# Reformed Iconoclasm



## Hamalas (Apr 20, 2014)

I came across this article today on the Aquila Report: A Response: Did The Reformer addressing the question of whether or not all of the Reformers were iconoclastic in the same way. I'm puzzled by his use of the quotation of Calvin from _Institutes_ 1.11.12. After looking up the section he quoted I don't see how Calvin was saying he was okay with historical representations of Christ. Am I missing something? To me it looks like Calvin is simply talking about art which has history as its subject _in general_ and not specifically endorsing "historical representations of Christ". What do y'all think?


----------



## Ephrata (Apr 20, 2014)

Josh, excellent call, and truly spoken:



> 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. Therefore, to devise any image of God, is in itself impious; because by this corruption His Majesty is adulterated, and He is figured to be other than He is. There is no need of refuting the foolish fancy of some, that all sculptures and pictures are here condemned by Moses, for he had no other object than to rescue God’s glory from all the imaginations which tend to corrupt it. And assuredly it is a most gross indecency to make God like a stock or a stone. Some expound the words, “Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven image, which thou mayest adore;” as if it were allowable to make a visible image of God, provided it be not adored; but the expositions which will follow [note: this is the intro to his exposition of the Second Commandment] will easily refute their error. Meanwhile, I do not deny that these things are to be taken connectedly, since superstitious worship is hardly ever separated from the preceding error; for as soon as any one has permitted himself to devise an image of God, he immediately falls into false worship. And surely whosoever reverently and soberly feels and thinks about God Himself, is far from this absurdity; nor does any desire or presumption to metamorphose God ever creep in, except when coarse and carnal imaginations occupy our minds. Hence it comes to pass, that those, who frame for themselves gods of corruptible materials, superstitiously adore the work of their own hands. I will then readily allow these two things, which are inseparable, to be joined together; only let us recollect that God is insulted, not only when His worship is transferred to idols, but when we try to represent Him by any outward similitude.



-Calvin, _Harmony of the Law_ Part II, Intro on the Second Commandment; "No Images"

That seems pretty clear. Calvin may have been endorsing depictions of other Biblical events (particularly helpful to illiterate people at the time) for educational purposes, within the church.

[You can read the rest here, if you like.]


----------



## Phil D. (Apr 20, 2014)

From link:

But none of the major Reformers promoted or approved this activity [destroying images in churches]. In fact, as documented above, they did not disapprove of all images of Jesus.​
Hmmm... apparently Calvin was not a major reformer:

The Papists . . . paint and portray ‘Jesus Christ’ – Who (as we know) is not only man but also God manifested in the flesh. He is God’s eternal Son, in Whom the fullness of the Godhead dwells – yes, even substantially . . . Should we have portraitures and images, whereby only the flesh may be represented? Is it not a wiping away of that which is chiefest in our Lord Jesus Christ – that is, to wit, of His Divine Majesty? Yes! (John Calvin, Sermons on Deuteronomy, 138)​


----------



## Hamalas (Apr 20, 2014)

Thanks Josh, Tori, and Phil! It's good to know I'm not going crazy. This kind of scholarship (if it can be called that) is just sad. I wish those that opposed the historically Reformed and confessional position would just have the courage to admit that that is what they are doing.


----------



## Free Christian (Apr 20, 2014)

I believe the Bible says they are wrong!


----------



## Ryan J. Ross (Apr 20, 2014)

Ben,

http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/2nd-commandment-images-Christ-calvin-82806/#post1040043


----------



## Afterthought (Apr 21, 2014)

Hamalas said:


> To me it looks like Calvin is simply talking about art which has history as its subject in general and not specifically endorsing "historical representations of Christ".


That's what I've understood him to say.



Ephrata said:


> Calvin may have been endorsing depictions of other Biblical events (*particularly helpful to illiterate people at the time*) for educational purposes, within the church.


I'm not sure the bold is actually the case, but that is off topic. On topic, it seems to me the bold is not what Calvin had in mind with his comment on historical images, but I would appreciate correction from any of the board members. Care must be taken here. He seems to be against images for teaching the knowledge of God (i.e., using them to teach people like one would use the Scriptures to teach people) and against the use of images within the church, lest people be tempted to worse things. I'm not sure whether he would be fine with historical images for teaching, not the knowledge of God, but for teaching about the historical times in which the Bible was written, provided it was not within the context of the church. It may be that on this last point is where people make an inappropriate application of Calvin's thought and argue that Calvin would be fine with images of Christ; when in actuality, from other places, that is clearly an universal exception in his thoughts on historical images.



