Images or symbols

[cw_theology]

When does a symbol become an image, for example is it wrong to draw a lamb to represent Christ, would that be a second commandment violation according to the confessions? What about a dove to represent the presence of the spirit?

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

When does a symbol become an image, for example is it wrong to draw a lamb to represent Christ, would that be a second commandment violation according to the confessions? What about a dove to represent the presence of the spirit?

If anyone is looking at it and saying "that's a picture of Jesus," or "that's a picture of the Holy Spirit," then it's a violation of the 2nd commandment.
In the Latin American context the lamb would be a no-go, since that's common Roman Catholic iconography. I don't recall seeing much of that in the US.
Depicting / drawing the Holy Spirit as a dove is common everywhere, so not a good idea.

 

[cw_theology]

If anyone is looking at it and saying "that's a picture of Jesus," or "that's a picture of the Holy Spirit," then it's a violation of the 2nd commandment.
In the Latin American context the lamb would be a no-go, since that's common Roman Catholic iconography. I don't recall seeing much of that in the US.
Depicting / drawing the Holy Spirit as a dove is common everywhere, so not a good idea.

But it's not directly trying to draw the holy spirit, similarly to how a lamb isnt meant to draw Christ, but rather to symbolize an aspect of him.

 

[Eyedoc84]

But it's not directly trying to draw the holy spirit, similarly to how a lamb isnt meant to draw Christ, but rather to symbolize an aspect of him.

Why is this being done?

 

[cw_theology]

Why is this being done?

It's an Instagram profile picture of mine, and I'm starting to wonder if it's a second command violation.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

But it's not directly trying to draw the holy spirit, similarly to how a lamb isnt meant to draw Christ, but rather to symbolize an aspect of him.

In the bible, calling Christ "the lamb of God" is meant to symbolize his meekness and his self-sacrifice.
In Roman Catholic iconography, "the lamb of God" is an image that they put on their houses and in their churches, and venerate.
Because of the latter, I would avoid it.

 

[Joshua]

WLC

Q. 109. What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counselling, commanding, using, and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; tolerating a false religion; 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; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; 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 pretence whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.

Num. 15:39; Deut. 13:6-8; Hos. 5:11; Mic. 6:16; 1 Kings 11:33; 1 Kings 12: 33; Deut. 12:30-32; Deut. 13:6-12; Zech. 13:2-3; Rev. 2:2, 14-15, 20; Rev. 17:12, 16-17; Deut. 4:15-19; Acts 17:29; Rom. 1:21-23, 25; Dan. 3:18; Gal. 4:8; Ex. 32:5; Ex. 32:8; 1 Kings 18:26, 28; Isa. 65:11; Acts 17:22; Col. 2:21-23; Mal. 1:7-8, 14; Deut. 4:2; Ps. 106:39; Matt. 15:9; 1 Pet. 1:18; Jer. 44:17; Isa. 65:3-5; Gal. 1:13-14; 1 Sam. 13:11-12; 1 Sam. 15:21; Acts 8:18; Rom. 2:22; Mal. 3:8; Ex. 4:24-26; Matt. 22:5; Mal. 1:7, 13; Matt. 23:13; Acts 13:44-45; 1 Thess. 2:15-16.

 

[cw_theology]

So I can further this question. When we write out the name Holy Spirit, those words are themselves an image meant to convey the meaning of the 3rd person of the Trinity, so how is writing the names of one of the persons any different then one of those classic photos we always see of Jesus?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

See this prior thread. https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/bizarre-assertion-letters-are-an-image-of-god.109683/

So I can further this question. When we write out the name Holy Spirit, those words are themselves an image meant to convey the meaning of the 3rd person of the Trinity, so how is writing the names of one of the persons any different then one of those classic photos we always see of Jesus?

 

[cw_theology]

See this prior thread. https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/bizarre-assertion-letters-are-an-image-of-god.109683/

I actually did read that thread prior to posting that and it honestly left me more confused. Everyone just asserted that words aren't images, but what's the difference between portraying the holy spirit with "holy spirit" or with an image of a dove?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Then the word "God" is an image of God. The argument is absurd.

I actually did read that thread prior to posting that and it honestly left me more confused. Everyone just asserted that words aren't images, but what's the difference between portraying the holy spirit with "holy spirit" or with an image of a dove?

 

[cw_theology]

Then the word "God" is an image of God. The argument is absurd.

Yes that's the argument they make, and they would say therefore, that images of God are not always bad. I think I may have figured it out by thinking of something else. I see people often compare the 2nd commandment violations with p0rnography, for example the words "naked woman" does not necessarily create an actual image in your mind of a naked woman. In just the same way the word "God" does not necessarily create an image in your mind and thus isn't itself an image

 

[MW]

So I can further this question. When we write out the name Holy Spirit, those words are themselves an image meant to convey the meaning of the 3rd person of the Trinity, so how is writing the names of one of the persons any different then one of those classic photos we always see of Jesus?

