# WLC Question 109?



## earl40 (Oct 14, 2013)

Below is the relevant portion of Q.109 highlighted below for to the following question. I am asking where from scripture do we get "inwardly in our mind" from the proof listed?

Q 109....tolerating a false religion; 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;[534]

Proof......[534] Deuteronomy 4:15-19. 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 on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth: And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 14, 2013)

Good and necessary consequence. Christ makes it clear that the sixth and seventh commandment reaches to the heart (the mind); therefore so the others. “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matt. 5:28). Likewise before we can make a physical idol we do so in our mind first. This is one of the proof texts for the second of the 8 rules for rightly understanding the ten commandments given in LC 99. “2. That it [the law of God] is spiritual, and so reacheth the understanding, will, affections, and all other powers of the soul; as well as words, works, and gestures (Romans 7:14; Deuteronomy 6:5; Matthew 22:37–39; Matthew 5:21–22, 27–28, 33–34, 37–39, 43–44.)


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 14, 2013)

N.B. The proof text from Romans 1 also brings in the concept of the imagination.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 14, 2013)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Good and necessary consequence. Christ makes it clear that the sixth and seventh commandment reaches to the heart (the mind); therefore so the others. “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matt. 5:28). Likewise before we can make a physical idol we do so in our mind first. This is one of the proof texts for the second of the 8 rules for rightly understanding the ten commandments given in LC 99. “2. That it [the law of God] is spiritual, and so reacheth the understanding, will, affections, and all other powers of the soul; as well as words, works, and gestures (Romans 7:14; Deuteronomy 6:5; Matthew 22:37–39; Matthew 5:21–22, 27–28, 33–34, 37–39, 43–44.)



I can see and understand what you are saying but as Rich said...

"2. *Let's assume that it is not possible for some to avoid forming a mental image of Christ. Let's even assume none can.* Is that really an argument? In other words, if, in my flesh, I find it impossible to fulfill the Law does that set the norm for the Law itself? I offer that we never question whether the other Commandments set impossibly high bars but, for some reason, find the notion that we could possibly break the 2nd Commandment an intolerable notion.

In other words, the argument for the impossibility of one of the Commandments is not, *in itself, an argument for its validity.*

Now if it is a "logical a good inference" that one cannot avoid having some kind of image of Jesus as decribed in scripture (this I assert) it follows we SHOULD be able to resist such sin as scripture says we are able to not do by His grace.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 14, 2013)

NaphtaliPress said:


> N.B. The proof text from Romans 1 also brings in the concept of the imagination.



Romans 1 is speaking of those that do not have faith as the word "them" is used.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 14, 2013)

Rich made that argument and he can answer it if he likes. I know people that don't think with such pictures or in the specific case of Christ, with effort trained themselves not to do so. So either they are lying or it is not impossible.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 14, 2013)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Rich made that argument and he can answer it if he likes. I know people that don't think with such pictures or in the specific case of Christ, with effort trained themselves not to do so. So either they are lying or it is not impossible.



I would say they are not lying on purpose though I will say if they read the multiple passages in scripture describing an image of God I am saying they are being untruthful if they say they do not "imagine" Jesus as a man. We all can imagine a generic image of the difference between a man and a woman and I assert we all do such, in our mind. Now I do not want to insinuate I am advocating people should go and paint a picture of Jesus because I agree no one knows what He looked like _today_. Though the apostles did most certainly did such, and I would have a problem thinking they sinned when they thought back to the images of Our Lord. This is exactly what one must do (sin) if one insists the commandments command. 

I find the idea of mans natural inclination to imagine Jesus as a man as being an issue of concupiscence.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Oct 14, 2013)

earl40 said:


> 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;[534]



Earl:

The WLC forbids us "making any representation of God...either inwardly...or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever." Thus, we are forbidden from "making" a representation of God in the image or likeness of any creature. This means when I come to prayer--secretly (whether in dedicated devotional time or ejaculatory prayer), privately, or publicly--I do not seek to make an image of God in my mind to which my address is made. 

Might some vague sense of an image come in and out of my consciousness when I am engaged in such prayer? Certainly, but that's not the same thing as "making" such an image in my mind. Furthermore, I would agree with Chris that one may be trained, or train oneself, to not make such images and to address none of the persons of the Godhead employing, and seeking to employ, such imagery.

