Idolatry???

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

How? Visualization is viusualization without imagination. I just called Pemble and Sibbes and asked them.

You are splitting hairs matthew. The article shows there were some on the other team. No big deal and no need to say there were no disagreements when there were. Ill still sleep well tonight
 
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?

We call that guy "Jimmy the Shepherd" so that our kids don't get confused as to who Jesus really is. Some friends of ours turned us on to this a few years back and it works just fine. It can't be Jesus, so why not create a fictional name to go with the fictional character?
 
That's great! I've actually seen a picture of Jimmy the Shepherd carrying a stray sheep.
 
Jimmy the Shepherd...I like that. Just ran that by my 11yr old and he thought that was pretty good ;) (we rent a UMC building and we have Jimmy-at-the-door at the front, Jimmy-the-Shepherd at the back, and a Jimmy-portrait to the side...we're looking forward to getting our own building).
 
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?

Precisely, and can anyone really say that a so-called picture of Jesus is really an accurate portrayal of Christ? Instead it represents how the artist wants us to think about Christ. Hence many pictures of the Lord are effiminate. However, the "gentle Jesus, meek and mild" (not using those terms in a Biblical sense) that the pictures seek to portray is not the Biblical Christ. Moreover, do not pictures of Christ violate Sola Scriptura? Surely the Bible tells us all we need to know about the Lord Jesus Christ, and so we do not need pictures which men have invented to tell us more about Him. The Scriptures are a complete and sufficient revelation of Christ for the Christian.
 
Last edited:
Our circa 1907 church building has beautiful (rumored to be Tiffany) stained glass windows with one depicting Christ the Good Shepherd, and another, Christ praying in the garden. The rest of the windows are simply geometric in design. The building has always been a Presbyterian church but it has only been in the past 25 years or so that the congregation has become PCA, and we're still working on the ramifications of that within it. Our pastor is from the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland and does not care for the depictions of Christ although he appreciates the overall beauty of the windows. He says if we were ever in a position to erect a new building.....However, right now the main concern is to bring the congregation around to a more Reformed position and it's a situation akin to "eating an elephant one bite at a time" to quote our pastor.
 
Jimmy the Shepherd...I like that. Just ran that by my 11yr old and he thought that was pretty good ;) (we rent a UMC building and we have Jimmy-at-the-door at the front, Jimmy-the-Shepherd at the back, and a Jimmy-portrait to the side...we're looking forward to getting our own building).

:lol:

A funny thing happened with my buddy's young boy.

At grandpa's house, grandpa decided to read a children's Bible story to his young grandson. They got into an argument when grandpa tried to tell the boy that the pictures were of Jesus, while the young boy insisted they were Jimmy... :lol:
 
Unbeknownst to me, my wife has put up a picture of Jesus tending some sheep and when I found it, I promptly took it down and I shared with her again the reasons for taking it down. After which I began to wonder about our nativity set. My wife has a very nice nativity set and what to do with the baby Jesus.
 
I know some people that have the nativity, but remove the baby...then tell their children that they don't have the baby there because he grew up, died, arose, and ascended ;)
 
I know some people that have the nativity, but remove the baby...then tell their children that they don't have the baby there because he grew up, died, arose, and ascended

The first time I visited the church I now attend there was an empty manger setting in front of the pulpit. During the message this is the reason the pastor gave for it being empty. I think I would like to put an empty manger in my front yard as a way of witnessing to my neighbors when they ask "what happened to the baby?" (ahh who am I kidding I live out in the sticks the only neighbors I do have would just think the local teens stole it.)
 
Idolatry is ANYTHING that is more important in your life than God...
People are extremely idolatrous...e.x. Hollywood, spouses, children, work, money, sports, etc. Ever said, "My god would never send people to Hell." Well you're right, your god doesn't exist! My point is that even our fallacious statements (known or unknown) are idolatrous and blasphemous (the 3rd C)...

A wonderful book to read is Idols of the Heart:
Amazon.com: Idols of the Heart: Learning to Long for God Alone: Books: Elyse Fitzpatrick
 

If the book has what are supposed to be representations of Christ the God-man, then yes it is forbidden by the 2nd Commandment. Here is Deut. 4 which expounds more fully on the 2nd Commandment:

9 Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the things which thine eyes have seen, and lest they depart from thy heart all the days of thy life: but teach them thy sons, and thy sons' sons;

10 Specially the day that thou stoodest before the LORD thy God in Horeb, when the LORD said unto me, Gather me the people together, and I will make them hear my words, that they may learn to fear me all the days that they shall live upon the earth, and that they may teach their children.

