Idolatry???

Status
Not open for further replies.

SIXDAYZ

Puritan Board Freshman
Am I sinning by having an artistic rendition of the glorified Christ as my avatar? I am an artist... and I have pictures of Jesus all over my home. I don't worship them, nor do I bow down, or give them any more significance than that of a "piece of art". My family - even my three year old understands the difference between a painting, and the real thing.

I have looked at a couple of threads on the PB, and it seems that some brothers here think that it is a violation of the 2nd commandment... I don't see how this is contextually possible, seeing as that commandment is specifically speaking to the worship of idols.

I guess I don't see how someone can make the jump from "painting of Jesus" to "idolatry"...

It seems as if it is normative, and encouraged to lift-up or "exalt" godly men of the past... and yet, when I use a picture of the God-Man, I get blasted... and accused of idolatry. What gives?

Thanks,
Matt
 
Didn't God take the form of a Man??? He must have thought that it was Ok to create an image for Himself...

I'm guessing that those who object to this... also object to movies with Christ in them? I just do not see the problem - am I just completely ignorant?
 
Whether you are sinning or not, as an administrator of the board I need you to remove the picture because it violates the board (man-made) standards. These standards are generally in conformity with Reformed Confessions of the church, and those Confessions are fairly consistent when they say that any depiction of any of the 3 Persons constitutes a violation of the 2nd Commandment. You stated that you are in agreement with the Westminster Standards when you joined, which do clearly state this.

So your voluntary compliance is appreciated.
 
Didn't God take the form of a Man??? He must have thought that it was Ok to create an image for Himself...

I'm guessing that those who object to this... also object to movies with Christ in them? I just do not see the problem - am I just completely ignorant?


Right. God did take the form of a Man. And He made that image of Himself perfectly. We may NOT do so.

The person of Christ was the PERFECT representation of the invisible God, as Scripture teaches us. Christ was FULLY God and FULLY man. ANY representation we make fails from the outset to represent Him faithfully - since we cannot represent Him in His divine person. What we do is make paltry attempts to draw a man - but it is a mere man that we represent when we do so... and as such is a FALSE image - a LIE - a HALF-truth. Even if you do not "worship" the image, you still are representing Christ falsely, and running afoul of the command.
 
Didn't God take the form of a Man??? He must have thought that it was Ok to create an image for Himself...

I'm guessing that those who object to this... also object to movies with Christ in them? I just do not see the problem - am I just completely ignorant?


Right. God did take the form of a Man. And He made that image of Himself perfectly. We may NOT do so.

The person of Christ was the PERFECT representation of the invisible God, as Scripture teaches us. Christ was FULLY God and FULLY man. ANY representation we make fails from the outset to represent Him faithfully - since we cannot represent Him in His divine person. What we do is make paltry attempts to draw a man - but it is a mere man that we represent when we do so... and as such is a FALSE image - a LIE - a HALF-truth. Even if you do not "worship" the image, you still are representing Christ falsely, and running afoul of the command.
Todd, does well here by explanation. I used to be Rite 1 Anglican, Roman Catholic Educated, at one point, I would have defended you, Todd did well by pointing towards the fact that Christ was a perfect expression of the 2nd person of the Godhead. We do not have this. Thus an attempt to do so would be idolatry by definition. Grace and Peace.
 
Whether you are sinning or not, as an administrator of the board I need you to remove the picture because it violates the board (man-made) standards. These standards are generally in conformity with Reformed Confessions of the church, and those Confessions are fairly consistent when they say that any depiction of any of the 3 Persons constitutes a violation of the 2nd Commandment. You stated that you are in agreement with the Westminster Standards when you joined, which do clearly state this.

So your voluntary compliance is appreciated.

So... are the Confessions now above Scripture?

When you signed on the board, did you or did you not agree to uphold the confessional standards that we have collectively agreed to?

It's not a question of being above Scripture, any more than having a church that has membership requirements that are more restrictive than requiring a positive answer to the question "do you believe in Jesus?" is guilty of holding their membership standards above Scripture.

I am still waiting for someone to give an answer from Scripture. Is this not the kind of legalism that Christ rebuked the Pharisees for...

Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
"'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.'"


