The crucifix............

[bradfordl]

Are you seriously suggesting that someone would react that way if their flannlegraph Jesus caught fire?

Yes, Epi, I believe they would. Perhaps not to the extent shown in the video, but if at all differently than any other piece of flannel, or their Last Supper painting more than a landscape, it is conveying upon an object reverence due only God.

This is precisely what RC's do with the elements after they've spoken their incantation over them. They perceive them to be actual pieces of God, and so treat them with prescribed reverence. ANY type of reverence even remotely similar to that, given an image of God, is the small spark of idolatry, just as any spark of excitement kindled by views of immodestly dressed women is the beginning of lust. Apparently testing oneself in the first is OK, but not the second. Strange.

When an object inspires a different spiritual posture, if it is not an image of God, then perhaps one could say it was not idolatry, although I'd still want to be careful, but if it is an image of God, it is by definition idolatry.

 

[Epiphoskei]

When an object inspires a different spiritual posture, if it is not an image of God, then perhaps one could say it was not idolatry, although I'd still want to be careful, but if it is an image of God, it is by definition idolatry.

Even if no image is worshiped?

 

[bradfordl]

Even if no image is worshiped?

Epi, the point I'm trying to make is that God had a reason for not allowing images (1) to be made, and (2) to be worshipped or served. I think it is plain that we fallen filthy humans have a strong tendency to make an idol of anything we can. God gave us His Word, preaching, and the sacraments through which to view Him. His law prohibits the making or reverencing of images of Him or any thing we might consider a god, and instructs us to watch ourselves against this temptation . Moses says:

Deu 4:15-26 "Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, (16) beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, (17) the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, (18) the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth. (19) And beware lest you raise your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them, things that the LORD your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven. (20) But the LORD has taken you and brought you out of the iron furnace, out of Egypt, to be a people of his own inheritance, as you are this day. (21) Furthermore, the LORD was angry with me because of you, and he swore that I should not cross the Jordan, and that I should not enter the good land that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance. (22) For I must die in this land; I must not go over the Jordan. But you shall go over and take possession of that good land. (23) Take care, lest you forget the covenant of the LORD your God, which he made with you, and make a carved image, the form of anything that the LORD your God has forbidden you. (24) For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God. (25) "When you father children and children's children, and have grown old in the land, if you act corruptly by making a carved image in the form of anything, and by doing what is evil in the sight of the LORD your God, so as to provoke him to anger, (26) I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that you will soon utterly perish from the land that you are going over the Jordan to possess. You will not live long in it, but will be utterly destroyed.

And Paul says:

2Co 5:14-17 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; (15) and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised. (16) From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. (17) Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

There is evidently a danger wrapped up in images that our God would have us to avoid, at least from what I can see. I believe we are inured to that danger today, but it is a danger nonetheless. So I will agree with the WCF and those who formed it that these images violate God's law.

 

[bradfordl]

Two more points-

There is a tendency to conflate the first and second commandments. But if we are to have no other gods, why would there then be a need for a second commandment not to have images if that prohibition is only against them if we worship them? Wouldn't the first already have covered that? The logical conclusion, especially in light of Deut. 4, is that we are to have no images of God, and that He intentionally left out any description of Himself for that reason.

Secondly, I would ask that where do those who approve the use of images find support for that in the scriptures? I have seen much said to refute the scriptures that proscribe images, but none posted commending them. Got any?

 

[Epiphoskei]

First, at least insofar as you have been discussing this with me, you have to stop behaving as if you're arguing with someone who approves of the use of images. I have said a half dozen times that I disagree with their use because they introduce an understanding of God other than that which is inside scripture, thus violating Sola Scriptura. I only disagree with you in your reason for rejecting them and the exegesis you take to get there.

Second, the consequences you have raised from the use of images all may be explained as consequences of violating Sola Scriptura, and do not demand that the image be defined as an idol. Once the scriptural revelation of God is replaced by an image, the mind is compelled to worship the new understanding of God, comitting idolatry as a secondary act, however the image itself cannot be regarded as idolatry on that basis because it, the actual piece of matter, is not of necessity being revered as an actual god.