11 And ye came near and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire unto the midst of heaven, with darkness, clouds, and thick darkness.

12 And the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice.

13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.

14 And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it.

15 Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire:

16 Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female,

17 The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air,

18 The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth:

19 And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven.

20 But the LORD hath taken you, and brought you forth out of the iron furnace, even out of Egypt, to be unto him a people of inheritance, as ye are this day.


This passage clearly shows that God meant images of creation or male or female versions that were to represent Him.
 
How do you deal with the images?

This is one of those, where, it seems to me, the creeds have it right, the scripture says it, and we don't need images of Christ. But, I'm not going to go after somebody else, and I have not ripped out the images from the one or two Kids bibles I have that have them. I just explain, to my daughter, the concept, and say, I don't like to dwell on them, because they are a fake image. But, I'm not a STRONG holder to this belief.

For those of you that are STRONG holders to the belief, and believe it's a sin to have the image, how do you "put-up" with it being on your church walls, etc.

I mean, I visited, a small Reformed church, and like many of you, they have to rent from a church, so no fault of their own, and the images on the wall, were supposed to be depicting Christ.

For me, it bothered me a bit, but I don't take a hard stance against others on this issue. For those of you, that DO take a hard stance against others, how do you rationalize, having them where you worship?

I'm not trying to cause problems, I'm just wondering, how one who STRONGLY holds this position, can be around those sinful images during service? Is it worth their removal every service? Changing locations?

Once again, def. not judgmental, we do what we can in this fallen world. Just wondering?
 
This is one of those, where, it seems to me, the creeds have it right, the scripture says it, and we don't need images of Christ. But, I'm not going to go after somebody else, and I have not ripped out the images from the one or two Kids bibles I have that have them. I just explain, to my daughter, the concept, and say, I don't like to dwell on them, because they are a fake image. But, I'm not a STRONG holder to this belief.

For those of you that are STRONG holders to the belief, and believe it's a sin to have the image, how do you "put-up" with it being on your church walls, etc.

I mean, I visited, a small Reformed church, and like many of you, they have to rent from a church, so no fault of their own, and the images on the wall, were supposed to be depicting Christ.

For me, it bothered me a bit, but I don't take a hard stance against others on this issue. For those of you, that DO take a hard stance against others, how do you rationalize, having them where you worship?

I'm not trying to cause problems, I'm just wondering, how one who STRONGLY holds this position, can be around those sinful images during service? Is it worth their removal every service? Changing locations?

Once again, def. not judgmental, we do what we can in this fallen world. Just wondering?

On the question of portraits of Swede, a.k.a. Jimmy the Shepherd visibly on display in borrowed venues, two examples of dealing with it.

1) One of our congregations regularly met in a borrowed church building that had a huge portrait of Swede visible in the sanctuary. We very carefully took it down prior to services, stowed it in the adjacent office, and returned it to its place following services.

2) During a Presbytery conference we used a chapel on the grounds for services on the Lord's Day. Here again, there was a visible portrait of Swede, this time in the foyer. It was a small one, and we merely draped a cloth over it for the duration of our time using the building.

Yes, in both cases, it was worth it.
 
That's great! I've actually seen a picture of Jimmy the Shepherd carrying a stray sheep.

I remember that one from when I was a kid. In my mind every now and then I used to substitute my late father carrying the family dog, a pure white fox terrier mix about that size. I wrongly felt guilty about it at the time.
 
How? Visualization is viusualization without imagination. I just called Pemble and Sibbes and asked them.

Think of the use of the cross in Pilgrim's Progress. It's merely symbolic, not a real image -- perhaps best described as a verbal image. So the sacrament is described by Robert Bruce as "a visible word."
 
How? Visualization is viusualization without imagination. I just called Pemble and Sibbes and asked them.

Think of the use of the cross in Pilgrim's Progress. It's merely symbolic, not a real image -- perhaps best described as a verbal image. So the sacrament is described by Robert Bruce as "a visible word."


But this is not how Pemble, Perkins and sibbes and others thought matthew...Visualization to them was visualizing the crucified Lord. Hence the problems
 
But this is not how Pemble, Perkins and sibbes and others thought matthew...Visualization to them was visualizing the crucified Lord. Hence the problems

All the statements you provided speak of conception and thought, nothing about visualisation. Perkins: "internall images rightly conceived." Pemble: "thinke on Christ tome and rent in his precious body with stripes and wounds." 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." The conclusion -- "The act of seeing thus became an act of imagining as well" -- is simply false. The Puritans were concerned with the affections, not the imagination.
 