Nowhere in the New Testament does it tell us not to make art in the likeness of Christ... You guys don't get it... Art flows from your heart... and when Jesus fills your heart, the natural expression of this is to express it in our finite ways. How can you be offended by love for Christ??

Whether it says anything AT ALL in the New Testament is irrelevant, since it clearly prohibits images of God in the Old.

Or are you holding the New Testament above the Old?
 
Do we not read Exodus 20 in context, like the rest of scripture - or is that more important than the teachings of Christ? Exodus 20 (when read in context) is talking about idolatry!!! It's talking about FALSE GODS... Where do you make the connection to painting Christ, sculpting Christ???

The second commandment in context is not just condemning Idolatry, but also condemning the worship of God by the use of images. Not only can you not take a golden cow and say this is a god bow to it, but you cannot take a golden calf and say this your God Yahweh and bow to it. God is a spirit and will be worshipped in spirit and truth not by bowing to images meant to represent him, nor should an image of Him be made for purposes other than bowing to.

The 2nd person of the trinity is not a spirit, but fully Man and Fully God. So the question that is addressed is can we make an image of the Fully God Fully Man Jesus Christ. and this is the answer that is given by Todd.

Right. God did take the form of a Man. And He made that image of Himself perfectly. We may NOT do so.

The person of Christ was the PERFECT representation of the invisible God, as Scripture teaches us. Christ was FULLY God and FULLY man. ANY representation we make fails from the outset to represent Him faithfully - since we cannot represent Him in His divine person. What we do is make paltry attempts to draw a man - but it is a mere man that we represent when we do so... and as such is a FALSE image - a LIE - a HALF-truth. Even if you do not "worship" the image, you still are representing Christ falsely, and running afoul of the command.
 
Gentleman, let me be real clear about what Rich has already clearly stated. Accusations of being a Pharisee (or similar accusations) will not be tolerated. Brothers in Christ are able to disagree on issues but the tone will be civil and charitable. There are other ways to question the comments of fellow PB members without using inflammatory language. This is not a matter of censorship. If you believe a brothers position is wrong then argue it from scripture or plain reason but in a manner befitting a child of God.
 
Do we not read Exodus 20 in context, like the rest of scripture - or is that more important than the teachings of Christ? Exodus 20 (when read in context) is talking about idolatry!!! It's talking about FALSE GODS... Where do you make the connection to painting Christ, sculpting Christ???

The second commandment clearly states not to make any images of anything in heaven or on earth in connection with worship. Not just false gods.

I think you would need to find a positive command for the use of images in worship to fully convince me that it is acceptable.
:worms:
 
Here's an overwhelming amount of information to consider from a number of sources commenting on this particular issue (note their use of Scripture):

Westminster Larger Catechism

WLC 109 What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment? A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising,(1) counselling,(2) commanding,(3) using,(4) and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself;(5) tolerating a false religion;(6) 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;(7) all worshipping of it,(8) or God in it or by it;(9) the making of any representation of feigned deities,(10) and all worship of them, or service belonging to them;(11) all superstitious devices,(12) corrupting the worship of God,(13) adding to it, or taking from it,(14) whether invented and taken up of ourselves,(15) or received by tradition from others,(16) though under the title of antiquity,(17) custom,(18) devotion,(19) good intent, or any other pretence whatsoever;(20) simony;(21) sacrilege;(22) all neglect,(23) contempt,(24) hindering,(25) and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.(26)

(1)Numb. 15:39
(2)Deut. 13:6-8
(3)Hosea 5:11; Micah 6:16
(4)1 Kings 11:33; 1 Kings 12:33
(5)Deut 12:30-32
(6)Deut 13:6-12; Zech. 13:2,3; Rev. 2:2,14,15,20; Rev. 17:12,16,17
(7)Deut. 4:15-19; Acts 17:29; Rom. 1:21-23,25
(8)Dan. 3:18; Gal. 4:8
(9)Exod. 32:5
(10)Exod. 32:8
(11)1 Kings 18:26,28; Isa. 65:11
(12)Acts 17:22; Col. 2:21-23
(13)Mal. 1:7,8,14
(14)Deut. 4:2
(15)Ps. 106:39
(16)Matt. 15:9
(17)1 Pet. 1:18
(18)Jer. 44:17
(19)Isa. 65:3-5; Gal. 1:13,14
(20)1 Sam. 13:11,12; 1 Sam. 15:21
(21)Acts 8:18
(22)Rom. 2:22; Mal. 3:8
(23)Exod. 4:24-26
(24)Matt. 22:5; Mal. 1:7,13
(25)Matt. 23:13
(26)Acts 13:44,45; 1 Thess. 2:15,16