But the point of the WLC answer is that we are not to manufacture such idols internally or externally. Intentionality is in view here and we do not need to turn this into something that seems unreasonable. We are to seek to address the Father, through the Son, in and by the Spirit without imagery. If we've been so enculturated as to find this impossible without imagery, we may confess this to the Lord and seek the aid of Him who is most merciful and longsuffering.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 14, 2013)

Thanks Alan; I would repeat what I have said on the other thread, that the Westminster divines are not addressing how we think, nor did that enter into how they determined this particular truth. No doubt it offers more challenges to some than to others due to differing factors. I don't think the two men I mentioned are either lying or mistaken in either case. I believed the one when he said he trained himself not to do this; and the other in basically saying his mind simply didn't work that way when he read scripture.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 14, 2013)

earl40 said:


> "2. Let's assume that it is not possible for some to avoid forming a mental image of Christ. Let's even assume none can. Is that really an argument? In other words, if, in my flesh, I find it impossible to fulfill the Law does that set the norm for the Law itself? I offer that we never question whether the other Commandments set impossibly high bars but, for some reason, find the notion that we could possibly break the 2nd Commandment an intolerable notion.
> 
> In other words, the argument for the impossibility of one of the Commandments is not, in itself, an argument for its validity.



I don't have time to spend on this topic other than to ensure my argument is being used properly.

My argument was to point out that the Law's validity cannot be measure on the flesh's ability to keep its command. Any argument that stems from the "I can't keep this particular command, therefore God has not commanded it" is, in itself, no argument at all. It would be like saying: "I find it impossible to avoid looking at a woman with lust in my heart, therefore the Law does not condemn this as adultery."

Paul warns us, in Galatians 6, that we're to look into the mirror of the Law to rightly judge matters and not our own standards. 



Earl said:


> Now if it is a "logical a good inference" that one cannot avoid having some kind of image of Jesus as decribed in scripture (this I assert) it follows we SHOULD be able to resist such sin as scripture says we are able to not do by His grace.


I really don't understand this. If you are asserting that one cannot avoid a mental image of Christ then a bare assertion is not derived from any passage of Scripture that I'm aware of. I can testify that I'm not even tempted to think of any image of a man when I pray or even when I read the Scriptures. I am tempted in many other ways but it might just be a lack of some imaginative faculty that others have. I'm idolatrous in many other ways at times but imagining a person when I pray to Christ is not typically among my many other faults.

Now, to the second part. I was careful to note that one cannot argue for the invalidity of a Commandment based on the power of the _flesh_. I was using that in the same way Paul does to refer to the powers and principalities of this age (aka "fallenness"). Christ has set us free from the enslaving power of this age and we, by His Spirit, may resist sin. Thus, as has been pointed out, if one is tempted to use mental images every time he prays then the Spirit can sanctify such a person.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Oct 14, 2013)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Thanks Alan; I would repeat what I have said on the other thread, that the Westminster divines are not addressing how we think, nor did that enter into how they determined this particular truth. No doubt it offers more challenges to some than to others due to differing factors. I don't think the two men I mentioned are either lying or mistaken in either case. I believed the one when he said he trained himself not to do this; and the other in basically saying his mind simply didn't work that way when he read scripture.



I agree entirely, Chris, with all that you say here. I don't think that the men are lying or mistaken, either, brother.

I have so many faults and weaknesses that I am always amazed, and blessed, to be among the company of the Redeemed and ever marvel that He should love me so. I am thankful to say that the propensity to or desire for imagery, either internally or externally, is not among my countless faults. I am thankful to have been brought up by parents who abominated such and taught us to do the same. So, I was trained that way and God in His mercy has preserved me in that. But with respect to so many other things, particularly monstrous self-centeredness, I can only join the great apostle in confessing my need to die daily.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 14, 2013)

Thanks Alan. I find the "all about me" urge to be a plague even when I am looking to or at least know I need to avoid it. Sadly, I only confronted the images issue fresh out of college when it was first brought to my attention. I did have the benefit of being subsequently many years in a congregation that took a strong stance on the issue.


Alan D. Strange said:


> But with respect to so many other things, particularly monstrous self-centeredness, I can only join the great apostle in confessing my need to die daily.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 14, 2013)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Earl:
> 
> The WLC forbids us "making any representation of God...either inwardly...or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever." Thus, we are forbidden from "making" a representation of God in the image or likeness of any creature. This means when I come to prayer--secretly (whether in dedicated devotional time or ejaculatory prayer), privately, or publicly--I do not seek to make an image of God in my mind to which my address is made.
> 
> ...



This is a good post that differentiates, in bold above, the difference between "making" an image of Jesus and having an image "pop" in ones mind, which I was reading as distinction without a difference in Q. 109. (my mistake) For as Rich pointed out the apostles no doubt recollected what Jesus looked like, and did not have to conjure up or make up what He looks like since they saw Him in person. I can see where they were not sinning when they recollected His face in their memories. Now when I read "feet of bronze" in Revaluation I shall not feel it is sin if I imagine bronze feet as it pops in my mind.


----------



## sevenzedek (Oct 14, 2013)

Alan D. Strange said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > 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;[534]
> ...



I am so glad you posted this.

I know you clarified your position regarding LC109, but I would like to express what I think to be inconsistencies. Maybe you, or someone, could help me come to your understanding on the matter.

What about the disciples who saw Jesus in the flesh and then remembered him at a later time, or had a dream with him in it? If we go by the limited definition of the LC109, they would be sinning.

