# The Reformers Against Religious Inventions for Cultural Reasons



## Afterthought (Mar 31, 2014)

The other thread on Calvin and the Second Commandment reminded me of a claim I hear every now and then. It is said that Calvin and the Reformers threw out images in churches, instruments, holy days, and all other remnants of the Roman Church because they were trying not to look like them. Hence, since there is no such extreme need to distinguish the Protestant from the Romanist church, those who hold to Reformation principles can re-incorporate the religious inventions that were thrown out back then. 

Most recently, I heard this claim made with respect to religious images, and it is probably the least controversial on the board, so let's focus the thread on that topic. Did Calvin and the rest of the Reformers throw out religious images, especially in the place where they met for public worship, merely to distinguish themselves from the Church of Rome? From the little I have read of Calvin and the rest, the answer seems to be an obvious, "no," but there is plenty I haven't read on them, so there's a possibility they said something in some other place. If the claim is true, what is the proof? If the claim is not true, where did this "Calvin tale" get started and who spreads it about?


----------



## Free Christian (Apr 13, 2014)

Hello Raymond, I missed this thread and just saw it now. I was actually discussing the topic of images with a Pastor today. I did once hear the claim that Calvin wanted to distance himself from the church of Rome for various reasons but cannot remember exactly where. It is a worry these days that much of what was rightfully rejected is now being re embraced. Especially images! The now "oh well, its not a problem really" attitude (not aimed at anyone here as this is a topic which I will always fight and for years have) amazes me. It too greatly saddens me how many children's Bibles (again not a recent issue with myself) contain these so called images of Jesus. To not mince words, these images are nothing short of evil. To give children Bibles which contain these images is 100% wrong. It sets them up to accept them also as adults and associate this disrespectful image with our Glorious Saviour. That the "image" is so used and accepted these days shows serious problems with modern day Christians. Why this particular commandment is so neglected I cannot understand. Imagine the outrage if the others were so blatantly disregarded? Say, sites or literature from Christians promoting murder, adultery, Sabbath breaking and so on? The commandment against images is just as needed to be observed as the others but is now not so. I often ask "give me 1 good Biblical reason, based on scripture proof, why images of our Lord are acceptable?"


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 13, 2014)

Afterthought said:


> It is said that Calvin and the Reformers threw out images in churches, instruments, holy days, and all other remnants of the Roman Church because they were trying not to look like them. Hence, since there is no such extreme need to distinguish the Protestant from the Romanist church, those who hold to Reformation principles can re-incorporate the religious inventions that were thrown out back then.



Basically this argument assumes that the Reformers were mindless reactionaries, who were motivated by a desire to avoid anything that might suggest commonality with Rome on any issue. Only a person who is entirely unfamiliar with their writings could make such an accusation. If the Reformers were just reacting against Rome, then why did they retain Trinitarianism and infant baptism? After all, Rome believes in the Trinity and infant baptism. If the Reformers were simply reactionaries, then they should have abandoned these dogmas as well.


----------



## Wayne (Apr 13, 2014)

Ray: 

See if you can find a copy of _War Against the Idols_ by Carlos M. N. Eire. Perhaps the single best historical treatment of this subject.

I'd suggest placing an interlibrary loan request for it at your local library.
Then if you like the book well enough, you might find a copy to purchase on the used market -- abebooks.com or addall.com


----------



## earl40 (Apr 13, 2014)

Free Christian said:


> I often ask "give me 1 good Biblical reason, based on scripture proof, why images of our Lord are acceptable?"



Here is a reason many think is a good biblical reason. “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.” Here we have Our Lord telling Thomas to touch a physical risen body and Thomas no doubt recounted with "images" in His mind of this event. Was that sin or is it sin to imagine holes in the hands and side of Our Lord?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Apr 13, 2014)

This needs repeated ad naseum it seems but it is not sin for Thomas because he has the true image of the Lord Jesus. Our "mental images" are necessarily false.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 13, 2014)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> This needs repeated ad naseum it seems but it is not sin for Thomas because he has the true image of the Lord Jesus. Our "mental images" are necessarily false.



I understand, though did you imagine any image of holes in hands or the side of a man ,now or ever, when you read this?


----------



## Afterthought (Apr 14, 2014)

Thanks all! I had completely forgotten about this thread, so thanks to Brett for bumping it! 



Wayne said:


> See if you can find a copy of War Against the Idols by Carlos M. N. Eire. Perhaps the single best historical treatment of this subject.


Do you happen to recall whether it goes over the origins of the "cultural" understanding of Calvin and the rest of the Reformers?



earl40 said:


> I understand, though did you imagine any image of holes in hands or the side of a man ,now or ever, when you read this?


I don't want my thread to be derailed (you already created a locked thread on this topic anyway....), so I just want to say, this addition to your previous argument makes it no longer a biblical argument. It more nearly falls into a psychological or philosophical argument. That we have either committed something or have difficulty in refraining from something does not mean that particular something is not sin.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Apr 14, 2014)

earl40 said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > This needs repeated ad naseum it seems but it is not sin for Thomas because he has the true image of the Lord Jesus. Our "mental images" are necessarily false.
> ...



My sinful mind is no more an authorization for violating the 2nd than it is the 7th, 8th, or 10th.


----------



## Dearly Bought (Apr 14, 2014)

Someone needs to republish Erskine's Faith No Fancy.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 15, 2014)

earl40 said:


> Free Christian said:
> 
> 
> > I often ask "give me 1 good Biblical reason, based on scripture proof, why images of our Lord are acceptable?"
> ...



The resurrected Jesus was hypostatically present to his disciples. A picture of (usually) Viking Jesus is not. This is the death-knell to EO and RCC.


----------



## Free Christian (Apr 15, 2014)

earl40 said:


> I understand, though did you imagine any image of holes in hands or the side of a man ,now or ever, when you read this?


Hello Earl. It is one thing to imagine holes in Christs hands but another thing, and wrong, to put a face to it and then construct one either in actual picture form or graven image.


----------