(1561) The Second Helvetic Confession - Chapter IV
Of Idols or Images of God, Christ and The Saints


Images of God. 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. He denied that he had come to abolish the law and the prophets (Matt. 5:17). But images are forbidden by the law and the prophets (Deut. 4:15; Isa. 44:9). He denied that his bodily presence would be profitable for the Church, and promised that he would be near us by his Spirit forever (John 16:7). Who, therefore, would believe that a shadow or likeness of his body would contribute any benefit to the pious? (II Cor. 5:5). Since he abides in us by his Spirit, we are therefore the temple of God (II Cor. 3:16). But what agreement has the temple of God with idols? (II Cor. 6:16).

(1674) Thomas Vincent, A Family Instructional Guide

"QUESTION 5: Is it not lawful to have images or pictures of God by us, so we do not worship them, nor God by them?
ANSWER: The images or pictures of God are an abomination, and utterly unlawful, because they debase God, and may be a cause of idolatrous worship.
QUESTION 6: Is it not lawful to have pictures of Jesus Christ, he being a man as well as God?
ANSWER: 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, A Family Instructional Guide]

(1679) John Owen, The Glory of Christ

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. But all these idols are teaches of lies. The true beauty and amiableness of the person of Christ, which is the formal object and cause of divine love, is so far from being represented herein, as that the mind is thereby wholly diverted from the contemplation of it. For no more can be so pictured unto us but what may belong unto a mere man, and what is arbitrarily referred unto Christ, not by faith, but by corrupt imagination.

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, which depends thereon, whence it is that God laid down his life for us, and purchased his church with his own blood? In these things, O vain man! does the loveliness of the person of Christ unto the souls of believers consist, and not in those strokes of art which fancy has guided a skilful hand and pencil unto. And what eye of flesh can discern the inhabitation of the Spirit in all fulness in the human nature? Can his condescension, his love, his grace, his power, his compassion, his offices, his fitness and ability to save sinners, be deciphered on a tablet, or engraven on wood or stone? However such pictures may be adorned, however beautified and enriched, they are not that Christ which the soul of the spouse does love;they are not any means of representing his love unto us, or of conveying our love unto him;they only divert the minds of superstitious persons from the Son of God, unto the embraces of a cloud, composed of fancy and imagination.

Others there are who abhor these idols, and when they have so done, commit sacrilege. As they reject images, so they seem to do all love unto the person of Christ, distinct from other acts of obedience, as a fond imagination. But the most superstitious love unto Christthat is, love acted in ways tainted with superstitionis better than none at all. But with what eyes do such persons read the Scriptures? With what hearts do they consider them? What do they conceive is the intention of the Holy Ghost in all those descriptions which he gives us of the person of Christ as amiable and desirable above all things, making wherewithal a proposal of him unto our affectionsinciting us to receive him by faith, and to cleave unto him in love? yea, to what end is our nature endued with this affectionunto what end is the power of it renewed in us by the sanctification of the Holy Spiritif it may not be fixed on this most proper and excellent object of it? This is the foundation of our love unto Christ namely, the revelation and proposal of him unto us in the Scripture as altogether lovely. The discovery that is made therein of the glorious excellencies and endowments of his personof his love, his goodness, and graceof his worth and workis that which engageth the affections of believers unto him. It may be said, that if there be such a proposal of him made unto all promiscuously, then all would equally discern his amiableness and be affected with it, who assent equally unto the truth of that revelation. But it has always fallen out otherwise. In the days of his flesh, some that looked on him could see neither “ form nor comeliness ” in him Therefore he should be desired; others saw his glory“ glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth ”. To some he is precious; unto others he is disallowed and rejecteda stone which the builders refused, when others brought it forth, crying, “ Grace, grace unto it ” as the head of the corner. Some can see nothing but weakness in him; unto others the wisdom and power of God do evidently shine forth in him. Therefore it must be said, that notwithstanding that open, plain representation that is made of him in the Scripture, unless the holy Spirit gives us eyes to discern it, and circumcise our hearts by the cutting off corrupt prejudices and all effects of unbelief, implanting in them, by the efficacy of his grace, this blessed affection of love unto him, all these things will make no impression on our minds.

