Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Answer is A.
Of course, it's idolatry, regardless of the intentions of those who set it up. Why wouldn't the 2nd Commandment apply? Does it change if Christ is depicted as an infant? No.
Okay, here's the Scripture, my emphases added (from Exodus 20, can't remember the exact verse, just writing from memory):
The 2nd Commandment is very clear:Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything 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 a jealous God visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.
1. Do not make them.
2. Do not worship them.
Thou shalt not make them. Don't do it. Notta. Zero. Zip. Zilch.
Okay, here's the Scripture, my emphases added (from Exodus 20, can't remember the exact verse, just writing from memory):
The 2nd Commandment is very clear:Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything 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 a jealous God visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.
1. Do not make them.
2. Do not worship them.
Thou shalt not make them. Don't do it. Notta. Zero. Zip. Zilch.
What if, shmat if ...Okay, here's the Scripture, my emphases added (from Exodus 20, can't remember the exact verse, just writing from memory):
The 2nd Commandment is very clear:
1. Do not make them.
2. Do not worship them.
Thou shalt not make them. Don't do it. Notta. Zero. Zip. Zilch.
Thanks, Joshua.
Note -- don't get me wrong here, I'm not really advocating the other position, even if it looks like I am. Just trying to be thorough in considering this. :^)
What if someone objected that the prohibition on representing God was a prohibition on representing God as a spiritual being, since the only visual representations he's provided prior to Christ have been mysterious visions like Isaiah's?
What if a Christian did not regard the physical appearance of Christ as a representation of God, in a second commandment sense.
For example, if somebody asked you what God looked like, and you answered that he looked like a 1st century Jewish man, you would be very right in one sense and very wrong in another sense. Many Christians regard the commandment as forbidding attempts to represent the latter sense only.
They would be wrong. The 2nd Commandment didn't change, nor was it abrogated. Is Christ God? Yes. Is God to be depicted, portrayed, or represented other than by the Bread & Wine at the Lord's Table? No.
Would a dove or a flame be included in this prohibition?
No, because then God would have been causing those who made the temple, ark of the covenant, etc. to sin by commanding them to create certain images. The whole point is the context in which God makes this commandment: anything that's intended to represent, portray, or otherwise depict him. That's what's being prohibited in the 2nd Commandment.
I don't have to do anything. Further, if you want to see the multitudinous times this has been discussed on the PB just do a search. I can take the 2nd Commandment at face value and see very plainly that it prohibits the creation of "any likeness of any thing," and that within the context of the right God being worshiped rightly.
See this thread:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/attention-reminder-all-pb-members-41401/
Q. 5. Is it not lawful to have images or pictures of God by us, so we do not worship them, nor God by them?
A. The images or pictures of God are an abomination, and utterly unlawful, because they do debase God, and may be a cause of idolatrous worship.
Q. 6. Is it not lawful to have pictures of Jesus Christ, he being a man as well as God?
A. 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 do stir up devotion, it is a worshipping by an image or picture, and so a palpable breach of the second commandment.
I don't have to do anything. Further, if you want to see the multitudinous times this has been discussed on the PB just do a search. I can take the 2nd Commandment at face value and see very plainly that it prohibits the creation of "any likeness of any thing," and that within the context of the right God being worshiped rightly.
See this thread:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/attention-reminder-all-pb-members-41401/
Joshua, you do not have to interact with me on this issue, and you do not have to allow the issue to be discussed on these forums.
However, if you are accusing me of personally holding an unconfessional view or of discussing opposing perspectives with any more vigor than a full theological exploration requires, then I would appreciate an apology.
Your point that it's been discussed before was apropos, and duly noted.
There is no debate that if you are advocating for pictures of the 2nd person of the Trinity that this is certainly uncofessional.
If you sepnd some time reading through the Q&A and also, in their entirety, the prooftexts provided, you will greatly profit from it and come to understand the Reformed view.
The burning bush was in no way to be understood as a representation of the Godhead. It represented none of his divine attributes. The burning bush, like the back side of God's glory that Moses also witnessed, was a manifestation of God's presence and nothing more. The pillars of fire and smoke were not God, they were merely a manifestation of his presence.
There is no debate that if you are advocating for pictures of the 2nd person of the Trinity that this is certainly uncofessional.
....
If you sepnd some time reading through the Q&A and also, in their entirety, the prooftexts provided, you will greatly profit from it and come to understand the Reformed view.
Thanks for the detailed info. As I made rather abundantly clear above, my interest was to ensure that this thread discussed and refuted common objections to the confessional position using clear scripture. The confessional position was already made quite clear in this thread by Chris / NaphtaliPress. Being of a Puritan frame of mind myself, I respectfully requested that some people around here whose prowess at directly handling the Word of God I have reason to respect very highly could hammer the point home further. However, I am now getting a pretty strong hint that this is a scriptural exploration the site admins to not want to see [repeated], so I expect I will drop it.