But this is not how Pemble, Perkins and sibbes and others thought matthew...Visualization to them was visualizing the crucified Lord. Hence the problems

All the statements you provided speak of conception and thought, nothing about visualisation. Perkins: "internall images rightly conceived." Pemble: "thinke on Christ tome and rent in his precious body with stripes and wounds." 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." The conclusion -- "The act of seeing thus became an act of imagining as well" -- is simply false. The Puritans were concerned with the affections, not the imagination.

Ok, you are right. Heaven forbid there were disagreements on the subject. Even if justified in-depth. If I have learned one thing, there was never a 100% unanimous consenscious on anything. Which is perfectly ok for me.

Ill believe the article and their own writings instead of someone else telling me what they meant.
 
Ill believe the article and their own writings instead of someone else telling me what they meant.

If you became acquainted with their writings firsthand you would have a proper means whereby to evaluate secondhand analysis.
 
Ok, you are right. Heaven forbid there were disagreements on the subject. Even if justified in-depth. If I have learned one thing, there was never a 100% unanimous consenscious on anything. Which is perfectly ok for me.

Ill believe the article and their own writings instead of someone else telling me what they meant.

Even (or especially) when taking issue with differing statements, let's keep the tone and attitude charitable, and avoid personally disrespectful and sarcastic comments.
 
The Sibbes reference is Works, 4:66. He goes on to say, "Such should be thine affections, when thou seest the bread broken and the wine poured forth. Thou must consider the circumstances of Christ's breaking, and his soul poured out for sin." Quite clearly the mental process enjoined on his hearers is one of consideration, not visualisation.
 
My old youth pastor would say he pictured God in the clouds when he would pray, or giant arms wrapped around him. I always thought it to be ridiculous, but on this subject would that be a violation of the 2nd commandment. It is different then visualizing an image described in the bible such as the crucifixion because he was actually visualizing God the Father as if he had a body.
 
Ok, you are right. Heaven forbid there were disagreements on the subject. Even if justified in-depth. If I have learned one thing, there was never a 100% unanimous consenscious on anything. Which is perfectly ok for me.

Ill believe the article and their own writings instead of someone else telling me what they meant.

Even (or especially) when taking issue with differing statements, let's keep the tone and attitude charitable, and avoid personally disrespectful and sarcastic comments.

Chris, once again the internet can not convey intent at times. Perhaps my word choice was wrong. But what I find interesting is when I see the sky is blue, yet Matthew says it is not blue. And then of course link it to my lack of understanding different hues. :2cents:


Conception and thought lead to visualization. This is an irrefutable fact. Conception by definition means the creation of something in the mind. the capacity, function, or process of forming or understanding ideas or abstractions or their symbols. To deny that there were some who accepted this is beyond revisionist manipulation. I still cannot figure out why one has to grid their eyesight to everything first, then force words into that grid. I believe in the analogy of scripture, but I do nto believe in the analogy of man's writings. It becomes as futile as chasing the wind when we look at the obvious and say, "He doesnt mean what he say's", for he cant mean that. I have personally witnessed this many of times with Matthew. the marrow controversey, augustine, Calvin, and now these few quotes I provided from a very well documented article. Yet again it falls on my lack of understanding. Am I in error to be comfortable knowing that disagreements were had on this topic 300 plus years ago? Absolutely not. "The act of seeing thus became an act of imagining as well" is not false at all.
 
Last edited:
My old youth pastor would say he pictured God in the clouds when he would pray, or giant arms wrapped around him. I always thought it to be ridiculous, but on this subject would that be a violation of the 2nd commandment. It is different then visualizing an image described in the bible such as the crucifixion because he was actually visualizing God the Father as if he had a body.

How can we visualize God as a man, when God is not a man with a human body (though God became man in the person of Christ). Surely when we do such things we are portraying our idea of God, not meditating on God as He is revealed in His word.
 
But what I find interesting is when I see the sky is blue, yet Matthew says it is not blue.

Sorry, friend, if it appears I am contradicting you. There is nothing personal in it. I would prefer to talk with you about things in which we are in agreement. But if you keep quoting secondary sources which misrepresent historical fact then I feel the record should be set staright by referring to the primary sources. I have referred you to a primary source (Sibbes Works), and instead of interacting with it you have chosen to follow a line of thought which is contrary to the Puritan view -- that conception and thought lead to visualisation. Anyone who has read anything Puritan on the second commandment knows that they taught otherwise. I don't think it is asking too much to request you to represent the views of others in accord with what they actually taught. Blessings!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top