As it was with the people on the giving of the law, notwithstanding all the great and mighty works which God had wrought among them, yet having not given them “ a heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear ”which he affirms that he had not done, Deut. 29: 4 ,they were not moved unto faith or obedience by them; so is it in the preaching of the gospel. Notwithstanding all the blessed revelation that is made of the excellencies of the person of Christ therein, yet those into whose hearts God does not shine to give the knowledge of his glory in his face, can discern nothing of it, nor are their hearts affected with it.

We do not, therefore, in these things, follow “ cunningly-devised fables. ” We do not indulge unto our own fancies and imaginations; they are not unaccountable raptures or ecstasies which are pretended unto, nor such an artificial conjoining of thoughts as some ignorant of these things do boast that they can give an account of.

Our love to Christ ariseth alone from the revelation that is made of him in the Scripture is ingenerated, regulated, measured, and is to be judged thereby.

(1753) Ebenezer Erskine and James Fisher, The Assembly's Shorter Catechism Explained, By Way of Question and Answer

Q. 9. May we not have a picture of Christ, who has a true body?
A. 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.
Q. 10. Why ought all pictures of Christ to be abominated by Christians?
A. Because they are downright lies, representing no more than the picture of a mere man: whereas, the true Christ is God-man; "Immanuel, God with us," 1 Tim. 3:16; Matt. 1:23.

(1949) J.G. Vos (son of Geerhardus Vos) Commentary on the Westminster Larger Catechism

2. Is it wrong to make paintings or pictures of our Savior 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. While pictures of Jesus are extremely common in the present day, we should realize that in Calvinistic circles this is a relatively modern development. Our forefathers at the time of the Reformation, and for perhaps 300 years afterward, scrupulously refrained, as a matter of principle, from sanctioning or making use of pictures of Jesus Christ. Such pictures are so common in the present day, and so few people have conscientious objections to them, that; it is practically impossible to obtain any Sabbath School helps or Bible story; material for children that is free of such pictures. The American Bible Society is to be commended for its decision that the figure of the Savior may not appear in Bible motion pictures issued by the Society.

3. What attitude should we adopt in view of the present popularity of pictures of Jesus Christ? The following considerations may be suggested as bearing on this question: (a) 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). (b) Inasmuch as the Bible presents no data about the personal appearance of our Savior, all artists' pictures of him are wholly imaginary and constitute only the artists' ideas of his character and appearance. (c) Unquestionably pictures of the Savior have been very greatly influenced by the theological viewpoint of the artist. The typical modem picture of Jesus is the product of nineteenth-century "Liberalism" and presents a "gentle Jesus" who emphasized only the love and Fatherhood of God and said little or nothing about sin, judgment, and eternal punishment. (d) Perhaps more people living today have derived their ideas of Jesus Christ from these typically "liberal" pictures of Jesus than have derived their ideas of Jesus from the Bible itself. Such people 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). (e) In dealing with an evil so widespread and almost universally accepted, we should bear a clear testimony against what we believe to be wrong, but we should not expect any sudden change in Christian sentiment on this question. It will require many years of education in scriptural principles before the churches and their members can be brought back to the high position of the Westminster Assembly on this question. Patience will be required.

4. Are not pictures of Jesus legitimate provided they are not worshiped or used as "aids to worship"? 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. Of course, there is a difference between using pictures of Jesus to illustrate children's Bible story books or lessons, and using pictures of Jesus in worship as Roman Catholics use them. Admittedly the former is not an evil in the same class with the latter. In spite of this distinction, however, there are good reasons for holding that our forefathers of the Reformation were right in opposing all pictorial representation of the Savior. We should realize that the popularity - even the almost unchallenged prevalence - of a particular practice does not prove that it is right. To prove that a practice is right we must show that it is in harmony with the commands and principles revealed in the Word of God. Merely showing that a practice is common, is useful, or seems to have good results does not prove it is right.