Or, what if we read of Jesus in the scriptures, as we normally do, and come across a verse that talks about his hands or face? Are we to not form any stereotypical image of his hands whatsoever?

Where do we draw the line here? I have often thought of the images that form in my mind, albeit far removed from the reality of what Jesus actually looked like before the cross, as passive stereotypical images to which, of course, I do not bow.

To say that we are forbidden to form anything at all concerning his bodily form when we run across them in the word seems to go against a necessary conceptualization of the Scriptures and therefore seems not only inconsistent, but impossible and unnecessary. How does anyone know what a hand is in the first place? And when I read of Jesus having hands I think, "Oh, one like mine with five fingers like mine."

Am I making myself clear?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 14, 2013)

I have watched the previous thread, and this one, with interest, as I must confess some confusion or ignorance in the matter.

This has been a guiding principle for me:
*2 Corinthians 5:16* Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.​ 
There are 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] commandment violations all around with regard to pictures of Jesus, but they – the pictures – are rendered vain falsehoods in light of the verse above, for it is impossible to know Christ after the flesh (though the men of His time once did, Paul says), as “in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Col 2:9), and this cannot be conceived in any manner by us.

Now when the Scriptures – upon which we are to meditate day and night – clearly and explicitly portray Christ as here: “And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water” (Matt 3:16), the Spirit of God _means_ me to envision Him going up out of the water and onto the bank – and this is not something *I* make as a representation, but the Spirit – and so it is with such accounts of His life and activities throughout the Gospels. I do not presume to envision His face, for this is _not_ depicted, but His bodily form _is_ according to the design of the Author of the Book.

Now, by command (2 Cor 5:16), I do not “mak[e] any representation” (WLC Q&A 109) of the God to whom I pray, save what God Himself has deigned to depict for us; thus when I praise or petition my Lord I know I am before the throne of God, upon which Jesus is seated (Rev 3:21; Heb 4:14-16), and by whom I may approach the Father – yet I do not seek to envision Him thus seated, but simply know He is there at the throne of grace. Were I to seek to envision Him (it is enough to know He is there), it would be to the diminishment of my _spiritual_ apprehension of Him, if so be He grant me to have a sense of His presence.

When He has said, as in Psalm 27:8, “Seek ye my face”, with David I may say, “my heart said unto Thee, Thy face, LORD, will I seek.” Yet this is not to be understood as “envisioning” His face, but knowing that His face is attentive to sincere suppliants, and that He may “make His face shine upon” me (Numbers 6:25) and grant me a sense of His pleasure in me.

I have written this to clarify for myself how it is with me and my Lord. If I err in this I would appreciate being corrected.


----------



## sevenzedek (Oct 14, 2013)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I have watched the previous thread, and this one, with interest, as I must confess some confusion or ignorance in the matter.
> 
> This has been a guiding principle for me:
> *2 Corinthians 5:16* Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.​
> ...



This is really what I have been driving at this whole time; both in this thread and the other. The inconsistencies I thought I was observing had much to do with how nobody was apparently willing to concede to what you have just now; hence the smirky comments that betrayed the conviction that someone just had to "come off it" at some point.

While I also envision Christ as the word directs me, I find pictorial depictions of him both offensive and utterly ridiculous. Furthermore, I do my best to refrain from any ideas concerning his appearance where the word is silent. Even when I do as the word directs me, I do not worship toward those images and stereotypes of the savior of whom I read. His form takes another shape; the form of love, severity, meekness, and so on. While I believe our standards leave room for this view, it doesn't explicitly delineate it.

Thanks, Steve. I am also with you in that I am willing to be corrected.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 15, 2013)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Now, by command (2 Cor 5:16), I do not “mak[e] any representation” (WLC Q&A 109) of the God to whom I pray, save what God Himself has deigned to depict for us;



Now this one line sums it up with excellence!


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Oct 15, 2013)

Quite right, Earl, at #17, above.

I frankly don't see your confusion, Jon. Surely you don't think that the divines failed to take into account things that you and I can easily observe: God, of old, made representations of Himself in the tabernacle and temple and the disciples saw our Lord in the flesh. None of that, obviously, has to do with our making mental or physical representations of God: it has to do with God revealing Himself, which He does not only specially but generally.

We know that the divines understood all of that--made clear in other places in the Standards--so that whatever is being said here is qualified both in its immediate and broader context by forbidding us from making *our own* inner or outer representations of any of the members of the Godhead. Just like the RPW: we do in worship what He's ordained--we don't add elements; similarly, we stick with whatever representations He's given us (think of water, bread, and wine) and do not add to this. Maybe I'm even more unimaginative than Rich claims to be but I don't see what's difficult about the concept (practice is always a challenge). 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## sevenzedek (Oct 15, 2013)

I am very satisfied with how this conversation has progressed. Thank you, everyone.


----------

