John Calvin On Illegitimacy of Mental Images

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

"The Gentiles used images that, according to their rudeness, they might better conceive that God was close unto them. But seeing that God does far surpass the capacity of our mind, whosoever attempts with his mind to comprehend him, he deforms and disfigures his glory with a wicked and false imagination. Wherefore, it is wickedness to imagine anything of him according to our own sense." -- John Calvin on Acts 17:29

 

[Matthew1344]

is this coming from same vein of "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or 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 or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments."?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Yes

 

[Convinced]

"The Gentiles used images that, according to their rudeness, they might better conceive that God was close unto them. But seeing that God does far surpass the capacity of our mind, whosoever attempts with his mind to comprehend him, he deforms and disfigures his glory with a wicked and false imagination. Wherefore, it is wickedness to imagine anything of him according to our own sense." -- John Calvin on Acts 17:29

Is Calvin stating that only through the Holy Spirit can we correctly comprehend God? If not then Calvin seems to make a leap from physical representations of God to mental comprehension of God that I think is not warranted by the passage. The entire context of Acts 17:16-32 is about physical idols of false Gods not comprehension of God. If, like Calvin states here, it is wicked to imagine anything about God then how can we understand God? I agree we cannot have a fully accurate picture of God, but we need to be able to comprehend what He has revealed about Himself in the Bible in order to be saved. All through Acts it was Paul's custom to go to the synagogues and reason with the people there about who God is.

Or am I getting the wrong meaning from Calvins statement.

 

[Tim]

If, like Calvin states here, it is wicked to imagine anything about God then how can we understand God?

Hi Robb. In this sentence you switch from imagine to understand. Do you see the problem?

There is a crucial difference between those two terms. Merriam-Webster defines imagine as: to think of or create (something that is not real) in your mind, to form a picture or idea in your mind of (something that is not real or present), to have or form (an idea or opinion that is not accurate or based on reality).

Imagination should be understood to be in contrast with scripture-informed understanding of the nature of God.

 

[Pergamum]

How do we keep from sinning when reading the narrative portions of the Gospels then? When Jesus walks, sits, teaches, we imagine all of these actions as we read.

 

[Tim]

How do we keep from sinning when reading the narrative portions of the Gospels then?

The answer to this would be the same for any sin.

- Confession, asking for forgiveness, repentance
- Realizing our dependence on God's grace
- Asking the Lord to assist us through the work of His Holy Spirit

Some specifics:
- Endeavoring to focus on the Word(s) of God rather than our own imaginations
- Avoiding observation of 2nd Commandment violations whenever possible, lest they become stuck in our mind

Also, remembering 1 Cor. 10:13:

There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

 

[Pergamum]

But sinning by imagining Jesus in action is part and parcel of reading the Gospels. When we read that Jesus wrote on the ground, to understand the verse, our minds imagine a man writing on the ground. When we read of Jesus breaking the bread, I don't see how it is possible to NOT imagine Jesus breaking the bread. Which means that to refrain from sin would entail refraining from reading those narrative portions of the text. God does not tempt us to sin, but I don't see a way to read Jesus' actions without imagining those actions. If those mental images are sin, how do we not then say that God does not lead us to sin if the very reading of these narrative portions entail sin?

Is the mere imagining of these mental images sin, or the worshipful contemplation of those images?

 

[MW]

Is the mere imagining of these mental images sin, or the worshipful contemplation of those images?

Ralph Erskine, Faith no Fancy, pp. xi.-xii.: "I think the imaginary idea of a crucified Christ, a man upon the cross, is no better than a Popish crucifix, and mere mental idolatry. Though saving faith eats the flesh of the Son of God, by believing his incarnation; and drinks his blood by believing the satisfaction given by him to justice for us: yet to have any carnal notion or imaginary idea of his flesh and blood, or human body, belongs not in the least to saving faith, but rather to unbelief; and is a vain unprofitable imagination. Is it saving faith to see or know Christ after the flesh, either by the eye as a present man, or in the imagination as an absent man? May God deliver all his people from such gross and abominable idolatry."

 

[Tim]

God does not tempt us to sin, but I don't see a way to read Jesus' actions without imagining those actions.

Is not the essence of faith to look to the Lord when we come to grips with the extent of our own inability and when we can't see the way by ourselves?

 

[Afterthought]

Ralph Erskine, Faith no Fancy, pp. xi.-xii.: "I think the imaginary idea of a crucified Christ, a man upon the cross, is no better than a Popish crucifix, and mere mental idolatry. Though saving faith eats the flesh of the Son of God, by believing his incarnation; and drinks his blood by believing the satisfaction given by him to justice for us: yet to have any carnal notion or imaginary idea of his flesh and blood, or human body, belongs not in the least to saving faith, but rather to unbelief; and is a vain unprofitable imagination. Is it saving faith to see or know Christ after the flesh, either by the eye as a present man, or in the imagination as an absent man? May God deliver all his people from such gross and abominable idolatry."

Just wondering (because of the title): does this work also address making pictures to "teach the laity?" Not just pictures of divine Persons, but the use of pictures of biblical events with a view to "teach the laity" or to reach those/act as a bridge or stepping stone for those whom the Scriptures will not immediately or effectively (at first, anyway) reach (as might be claimed by some)? This topic came up in a discussion with others I had concerning illustrated bibles, especially those that illustrate the bible in a comic book/graphic novel fashion. I remember dipping into Erskine's work once or twice, but the copy I found is a very difficult one to go through, so each time I had difficulties motivating myself to have the energy to read it and ended up putting it away for a future date.