(1961) Pictures of Christ by Prof. John Murray

"Secondly, 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."

(1970) The Shorter Catechism For Study Classes by 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)...

There was a time when the Protestants recognized this evil. They saw the images in the Roman Catholic Church and they understood that this was a violation of the second commandment. They realized that this was wrong - this making of images and likenesses of Christ - even though the Roman Catholic Church was careful to say that it did not want people to worship these images, but only to worship the Lord through these images. But now, it seems, many Protestants have accepted the Roman Catholic position. They may not realize this. And they may still think, in their minds, that there is an important difference between a statue (image) and a picture (likeness). But the commandment recognizes no such difference. It forbids us to make any likeness, just as it forbids us to make any image, of the Lord.
 
Hi sixdayz, I can relate to what you are gong through. When I first joined, I had an avatar of r.c. Sproul as the pope. was asked to remove it. put up my present one. 2 things. we have to be men under authority. there are people wiser than me on the board. i disagreed, but complied anyway. which leads to 2. if we want to be here, we have to follow the rules laid forth. The WWC does forbid the images of Jesus of any kind. I looked after my R.C. Pope image was removed. I then when to my chuch. they have many. hmmm. listen to our elders. god bless.
 
I would also comment on the questions about the confessions over the Scriptures and the lack of New Testament command, but Todd has already helpfully dealt with those issues.

I am still waiting for someone to give an answer from Scripture.

I also initially had a difficult time seeing how the second commandment referred to the very making of divine images. One helpful thing some people pointed out to me was that if it were only speaking against the worshipping of such images, it would not be saying anything beyond the first commandment, and thus it would make no sense even having it as a separate command. But since it is considered a separate commandment (except by the Roman Catholic Church, which actually views it as part of the first commandment, and splits up the forbidding of coveting into two commandments), it clearly has something further to say beyond simply forbidding the explicit worship of idols.

But even more than that, what convinced me was Deuteronomy 4:15-18, which sheds some very helpful light on the meaning of the second commandment: "Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth."

I used to wonder where people got the idea that the second commandment was specifically talking about images of God, since it nowhere says that explicitly. But here in this Deuteronomy passage, the specific ground given for not making physical images is that the Israelites "saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to [them]." That makes it abundantly more clear that the second commandment relates specifically to coming up with a physical form to represent God in any way, since we have seen no such form.

You guys don't get it... Art flows from your heart... and when Jesus fills your heart, the natural expression of this is to express it in our finite ways. How can you be offended by love for Christ??

The same could be said of Nadab and Abihu in Leviticus 10 when they "offered unauthorized fire before the Lord, which he had not commanded them." Yet God was not pleased, and in fact judged them for it by death.

Another great example is Uzziah in 2 Chronicles 26. It is said that he "he did what was right in the eyes of the LORD," and that he "set himself to seek God," and that "God helped him" in war. But eventually, "he was unfaithful to the Lord his God and entered the temple of the Lord to burn incense on the altar of incense. But Azariah the priest went in after him, with eighty priests of the Lord who were men of valor, and they withstood King Uzziah and said to him, 'It is not for you, Uzziah, to burn incense to the Lord, but for the priests, the sons of Aaron, who are consecrated to burn incense. Go out of the sanctuary, for you have done wrong, and it will bring you no honor from the Lord God.' Then Uzziah was angry. Now he had a censer in his hand to burn incense, and when he became angry with the priests, leprosy broke out on his forehead in the presence of the priests in the house of the Lord, by the altar of incense. And Azariah the chief priest and all the priests looked at him, and behold, he was leprous in his forehead! And they rushed him out quickly, and he himself hurried to go out, because the Lord had struck him. And King Uzziah was a leper to the day of his death, and being a leper lived in a separate house, for he was excluded from the house of the Lord."

These passages simply make clear that God is not pleased with worship or expression of our gratitude to Him in ways He has not commanded, and that good intention does not justify such - certainly even more clearly so when he has expressly forbidden certain ways.
 
Yes, images of God is idolatry.

The Son did come in human form as Jesus, but He had both divine and human natures revealed through His person. So though He appeared as a man He had the nature of both man and God...which we can't capture in a man-made image.

