Bizarre Assertion: Letters are an Image of God?

[Parakaleo]

I have heard this twice in the last two days and thought I would ask if others have heard it, or what to make of it?

Me: The 2nd Commandment forbids making images of God. We are not to make an image of Christ.
Person: Lol. You mean like the one you just made?
Me: Excuse me?
Person: You just represented or made an image of Christ with those letters.

I was thinking about suggesting he go to a library and ask which shelves have books with images and which shelves have books without them, if he doesn't know the difference.

 

[chuckd]

The 2nd commandment violates itself if this is true.

 

[Taylor]

This is an equivocation of “represent.” Words are symbols, not images. Yes, words represent things, but not all representations are the same. My name “Taylor” represents me, so that when my wife says it, I respond. But no sane person believes that “Taylor” is an image of me.

In other words, this idea is stupid sophistry and an obvious attempt to mock God and circumvent his law.

 

[retroGRAD3]

Clearly have come across someone who just doesn't want to obey God. I have always found it odd why so many people are so into images of Christ and God.

 

[Deleted member 12865]

Usually it's a Talmudic view of the 3rd commandment scrupulosity behind taboos on writing the name of God, not the 2nd commandment. This just sounds like a disingenuous straw man.

 

[Parakaleo]

Clearly have come across someone who just doesn't want to obey God. I have always found it odd why so many people are so into images of Christ and God.

Yes, when someone is telling me they like images of Christ, I will sometimes ask if they are fine with images of the Father. Some think that crosses a line, but others think it is totally allowed per the 2nd Commandment. These are people who would put the word "Reformed" next to their church name.

 

[Taylor]

I have always found it odd why so many people are so into images of Christ and God.

I have wondered about this, as well. Nobody loses anything by dispensing with images. What's ironic is that those who adamantly testify that they do not worship images of Christ are the same ones who will hold onto images as if their life depended on it:

"Hey, images of Christ violate the second commandment."
"I don't worship images of Christ!"
"Then why is it so hard to convince you to get rid of them?"

 

[retroGRAD3]

Indeed. I am not talking about mega churchers. These are people in reformed churches. I think the issue is a very fundamental one that all humanity struggles with. We don't like being told what to do. Sadly, I think this is another commandment many Christians just kind of act like it doesn't exist anymore. The other being keeping the Sabbath.

 

[Deleted member 12865]

I have wondered about this, as well. Nobody loses anything by dispensing with images. What's ironic is that those who adamantly testify that they do not worship images of Christ are the same ones who will hold onto images as if their life depended on it:

"Hey, images of Christ violate the second commandment."
"I don't worship images of Christ!"
"Then why is it so hard to convince you to get rid of them?"

Sorry, I find Taylor and Jason's responses nearly as disingenuous as the people Blake is encountering on the other side of the issue.

To say "nobody loses anything" is a bit iconoclastically dismissive of a vast art tradition. You can biblically argue that you're not losing anything licit, but not losing anything or comprehending the appeal of or attachment to use of sacred imagery shows a real lack of empathy or understanding, and to be frank, comes off more than a little Mullah Omar-ish.

 

[Taylor]

Well, this is the first time I've ever been scolded on Puritan Board for having no sympathy for idolatry.

 

[ZackF]

ASCII art? That’s the only way letters could violate 2nd commandment.

 

[AT]

Well, this is the first time I've ever been scolded on Puritan Board for having no sympathy for idolatry.

That made me chuckle, a bit. But do you consider Lutherans as idolaters?

 

[Taylor]

That made me chuckle a bit, but do you consider Lutherans as idolaters?

I subscribe to the Westminster Standards:

"The second commandment forbiddeth the worshipping of God by images" (WSC 51).​

​

"The duties required in the second commandment are...the disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship" (WLC 108).​

​

"The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself...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; all worshipping of it, or God in it or by it...all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense whatsoever" (WLC 109).​

 

[AT]

I subscribe to the Westminster Standards:

"The second commandment forbiddeth the worshipping of God by images" (WSC 51).​

​

"The duties required in the second commandment are...the disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship" (WLC 108).​

​

"The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself...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; all worshipping of it, or God in it or by it...all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense whatsoever" (WLC 109).​

Yes, but are Lutherans idolaters?

I'm aware the Reformed and Presbyterian traditions give no room for nuance on this.

 

[Taylor]

Yes, but are Lutherans idolaters?

Is making images of Christ idolatry?

 

[Deleted member 12865]

Well, this is the first time I've ever been scolded on Puritan Board for having no sympathy for idolatry.

Sure. You're essentially saying you'd paint over Leonardo's The Last Supper and declare "nothing of value was lost." That's either disingenuous, iconoclasm after Mullah Omar, or both.

No one here is arguing we should erect it in a house of worship.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I've heard the OP objection before and possibly even may have been raised here on PB back in the day or elsewhere. I agree it is pettifogging.

 

[De Jager]

Tell the guy in the OP, that next time he has to renew his driver's license, to insist to the government to accept his written name as the photo, you know, since it's an image of him.

 

[Taylor]

Sure. You're essentially saying you'd paint over Leonardo's The Last Supper and declare "nothing of value was lost." That's either disingenuous, iconoclasm after Mullah Omar, or both.

I'm not sure who Mullah Omar is or what he has to do with anything. Our concern on this board is the Scriptures and the Confessions. And this is what the Standards say:

"The duties required in the second commandment are...the disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship [under which all images of any of the three Persons are included]; and, according to each one's place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry."​

So, yes, if I were in a place and calling that allowed me to paint over Leonardo's idol, I would do it, and God would be glorified in it.

