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.
Is this a ploy to lure Andrew Myers out of hiding?
Isn't it only considered idolatry if it takes the place of God?
Meaning, you can have a model of a dove on your bookshelf. That's not idolatry. If, however, you start looking at it and treating the statue with honor as if it were the Holy Ghost, that would be idolatry, because it's taking the place of God. Right?
Isn't it only considered idolatry if it takes the place of God?
Meaning, you can have a model of a dove on your bookshelf. That's not idolatry. If, however, you start looking at it and treating the statue with honor as if it were the Holy Ghost, that would be idolatry, because it's taking the place of God. Right?
As Larry Bray already noted, if it is intended that the dove is meant to portray the Holy Spirit, then it is idolatrous. James Durham on the Ten Commandments has a VERY nice discussion of portrayals of any of the persons of the Trinity and why they are all idols that must be rejected.
Isn't it only considered idolatry if it takes the place of God?
Meaning, you can have a model of a dove on your bookshelf. That's not idolatry. If, however, you start looking at it and treating the statue with honor as if it were the Holy Ghost, that would be idolatry, because it's taking the place of God. Right?
As Larry Bray already noted, if it is intended that the dove is meant to portray the Holy Spirit, then it is idolatrous. James Durham on the Ten Commandments has a VERY nice discussion of portrayals of any of the persons of the Trinity and why they are all idols that must be rejected.
So would you say then that any symbolic imagery of doves in Christian art is idolatry?
I'm not trying to be contentious here, I'm trying to figure it out. I don't know everything.
As Larry Bray already noted, if it is intended that the dove is meant to portray the Holy Spirit, then it is idolatrous. James Durham on the Ten Commandments has a VERY nice discussion of portrayals of any of the persons of the Trinity and why they are all idols that must be rejected.
So would you say then that any symbolic imagery of doves in Christian art is idolatry?
I'm not trying to be contentious here, I'm trying to figure it out. I don't know everything.
Imagery meant to represent the Holy Spirit, absolutely.
Imagery meant to illustrate a dove for a dove's sake, not a problem.
So would you say then that any symbolic imagery of doves in Christian art is idolatry?
I'm not trying to be contentious here, I'm trying to figure it out. I don't know everything.
Imagery meant to represent the Holy Spirit, absolutely.
Imagery meant to illustrate a dove for a dove's sake, not a problem.
I see.
We have a stained-glass window in our church with the symbol of a dove(as well as symbols of lambs, vines, etc.). Would those also be considered idolatrous?
I'm not even sure where they came from. Probably inherited from whoever had the church before we did... I can't imagine anyone from our denomination installing stained-glass windows otherwise.
Is not writing the name of a member of the trinity a symbol meant to represent that person, that is after all what writing is. I do not think that this is necessarily a balck and white issue.
If the image is to represent rather than depict the deity (as for instance in writing a name) is this always wrong?
Is not writing the name of a member of the trinity a symbol meant to represent that person, that is after all what writing is. I do not think that this is necessarily a balck and white issue.
If the image is to represent rather than depict the deity (as for instance in writing a name) is this always wrong?
Well, the words are image and likeness, which mean (correct me if I'm wrong, Hebrew scholars) things which are meant to represent physically that which is represented or symbolized by that image or likeness. Text is not such a thing, so as I read it it doesn't fall under the same category as would a picture of a dove meant to represent the Holy Spirit, a young Jewish man meant to represent the Son or an old bearded man meant to represent the Father.
Again I'd encourage anyone that has Durham's writing on the Ten Commandments - his discussion of the 2nd is very good.
Is not writing the name of a member of the trinity a symbol meant to represent that person, that is after all what writing is. I do not think that this is necessarily a balck and white issue.
If the image is to represent rather than depict the deity (as for instance in writing a name) is this always wrong?
Of course, when all four Evangelists tell us that the Holy Spirit descended upon Christ in a form like that of a dove are we sinning against WLC #109 by imagining that scene, which arguably is what the Gospel writers invite us to do by the inclusion of such visuals?
That is a mental image (and why I take exception to Q/A 109 which would otherwise seem to forbid thinking upon the metaphors that God has provided us in Scripture as reflections given by Him to us with the intent of understanding some facet of His nature and ways more thoroughly).
From my perspective, I think we can say that the mental image presented by the Evangelists is perfectly permitted. No problem there. My reservation would be to depict that scene in an image. Why not just say what they said?
From my perspective, I think we can say that the mental image presented by the Evangelists is perfectly permitted. No problem there. My reservation would be to depict that scene in an image. Why not just say what they said?
I agree with you Vic, but when the WLC says "the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind..." it would seem to rule out, on a strict reading, a Christian giving visual imagery to that scene even in his mind.
If I could read that section of 109 in another way, I wouldn't take exception. But I have never heard a differing explanation given for it, either in writing or in presbytery discussion, and so have always held to that exception.
When I read the heavily image-based book of John's Revelation, especially a theocentric passage such as chapter 19, I am unable to do other than place a striking image of the victorious Christ in my mind's eye, even though what I am imagining is a word picture intended to represent something about him, and is not truly him. It is still making a mental image of God, in that sense, and would seem to be prohibited by a plain understanding of the WLC.
...I would keep it narrowed to mental images coming directly from descriptive passages of scripture...
How about the burning bush?
Is this a ploy to lure Andrew Myers out of hiding?
There's a secular French lady who's a customer of mine who wears one. The Maltese Cross, the Dove, and what's technically only supposed to be worn during times of persecution, a pearl hanging from the dove. If Christ is the Pearl of Great Price, then should all those ladies in church wear pearls?
I think it's a major cool cultural statement which honors our faith. It's true the nowadays most who wear it probably don't really honor it properly, but it's not the symbol's fault.
There may be OT examples in the Phylactery. And maybe not. But really, just think about it. A guy eats pork, shaves his beard, etc...etc...but puts his foot down and says a Huguenot Cross is wrong based on something in the OT?
Does anyone else see a contradiction it this?
(emphasis mine)It's not in me to throw the Huguenots down the river. No way. But, still, we're not just talking about Mosaic law ceremonial and civil, right? The crux of the Sabbath issue, I always thought, was that it predated Moses and was later codified in the 10 words. Pork and beards can't claim that status, I think.
(emphasis mine)It's not in me to throw the Huguenots down the river. No way. But, still, we're not just talking about Mosaic law ceremonial and civil, right? The crux of the Sabbath issue, I always thought, was that it predated Moses and was later codified in the 10 words. Pork and beards can't claim that status, I think.
The distinction between clean and unclean animals also predates Moses. Consider the number of animals of each kind taken by Noah on the ark, and perhaps also the unlikeliness of Abel or Noah sacrificing a pig as a burnt offering with God's approval as explicitly stated in each case.
Still, if there were 7 giraffes and only 2 pigs taken on the ark...
Is not writing the name of a member of the trinity a symbol meant to represent that person, that is after all what writing is. I do not think that this is necessarily a balck and white issue.
If the image is to represent rather than depict the deity (as for instance in writing a name) is this always wrong?
Well, the words are image and likeness, which mean (correct me if I'm wrong, Hebrew scholars) things which are meant to represent physically that which is represented or symbolized by that image or likeness. Text is not such a thing, so as I read it it doesn't fall under the same category...