Pictures of Jesus and the Sovereignty of Divine Revelation. By David VanDrunen

Status
Not open for further replies.

TheOldCourse

Puritan Board Sophomore
It's certainly possible that this was the case. The Cathedral church of Dunkeld was "restored" in the early 20th century away from a Reformed focus around the Word and sacraments closer to its original form, which makes it a horrible place for preaching. Yet the quote I cited from Robert Halley shows that in 1869 there were non-conformists in England who would never tolerate a cross but would have a dove on the pulpit, and it doesn't seem like an innovation to him. There is nothing else about the pulpit or the arrangement of the church that suggests anything other than a thoroughly reformed arrangement, which makes me wonder if the dove isn't original (1798). This wouldn't justify the practice of course, but it would suggest that it might be the tip of the camel's nose. The Church of Scotland had plenty of problems in the 18th century (hence the existence of my own church, the ARP), and so it wouldn't be surprising to find a softening of standards even in the more evangelical/Reformed wing (which the remainder of the design suggests that Little Dunkeld belonged to).
Has there ever been any discussion to this effect regarding the ARP's own seal?
 

G

Puritan Board Senior
Since scripture does not say the the HS IS A DOVE, but rather descended like a dove, would it not be permissible so long as we are not saying the HS is a dove (assume this is outside a sanctuary or formal worship service)?

Just thinking out loud. Personally I would rather avoid it, but still the questions arise.

Further, what about the Triquetra?
 
Last edited:

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Further, what about the Triquetra?
Yes; at least it was regarded so by the puritans. It was certainly regarded as items for destruction by one of the official images destroyers of the Long Parliament, William Dowsing, of fame for tossing Ruben's Crucifixion into bits and tossing the pieces into the Thames. The common people were also taking it upon themselves to freely destroy windows or whatever they perceived to be something illicit. See the link here: https://archive.org/details/a678707900dowsuoft/page/30
Possibly it was things like this that made the assembly what to put in safeguards in the list of scandalous sins to as far as books in libraries, historical seals of famlies, etc. https://archive.org/details/minutesofsession00west/page/182
 

G

Puritan Board Senior
Yes; at least it was regarded so by the puritans. It was certainly regarded as items for destruction by one of the official images destroyers of the Long Parliament, William Dowsing, of fame for tossing Ruben's Crucifixion into bits and tossing the pieces into the Thames. The common people were also taking it upon themselves to freely destroy windows or whatever they perceived to be something illicit. See the link here: https://archive.org/details/a678707900dowsuoft/page/30
Possibly it was things like this that made the assembly what to put in safeguards in the list of scandalous sins to as far as books in libraries, historical seals of famlies, etc. https://archive.org/details/minutesofsession00west/page/182
So they took down all crosses as well?
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Dowsing did unless he uses cross for more than a bare cross but for crucifix. I don't recall that the assembly identified the bare cross as something scandalous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top