|
Concerning Biggs' statement, I think he would be hard pressed to go back and prove that his interpretation of the Confession was in line with the intentions of the Framers. When they say no images, they mean no images. Period.
I believe it was Thomas Watson who said that any image that is created to be a representation of Christ ought also bring a person to reverence and devotion, otherwise it is in vain, and we should never do such a thing in vain. But the kicker is, if such a thing does draw us night to worship, it has become an idol. So it's a catch 22.
We don't attempt images portraying God for several reasons:
1. The Second Commandment says not to.
2. We can't adequately represent Him in His fullness, whether it be the person of the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit.
3. Thus, to be brought nigh to God in such a fashion is not according to His prescription, and is idolatry, since such an image is not God.
I'm pretty tired, so I may have been unclear in what I was trying to intimate. I was in bed for a few minutes, then got up to take care of something and saw this. I'm sure someone will pick up where I've messed up.
|