Further, if it was o.k. to make images of Him, why didn't the apostles or early Church do it?
 
Pensee # 40 shows our tendency to prefer the unreal, or less real, to the real: painted imitations ( today, photographs or TV reports) to the real, says Peter Kreeft. And pensee no. 47 shows our preference for the two unreal moments of time to the one real one; the dead past or the unborn future to the living present.

Pensee 40: How vain painting is, exciting admiration by its resemblance to things of which we do not admire the originals.

Pascal, like Plato and many of the ancients, has a rather primitive and naive philosophy of art because he reduces it to imitation of nature. But this does not invalidate his point that here is an example of vanity; for most people are artistically unsophisticated and do value art chiefly for its natural realism ( thus the paintings of Norman Rockwell and Andrew Wyeth are immensely popular), and Pascal's analysis applies well to this art. I think, by the way, that there is a naive realist in all of us. We spontaneously admire a good seascape, for example: "it doesn't look like oil, it looks like water."

Pascal does not want us to admire art less but nature more.

47 does not have much to do with art, but its alludes to our trying to capture and retain "unreals moments." I think it is telling:


Pensee 47: We never keep to the present. We recall the past; we anticipate the future as if we found it too slow in coming and were trying to hurry it up, or we recall the past as if to stay its too rapid flight. We are so unwise that we wander about the times that do not belong to us, and do not think of the only one that does; so vain that we dream of times that are not and blindly flee the only one that is. The fact is that the present usually hurts. We thrust it out of sight because it distresses us, and if we find it enjoyable, we are sorry to see it slip away. We try to give it the support of the future, and think how we are going to arrange things over which we have no control for a time we can never be sure of reaching.
Let each of us examine his thoughts; he will find them wholly concerned with the past or the future. We almost never think of the present, and if we do think of the present, it is only to see what light it throws on our plans for the future. The present is never our end. The past and the present are our means, the future alone our end. Thus we never actually live, hope to live, and since we are always planning how to be happy, it is inevitable that we should never be so.
 
I guess the "response" to what I said was removed, and probably for good reason.

But I will just restate: joining the PB is purely your voluntary act. And when you join, you made a promise to act within certain parameters. Of course, I know that mamy people who say "yea, yea, I read the standards, I agree, yada yada," haven't actually read them or have much of a commitment to them.

But regardless, once your own contract is laid before you, why not just say: "OK, I actually don't believe that, at least I'm not now persuaded, but I did agree to abide by it, so I will keep my word." Apparently, that sort of appeal to voluntary cooperation couldn't elicit an adult response?


This is only one of several threads dealing with the subject of "images" of deity. Many of them contain Scripture arguments, often repeatedly. No one can honestly say the issue hasn't been addressed according to Scripture.
 
Thanks Bruce.

Let me know Matt if you would like to admit that you actually hadn't read the Reformed Confessions and that, when you clicked "I Agree", you didn't really agree to what you were signing yourself up for.

It's not as if we're peddling some sort of "Bait and Switch" theology here. If the essence of the Confessions, in your humble estimation, is a form of Pharisaism then this is not the place for you.
 
The "Trinity" symbol on the Hymnal and some Bibles, too? (Not being trying to be difficult, just want to know, since I am new to the Reformed side of Christianity.)
 
How can one make an accurate representation of Jesus when they have never seen Him? I dont see how this is any different then the Golden Calf. In those days that is what God evidently looked like to them. Making an artistic representation is no different being that none of us here has seen our Messiah

I would like to quote what Joshua has said

Well, if they're supposed to be of Christ, ought they not spur you on to worship? If not, they're in vain. That's hardly proper awe and reverence of God. But it's a catch 22, cuz if they do spur you to worship, then you're brought to worship by incomplete, inaccurate, indefensible images that are supposed to be of Christ: Idolatry.

Its a great point and one that should be reflected on!
 
I just want to say that this post has been really good for me. I have, up until now, been really sitting on the fence concerning this issue. In my house we don't have any images of Christ, so it was never a real problem, but i could never fully wrap my head around how it would violate the second commandment. After reading Matt's response something struck me. It seems that people who are pro images always respond with statements how they are not using the image in worship. Then I read this,

Art flows from your heart... and when Jesus fills your heart, the natural expression of this is to express it in our finite ways. How can you be offended by love for Christ??