The second commandment simply does not make a special exception for God saying "you can make images of animals if you never worship them, but you can't make a picture of God ever, ever, under any circumstances, for any purposes." This returns us to the choice we have to make between banning all pictoral art in totality, or banning all images for the purpose of worship exclusivly.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

“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; you shall not bow down to them nor 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 fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments."

What of the images of Cheribum on the Ark of the Covenant, by GOD's own instruction.
Graven image or no? I wouldn't think so.

I understand the command given by GOD in this commandment, no carved image(statue?) or likeness(any other artwork) of anything in heaven....I assume "in the earth beneath" means images of hell???? I don't know. I have NO clue as to what is meant by "in the water under the earth"....the rest is straighforward.

 

[nill]

(Small insignificant pea voice: I still don't understand, probably because I can't get my head around most of this, how the second commandment forbids any kind of image of God, whatsoever, but not any kind of image of anything, whatsoever. It doesn't sound like the language makes a distinction: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.")

 

[bradfordl]

First, at least insofar as you have been discussing this with me, you have to stop behaving as if you're arguing with someone who approves of the use of images.

I'm not arguing with you, just responding to your points.

I have said a half dozen times that I disagree with their use because they introduce an understanding of God other than that which is inside scripture, thus violating Sola Scriptura.

Understood.

I only disagree with you in your reason for rejecting them and the exegesis you take to get there.

OK

Second, the consequences you have raised from the use of images all may be explained as consequences of violating Sola Scriptura, and do not demand that the image be defined as an idol. Once the scriptural revelation of God is replaced by an image, the mind is compelled to worship the new understanding of God, comitting idolatry as a secondary act,

No disagreement.

however the image itself cannot be regarded as idolatry on that basis because it, the actual piece of matter, is not of necessity being revered as an actual god.

Whether the image itself constitutes idolatry as a material object of worship is not the entire issue. The Deut. 4 passage infers your own position, that there is something to be careful about concerning images, and it specifically indicates that there was no form seen of Him for a reason; that they not attempt to depict Him in any way. He progresses in defining such first with form, then figure, then gender, then any other creature, that could possibly be construed to represent Him. That's where the distinction must be made. Someone's depiction of Christ is necessarily a representation of God. A depiction of a horse is not necessarily a representation of God.

The second commandment simply does not make a special exception for God saying "you can make images of animals if you never worship them, but you can't make a picture of God ever, ever, under any circumstances, for any purposes." This returns us to the choice we have to make between banning all pictoral art in totality, or banning all images for the purpose of worship exclusivly.

I think the distinction pointed out above does argue for a special exception for God in the matter of images. But please help me understand why, if the second commandment is only prohibiting the worship of images and not images themselves, would that prohibition be necessary in light of the first commandment? We are already commanded to have no other gods. That would already prohibit the object worship of images, would it not?

What of the images of Cheribum on the Ark of the Covenant, by GOD's own instruction.
Graven image or no? I wouldn't think so.

I know you didn't want me replying to your posts, NRB, but since you seem to be asking a question, I thought I'd answer it, but if it offends you, I apologize and ask that you skip by my response.

The artwork commanded in the temple and on the ark is not at all intended to be a representation of God, and that is never inferred. The second commandment is addressing representations of God Himself through any means of depiction, whether direct or by inference. Direct depictions are obviously representations of Him. Creature depictions may be inferred to represent Him in several ways; a dove representing the Holy Spirit or a sheep representing Christ as examples of near direct inference; and as objects of worship by unbelievers as though the image itself were a god, because there is only one God - regardless of how men obscure that fact with their vain imaginations God is the only being due worship, idolaters' misdirecting of that worship notwithstanding - it is thus a representation of God, even if a misrepresentation.

When creature depictions so infer to depict God they are prohibited by the second commandment. When there is no such inference, they aren't.