The difference is that in the name we are able to use our reason to attribute the proper qualities which belong to the name. In the use of the symbol there is only one point of resemblance. Reason must be used to remove from it everything that is imperfect, and include in it everything that is of the highest eminence. By defaulting back to the symbol you remove the use of reason to arrive at a right conception of God. By so doing you turn Him into a creature.

Stephen Charnock (Works, 1:278) explains it well:

We cannot possibly think or speak of God, unless we transfer the names of created perfections to him; yet we are to conceive of them in a higher manner when we apply them to the divine nature, than when we consider them in the several creatures formally, exceeding those perfections and excellencies which are in the creature, and in a more excellent manner. As one saith: 'Though we cannot comprehend God without the help of such resemblances, yet we may, without making an image of him; so that inability of ours excuseth those apprehensions of him from any way offending against his divine nature.' These are not notions so much suited to the nature of God as the weakness of man. They are helps to our meditations, but ought not to be formal conceptions of him. We may assist ourselves in our apprehensions of him, by considering the subtilty and spirituality of air, and considering the members of a body, without thinking him to be air or to have any corporeal member. Our reason tells us that whatsoever is a body is limited and bounded, and the notion of infiniteness and bodiliness cannot agree and consist together; and therefore, what is offered by our fancy should be purified by our reason.

 

[cw_theology]

Yes that's the argument they make, and they would say therefore, that images of God are no always bad

The difference is that in the name we are able to use our reason to attribute the proper qualities which belong to the name. In the use of the symbol there is only one point of resemblance. Reason must be used to remove from it everything that is imperfect, and include in it everything that is of the highest eminence. By defaulting back to the symbol you remove the use of reason to arrive at a right conception of God. By so doing you turn Him into a creature.

Stephen Charnock (Works, 1:278) explains it well:

We cannot possibly think or speak of God, unless we transfer the names of created perfections to him; yet we are to conceive of them in a higher manner when we apply them to the divine nature, than when we consider them in the several creatures formally, exceeding those perfections and excellencies which are in the creature, and in a more excellent manner. As one saith: 'Though we cannot comprehend God without the help of such resemblances, yet we may, without making an image of him; so that inability of ours excuseth those apprehensions of him from any way offending against his divine nature.' These are not notions so much suited to the nature of God as the weakness of man. They are helps to our meditations, but ought not to be formal conceptions of him. We may assist ourselves in our apprehensions of him, by considering the subtilty and spirituality of air, and considering the members of a body, without thinking him to be air or to have any corporeal member. Our reason tells us that whatsoever is a body is limited and bounded, and the notion of infiniteness and bodiliness cannot agree and consist together; and therefore, what is offered by our fancy should be purified by our reason.

Brooo, this totally solves it. Wow some of you guys are genuinely so smart. Thank you so much brother.

 

[cw_theology]

The difference is that in the name we are able to use our reason to attribute the proper qualities which belong to the name. In the use of the symbol there is only one point of resemblance. Reason must be used to remove from it everything that is imperfect, and include in it everything that is of the highest eminence. By defaulting back to the symbol you remove the use of reason to arrive at a right conception of God. By so doing you turn Him into a creature.

Stephen Charnock (Works, 1:278) explains it well:

We cannot possibly think or speak of God, unless we transfer the names of created perfections to him; yet we are to conceive of them in a higher manner when we apply them to the divine nature, than when we consider them in the several creatures formally, exceeding those perfections and excellencies which are in the creature, and in a more excellent manner. As one saith: 'Though we cannot comprehend God without the help of such resemblances, yet we may, without making an image of him; so that inability of ours excuseth those apprehensions of him from any way offending against his divine nature.' These are not notions so much suited to the nature of God as the weakness of man. They are helps to our meditations, but ought not to be formal conceptions of him. We may assist ourselves in our apprehensions of him, by considering the subtilty and spirituality of air, and considering the members of a body, without thinking him to be air or to have any corporeal member. Our reason tells us that whatsoever is a body is limited and bounded, and the notion of infiniteness and bodiliness cannot agree and consist together; and therefore, what is offered by our fancy should be purified by our reason.

But now it goes back to my original question, is it ok to use a dove to portray the holy spirit, as long as we don't image in the holy spirit as actually a dove?

 

[MW]

But now it goes back to my original question, is it ok to use a dove to portray the holy spirit, as long as we don't image in the holy spirit as actually a dove?

This is what I meant by defaulting to the symbol. If you portray the Spirit as a dove you are excluding rational refinement. You are representing the Holy Spirit as a creature.

 

[Polanus1561]

in what context is this portraying in?