I don't have time to go through a more convincing analysis, but here are a few quotations from the Institutes. An analysis would be necessary though because Calvin's writing is somewhat complex in this section. He seamlessly goes from arguing his own position to arguing from a weaker form of his position to arguing from his opponent's position. Hence, simple quotation isn't enough to get at what he said because another person could quote from the same section to make it seem Calvin is arguing for something else.

"5. I am not ignorant, indeed, of the assertion, which is now more than threadbare, “that images are the books of the unlearned.” So said Gregory: but the Holy Spirit goes a very different decision; and had Gregory got his lesson in this matter in the Spirit’s school, he never would have spoken as he did. For when Jeremiah declares that “the stock is a doctrine of vanities,” (Jer. 10:8), and Habakkuk, “that the molten image” is “a teacher of lies,” the general doctrine to be inferred certainly is, that every thing respecting God which is learned from images is futile and false....

[T]he prophets utterly condemn what the Papists hold to be an undoubted axiom—viz. that images are substitutes for books. For they contrast images with the true God, as if the two were of an opposite nature, and never could be made to agree."

"7. Let Papists, then, if they have any sense of shame, henceforth desist from the futile plea, that images are the books of the unlearned—a plea so plainly refuted by innumerable passages of Scripture. And yet were I to admit the plea, it would not be a valid defence of their peculiar idols....Let Papists then have some little regard to decency in decking their idols, if they would give the least plausibility to the false allegation, that they are books of some kind of sanctity. But even then we shall answer, that this is not the method in which the Christian people should be taught in sacred places. Very different from these follies is the doctrine in which God would have them to be there instructed. His injunction is, that the doctrine common to all should there be set forth by the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments,—a doctrine to which little heed can be given by those whose eyes are carried too and fro gazing at idols.

And who are the unlearned, whose rudeness admits of being taught by images only? Just those whom the Lord acknowledges for his disciples; those whom he honours with a revelation of his celestial philosophy, and desires to be trained in the saving mysteries of his kingdom. I confess, indeed, as matters now are, there are not a few in the present day who cannot want such books. But, I ask, whence this stupidity, but just because they are defrauded of the only doctrine which was fit to instruct them?"

"12.... Visible representations are of two classes—viz. historical, which give a representation of events, and pictorial, which merely exhibit bodily shapes and figures. The former are of some use for instruction or admonition. The latter, so far as I can see, are only fitted for amusement. And yet it is certain, that the latter are almost the only kind which have hitherto been exhibited in churches. Hence we may infer, that the exhibition was not the result of judicious selection, but of a foolish and inconsiderate longing. I say nothing as to the improper and unbecoming form in which they are presented, or the wanton license in which sculptors and painters have here indulged (a point to which I alluded a little ago, supra, s. 7). I only say, that though they were otherwise faultless, they could not be of any utility in teaching.

13. But, without reference to the above distinction, let us here consider, whether it is expedient that churches should contain representations of any kind, whether of events or human forms. First, then, if we attach any weight to the authority of the ancient Church, let us remember, that for five hundred years, during which religion was in a more prosperous condition, and a purer doctrine flourished, Christian churches were completely free from visible representations (see Preface, and Book 4, c. 9 s. 9). Hence their first admission as an ornament to churches took place after the purity of the ministry had somewhat degenerated. I will not dispute as to the rationality of the grounds on which the first introduction of them proceeded, but if you compare the two periods, you will find that the latter had greatly declined from the purity of the times when images were unknown. What then? Are we to suppose that those holy fathers, if they had judged the thing to be useful and salutary, would have allowed the Church to be so long without it? Undoubtedly, because they saw very little or no advantage, and the greatest danger in it, they rather rejected it intentionally and on rational grounds, than omitted it through ignorance or carelessness....

And from the fearful infatuation under which the world has hitherto laboured, almost to the entire destruction of piety, we know too well from experience that the moment images appear in churches, idolatry has as it were raised its banner; because the folly of manhood cannot moderate itself, but forthwith falls away to superstitious worship. Even were the danger less imminent, still, when I consider the proper end for which churches are erected, it appears to me more unbecoming their sacredness than I well can tell, to admit any other images than those living symbols which the Lord has consecrated by his own word: I mean Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, with the other ceremonies. By these our eyes ought to be more steadily fixed, and more vividly impressed, than to require the aid of any images which the wit of man may devise. Such, then, is the incomparable blessing of images—a blessing, the want of which, if we believe the Papists, cannot possibly be compensated!"