What is worship? I believe that part of worship is the physical act of expressing love towards God. In my mind it is not really being honest with oneself if you say that the painting is a way to show your love towards God and yet saying this is not an element of worship.

Again this has been very good for me.
Thanks to all who responded t this thread.
 
Here is a great article i posted before. It speaks of visualizing Christ in the supper. Very interesting that some found it allowable and not sinful.

The Lord's Supper In Early Modern England - ) | Past & Present | Find Articles at BNET.com

However, the Protestant prohibition of mental images was not unqualified. Perkins permitted the use of `internall images rightly conceived', and it is clear that mental images of Christ's Passion, used in the context of sacramental devotion, fell into that category. As T. B. Bozeman has remarked, `it was of the very essence of puritan conceptions of the communion that it should generate visualization'


Other writers encouraged the use of vivid mental imagery to establish the connection between the sign and the thing signified. `When thou seest the Bread broken, and the Wine powred forth', wrote William Pemble, `thinke on Christ tome and rent in his precious body with stripes and wounds'. When receiving the elements, `throw thy selfe into his armes stretched out on the Crosse to embrace thee ... put thine hands & thy fingers into his side, and the print of the nailes, and cry out with that blessed Apostle in the highest degree of all possible rejoycing, MY LORD AND MY GOD'.(87) The invitation to form a mental image of the Passion was made quite explicit by Richard Sibbes: `[when] thou seest the Bread broken, and the Wine poured forth, this should stirre thee up to bee in the same estate, as if thou wert upon Golgotha, at the place whereupon he was crucified, crying with a loud voyce, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? as if thou sawest him sweate water and blood'.(88) George Webbe advised the communicant to meditate on Christ crucified, `as if with thine owne eyes thou diddest then behold his body nayled to the Crosse'.(89) The act of seeing thus became an act of imagining as well.


Within this context I agree with these writers. And find there arguements convincing.
 
This subject is one that amazes me how little it is taught and upheld by Bible believing Christians, even among those who hold to the 10 commandments as being moral laws. I have attended very many churches that pictures of "Jesus" hanging in their lobby or hall ways. As a child I colored coloring books that contained what was supposed to be Jesus in sunday school. The sabbath command is perhaps the only the command that is denied more.

The only description of Jesus Christ we have in scripture is here.
Revelation 1 (NKJV)
12 Then I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and in the midst of the seven lampstands One like the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band. 14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire; 15 His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters; 16 He had in His right hand seven stars, out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword, and His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength. 17 And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead.

I have never seen an image in any church, or elsewhere, that looked like this.
 
What of my PCA Church with a huge rendition of some guy representing... I hate to even say it... the Lord? Its all in stained glass and this fellow is probably 15 feet high. The building was bought from a Baptist congregation back in the '70's after the PCA split. It's at the front of the bldg, so at the back during worship, but at many other times it gives me palpitations. I've offered to the Session to repair the problem with a brick, but they politely declined.

But I've seen plenty of "Jesus pictures" in the SS kids' curriculae, and in the "kids bulletins". I don't want to express my true feelings about this to the leadership, because I get the impression it's not such an issue with them after 30 yrs. Why would this exist in a supposedly reformed denom like the PCA?

I'm seriously considering the brick solution, but one member told me an elder had said if they saw somebody worshipping the image, they'd get rid of it. Perhaps I could invite some RC or EO folks over and just let 'em act naturally?
 
Thanks for that quote. I really like this discussion! It hadnt really come to my attention until maybe half a year ago. I love discussing God's Word

Thomas Vincent sounds familiar.... is he a puritan?
 
As T. B. Bozeman has remarked, `it was of the very essence of puritan conceptions of the communion that it should generate visualization'

None of the Puritan statements as provided speak to the idea of "visualisation." One may think upon a visual object without using imagination.
 
Is is okay to have pictures of Mary?

That's a good question. Does the Second Helvetic Confession forbid any use of images of the saints? Don't some of the arguments against images of Christ apply to any historical figure where we have no evidence of what the person looked like?
 
Right, but if God tells us we are not to make images of him because we have seen no likeness of him, does it follow that we can't make images of a human person we have not seen?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top