Anyhow, that's my position. Still waiting for any scripture which commends the use of images of God.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

.

The artwork commanded in the temple and on the ark is not at all intended to be a representation of God, and that is never inferred. The second commandment is addressing representations of God Himself through any means of depiction, whether direct or by inference. Direct depictions are obviously representations of Him. Creature depictions may be inferred to represent Him in several ways; a dove representing the Holy Spirit or a sheep representing Christ as examples of near direct inference; and as objects of worship by unbelievers as though the image itself were a god, because there is only one God - regardless of how men obscure that fact with their vain imaginations God is the only being due worship, idolaters' misdirecting of that worship notwithstanding - it is thus a representation of God, even if a misrepresentation.

When creature depictions so infer to depict God they are prohibited by the second commandment. When there is no such inference, they aren't.

Anyhow, that's my position. Still waiting for any scripture which commends the use of images of God.

Thanks for the response.

Isn't a Cheribum considered something in Heaven above? I would think that it is, so would naturally break commandment #2 in man-made image form right? That's the literal words of the commandment.
So I am having issue with the correct definition of "graven"(I think! )...because I know GOD would NOT break His own commandment here.
I'm trying to get a grasp of all of this seriously.
We got off on the wrong foot. I apologize for that.

 

[bradfordl]

Thanks for the response.

Isn't a Cheribum considered something in Heaven above? I would think that it is, so would naturally break commandment #2 in man-made image form right? That's the literal words of the commandment.
So I am having issue with the correct definition of "graven"(I think!

)...because I know GOD would NOT break His own commandment here.

I'm trying to get a grasp of all of this seriously.
We got off on the wrong foot. I apologize for that.

I apologize as well, and accept yours. I am not the best at expressing myself in text, so please forgive my tendency to sound as though I'm attacking.

The distinction, I believe, is that whatever is represented by an image is not to represent God or a god. Whether of the one true God, or that of one created in man's imagination, it is a violation of the commandment. In either case, an image would represent the one true God, because even those invented by man are only invented because men have an innate awareness that there is a God, as explained here:

Rom 1:18-23 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. (19) For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. (20) For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (21) For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. (22) Claiming to be wise, they became fools, (23) and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

So they exchange the glory of God for various images, but in a sense they still represent God.

If it were that the prohibition is only against the worship of an object in the form of an image, it would be a redundant commandment, because the first already prohibits having any other god than the one true God.

The second commandment applies to both believers and unbelievers, as do all the other nine. But there is a distinction... unbelievers will create a god of their own imagining, and create an image to represent it. Believers might create an image to represent the God they worship, and that is prohibited. The nations that surrounded Israel were condemned for their idolatry, which took on various forms, but Israel itself was warned in this commandment to not commit the same sin by depicting their God by an image.

Again, that is what I understand the scriptures and most of the Reformers to be saying.

Graven would indicate anything created by the hand of man. The prohibition against things in heaven... etc. is against any of those things that are intended to represent God. The cherubim on the ark were not intended to represent God.

 

[Epiphoskei]

I think the distinction pointed out above does argue for a special exception for God in the matter of images. But please help me understand why, if the second commandment is only prohibiting the worship of images and not images themselves, would that prohibition be necessary in light of the first commandment? We are already commanded to have no other gods. That would already prohibit the object worship of images, would it not?

It prohibits the creation of images for worship, not simply the worship of images. It just doesn't forbid the creation of any image not for worship.

 

[bradfordl]

It prohibits the creation of images for worship, not simply the worship of images. It just doesn't forbid the creation of any image not for worship.

Well, it seems plain that it is not simply prohibiting the worship of images, since the first commandment would already forbid that. But wouldn't it (the first) also forbid the creation of images for worship, since no image could ever be truly of God, hence any image would be 'another god'? I think both are obviously prohibited by the first. So why the second?

 

[Epiphoskei]

The tenth commandment would presumably be likewise covered if God had just said "don't covet anything." I don't intend to speculate as to why God chooses to use many words.