----------



## a mere housewife (Apr 21, 2014)

Raymond, I thought of those sections reading the thread. I think you may be right that Calvin's comments about legitimate subjects for art would have been directed more to art as part of the flourishing of secular human culture, rather than a means of religious instruction? (I'm not personally opposed to flannel graph in Sunday School etc -- though I had a little girl in a former Sunday School class who would always look at the the picture of 'Abraham' and come up with something about 'George. George Washington'.)


----------



## earl40 (Apr 21, 2014)

> Carbockalooms, I say!




Your search - Carbockalooms - did not match any documents. 

Suggestions:

•Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
•Try different keywords.
•Try more general keywords.


----------



## Ephrata (Apr 21, 2014)

Afterthought said:


> Hamalas said:
> 
> 
> > To me it looks like Calvin is simply talking about art which has history as its subject in general and not specifically endorsing "historical representations of Christ".
> ...



I stand corrected- thanks for shedding light on that assumption! My projections were clearly based on counter-Reformation principles, which is not at all where they should have been. *sarcasm* Hurray for secular education! *sarcasm*


----------



## a mere housewife (Apr 21, 2014)

Tori, you are clearly well educated.


----------



## a mere housewife (Apr 21, 2014)

Joshua, you are clearly a level 3 in that language.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 21, 2014)

I would like to add it is not necessarily a lack of education that has many read the great writings of antiquity incorrectly, which include our scripture. We all have faulty presuppositions that skew our perception of some or much of God's truth.


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 21, 2014)

And, we apparently now have even further proof that a less than genuine reading of Calvin can be used to support any theological position.


----------



## Afterthought (Apr 21, 2014)

a mere housewife said:


> Raymond, I thought of those sections reading the thread. I think you may be right that Calvin's comments about legitimate subjects for art would have been directed more to art as part of the flourishing of secular human culture, rather than a means of religious instruction? (I'm not personally opposed to flannel graph in Sunday School etc -- though I had a little girl in a former Sunday School class who would always look at the the picture of 'Abraham' and come up with something about 'George. George Washington'.)


Thanks for the confirmation. (Your avatar change threw me for a bit; I wasn't sure who was responding!) And what a child that you mention!  I myself am not sure where I would personally land on flannel graphs. I don't "feel" something wrong about them, but since I wasn't raised to think anything of it, I don't exactly trust my moral intuition (?) in these matters yet. However, it does seem to me Calvin is correct concerning the general principle, although the application of that principle might not always be clear to myself. (And I agree. Tori strikes me as being very well educated!)



Ephrata said:


> I stand corrected- thanks for shedding light on that assumption! My projections were clearly based on counter-Reformation principles, which is not at all where they should have been. *sarcasm* Hurray for secular education! *sarcasm*


You're very welcome! And being a student at a secular university right now myself, I can personally appropriate and second your sarcastic "hurrah."


----------



## Hamalas (Apr 21, 2014)

There appears to be a renegade Texan verbally running rampant through my thread. If only there were moderators who would police this sort of thing. *glares at Josh in a menacing manner*


----------



## Free Christian (Apr 21, 2014)

earl40 said:


> I would like to add it is not necessarily and lack of education that has many read the great writings of antiquity incorrectly


What has always got me with some writings and writers from old up until our time is this.
God saw fit to give us His Word in a simple and easy to understand way. Ok some of the deeper lessons need to be learnt and for us to understand but the Bible is written or given to us in a way that even the less educated can read.
And yet some writers see it fit to explain the Bible in more lofty wording and ways than the actual Bible Itself is written in!
Its like, the Bible is given in a way that a school child could read and yet explained to us from some in ways that you need to be a college graduate scholar to understand. Like instead of saying Rainbow Trout which is the one everyone knows they will say Oncorhynchus Mykiss. So many great things are so out of reach to the everyday lower educated.


----------



## a mere housewife (Apr 21, 2014)

Afterthought said:


> And what a child that you mention!



I gave it a great deal of perplexed thought and decided that her instinct to look at an image in a long flowing beard and robe and say 'George' had something to do with confusing the 'Father of our Country' with the father of the faithful. She also routinely mis-answered the child's catechism question, 'What was Abel?' ('A keeper of sheep'). She always said 'the dust of the ground', the answer to a different question. I finally skipped that one one week and asked her instead, 'What did Cain do to Abel?' She said 'He tilled him.' :-D

Now I know the technical name for a Rainbow fish (though I will never remember, and its English name is rather wonderful).


----------



## Free Christian (Apr 22, 2014)

a mere housewife said:


> She said 'He tilled him.


  Yeah I have to admit the Mykiss bit to the name caught me by surprise when I first heard it. Suits them, they really are a beautiful fish.


----------

