusion of your view may be taking the RPW beyond it’s intent (at least as I understand it to deal with our corporate worship services).



The RPW covers more than just corporate worship. Private, prayer and family are included.


----------



## Gforce9 (Jul 8, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> I would say so, yes. Much of this is rooted in the idea that the HS needs special help aids when it comes to children-to which, I disagree.



This is an important point. While no one would come out and admit this (that God needs "help") directly, I would like to hear various publisher's answer to this. What did our forefathers do without pictures before the printing press and animation? They must have been less enlightened than we.....oh, wait.....


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 8, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> From the author:
> "In _Sammy and His Shepherd_, veteran children’s writer Susan Hunt takes youngsters on a delightful trip through Psalm 23 from the point of view of a sheep named Sammy."
> 
> Obviously, a child may not be familiar w/ the relationship at first. However, a parent reading this tale would intend to extrapolate that Christ is the real shepherd of the sheep, in the final teaching.
> ...





Gforce9 said:


> This is an important point. While no one would come out and admit this (that God needs "help") directly, I would like to hear various publisher's answer to this. What did our forefathers do without pictures before the printing press and animation? They must have been less enlightened than we.....oh, wait.....


Wow.

I am very thankful for the printing press. I guess all gospel materials that exclude images of the Godhead but are printed with images of trees, swords, fish, and sunrises are sinful. Scott, I think you and i would just disagree on the picture deal, which is fine by me. Thanks for sharing.

I use the picture books (without Godhead images) outside of our public worship gathering, because scripture does not stand against ALL images. The HS does not need our help, we need his in all things. They have been a tremendous aid to me in teaching my 18 month old and 4-year old. When I read them scripture that discusses swords, sheep, bulls, and goats I feel occasionally showing them a corresponding picture helps them. We do not worship the image nor call the image our God, it helps them better understand the words I read to the kids. I do not think the Holy Spirit needs my help and I doubt any truly reformed believe that. The logic is still inconsistent maps are images.

And also I am guessing that before the printing press people still drew images. Printing press was used to make copies not originals (the plates).


----------



## Tom Hart (Jul 8, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> [W]hy do we need books like this?



I take it you'd be opposed to a book such as _The Pilgrim's Progress_, and especially an edition with illustrations. (But a map of the route to the Celestial City would be fine.)

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Myson (Jul 9, 2018)

I don't think the issue is that of "need." Do we "need" such books? No! The Bible is sufficient. The larger question is, "Are such books prohibited?" I think that's a much harder case to make.


----------

