Confusion on images in churches

TryingToLearn

Puritan Board Freshman
As I understand it, the Reformed position is that all religious images should be removed from churches, but images which are purely civil may be retained. So one cannot have images of the cross in a church, but one can have images of flowers for instance. But my confusion lies in that Exodus 20:4 and other verses seem to forbid images completely. A flower is certainly something which is "in the earth beneath", so it seems it should be forbidden in places of worship.
 
Unless Solomon did wrong in 1 Kings 6:18, or the temple which houses the commandment is somehow an exception to the commandment, the commandment should not be interpreted to forbit images of flowers in a house of worship. Parts of the temple also included images of pomegranates, palm trees, oxen, and probably other things I'm forgetting.

I think you'll find there is disagreement about exactly how the "do not make" part of the commandment is tied to the "do not bow down" part, and that there is not a single Reformed position on exactly what decorative flourishes or what types of symbols may be allowed in a church building. But there are people on this board far more qualified than me to explain the history and particulars of the various stances, and why the examples from the temple do or do not apply today.
 
As I understand it, the Reformed position is that all religious images should be removed from churches, but images which are purely civil may be retained. So one cannot have images of the cross in a church, but one can have images of flowers for instance. But my confusion lies in that Exodus 20:4 and other verses seem to forbid images completely. A flower is certainly something which is "in the earth beneath", so it seems it should be forbidden in places of worship.
The difference is these flowers were for decoration they were not worshipped. Same with the serpent on the pole, when it started to be worshipped as a divine thing it had to be destroyed.
 
Back
Top