No one here is arguing we should erect it in a house of worship.

This is not a Reformed thing to say. All images of any of the three Persons are idols by definition, regardless of where they happen to be located.

 

[De Jager]

Yes, but are Lutherans idolaters?

I'm aware the Reformed and Presbyterian traditions give no room for nuance on this.

4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—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; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor [b]serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting[c] the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

This has nothing to do with Reformed or Presbyterian tradition. Don't make an image. Period. It's literally written in stone.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Yes, but are Lutherans idolaters?

I'm aware the Reformed and Presbyterian traditions give no room for nuance on this.

I'm afraid this sort of questioning is really quite unfair. It requires the person being asked the question to say something negative about a particular group which, the question implies, would be inappropriate. It's not, in this case, Taylor's responsibility to police or pass judgment on the actions of Lutherans. Our responsibility as Christians is to obey God and to abstain from sin. The making of images of God is forbidden by God. That should be an uncontroversial opinion in the Reformed community. If any group or person makes, or makes use of, images of God- in any Person- that is a violation of the Second Commandment.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Does God value De Vinci? I'd rather treat it as God would and in our places and stations remove them when possible as our standards teach, which Taylor just cited. None of us is in a position to paint over the Sistine Chapel today, but when the puritans had brief control in the 1640s they rooted out as many images as they could in London and famously one puritan sergeant tore up Ruben's Crucifixion that was in the Queen's chapel and threw it all in the Thames. Of course the world thinks of it as no different than the Taliban. See https://www.naphtali.com/articles/c...-109-regarding-pictures-of-Christ’s-humanity/

 

[Taylor]

You're essentially saying you'd paint over Leonardo's The Last Supper and declare "nothing of value was lost."

I do also want to note that I never said “nothing of value is lost.” Of course Leonardo’s painting is valuable. But what is more valuable, a painting, or God’s pure worship? I said nobody loses anything by giving up images of Christ, because nobody gains anything through idolatry.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Sorry, I find Taylor and Jason's responses nearly as disingenuous as the people Blake is encountering on the other side of the issue.

To say "nobody loses anything" is a bit iconoclastically dismissive of a vast art tradition. You can biblically argue that you're not losing anything licit, but not losing anything or comprehending the appeal of or attachment to use of sacred imagery shows a real lack of empathy or understanding, and to be frank, comes off more than a little Mullah Omar-ish.

One can recognise that, speaking purely in artistic terms, there are great artworks which depict Christ. However, it is a sin to depict Christ and therefore, our obedience to God superseding our obligations to culture, such artworks must be repudiated. We are still left with a very large body of beautiful art which we can enjoy. Even art on religious themes. But we must be always vigilant that our perfectly lawful appreciation and enjoyment of art does not intrude upon that which God has expressly hidden from our view. This side of eternity we look upon God only with the eye of faith.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Yes, but are Lutherans idolaters?

I'm aware the Reformed and Presbyterian traditions give no room for nuance on this.

Which tradition gives me nuance on the First Commandment?

 

[Deleted member 12865]

I'm not sure who Mullah Omar is or what he has to do with anything.

Because he's the most well-known contemporary idol-remover after your interpretation, having shelled the Bamiyan Buddhas into rubble to the glory of God.

So, yes, if I were in a place and calling that allowed me to paint over Leonardo's idol, I would do it, and God would be glorified in it.

Then ya'll are more Puritan than Oliver Cromwell, having refrained from your Wahhabist glosses on the Westminster Standards, he sold off Charles I's art collection, profiting from it while preserving it, and not engaging in any wholesale campaign of historic art destruction.

Suppose when we Covenanters come to power we burn all your hymn-books; rather, by your standards, it would be a matter of burning not just your hymn-books but all instruments, written and recorded music anywhere other than unaccompanied psalms. Along with all imagery of anything whatsoever, for the glory of God.

This isn't serious, and comparing historic sacred art to a crack cocaine going concern isn't serious either.

 

[Taylor]

This isn't serious, and comparing historic sacred art to a crack cocaine going concern isn't serious either.

Then I suppose comparing standard Westminster views of the second commandment to a Muslim bomber and Wahabbi terrorism isn’t serious, either.

 

[AT]

I'm afraid this sort of questioning is really quite unfair. It requires the person being asked the question to say something negative about a particular group which, the question implies, would be inappropriate. It's not, in this case, Taylor's responsibility to police or pass judgment on the actions of Lutherans. Our responsibility as Christians is to obey God and to abstain from sin. The making of images of God is forbidden by God. That should be an uncontroversial opinion in the Reformed community. If any group or person makes, or makes use of, images of God- in any Person- that is a violation of the Second Commandment.

Apologies. I shouldn't have pursued such a line of questioning @Taylor .

 

[De Jager]

Because he's the most well-known contemporary idol-remover after your interpretation, having shelled the Bamiyan Buddhas into rubble to the glory of God.

Then ya'll are more Puritan than Oliver Cromwell, having refrained from your Wahhabist glosses on the Westminster Standards, he sold off Charles I's art collection, profiting from it while preserving it, and not engaging in any wholesale campaign of historic art destruction.

Suppose when we Covenanters come to power we burn all your hymn-books; rather, by your standards, it would be a matter of burning not just your hymn-books but all instruments, written and recorded music anywhere other than unaccompanied psalms. Along with all imagery of anything whatsoever, for the glory of God.

This isn't serious, and comparing historic sacred art to a crack cocaine going concern isn't serious either.

It's not sacred art. It is so-called sacred art. What you call it does not change reality.

 

[Polanus1561]

What a surreal thread