Archlute
Puritan Board Senior
In light of recent discussions regarding the second commandment and art, I thought that I would toss this question out for you all:
The second commandment is a commandment that pertains specifically to the issue of false worship. This really is incontestable. Traditionally in Reformed literature the application of the second commandment has focused on he issue of what is acceptable in the sphere of the service of worship in the Church. Scripturally, the condemnations of idolatry, where actual images are involved, all have to do with the practice of direct worship rather than art.
So, understanding all of that, how do some of you come to your position that "religious images" outside of worship (i.e. religious art not intended for use in the worship service) constitute a breach of the second commandment?
I would like to see exegetical and theological interactions here, and not just someone cutting and pasting large portions of the Westminster Standards. I have them, I read them, I understand them. Nor do I want the simplistic answer of "people will tend to use them in an idolatrous manner, because we all have sinful hearts". I don't buy it as being a necessity, and we on this board certainly would not accept the sister argument that allowing the sale and consumption of alcohol should be prohibited, because someone who is weak might be tempted to drink it unto drunkenness. Just so you are aware, I have taken an allowed exception to some of the explication of the second commandment in Q109 of the WLC.
I look forward to reading your well reasoned responses after my family and I return this afternoon from watching "Kung Fu Panda"
The second commandment is a commandment that pertains specifically to the issue of false worship. This really is incontestable. Traditionally in Reformed literature the application of the second commandment has focused on he issue of what is acceptable in the sphere of the service of worship in the Church. Scripturally, the condemnations of idolatry, where actual images are involved, all have to do with the practice of direct worship rather than art.
So, understanding all of that, how do some of you come to your position that "religious images" outside of worship (i.e. religious art not intended for use in the worship service) constitute a breach of the second commandment?
I would like to see exegetical and theological interactions here, and not just someone cutting and pasting large portions of the Westminster Standards. I have them, I read them, I understand them. Nor do I want the simplistic answer of "people will tend to use them in an idolatrous manner, because we all have sinful hearts". I don't buy it as being a necessity, and we on this board certainly would not accept the sister argument that allowing the sale and consumption of alcohol should be prohibited, because someone who is weak might be tempted to drink it unto drunkenness. Just so you are aware, I have taken an allowed exception to some of the explication of the second commandment in Q109 of the WLC.
I look forward to reading your well reasoned responses after my family and I return this afternoon from watching "Kung Fu Panda"