Quote:
Originally Posted by ahavah7  Quote: |
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.
| I think you steal a base here. God has called wine good and images of Him bad. That's the difference. Let's apply the same reasoning to another sin. If I were to say that you can't forbid pornography just because it might make someone sin, you would say that is ridiculous. A person is spiritually harmed merely by looking at pornography. Likewise, a person is spiritually harmed by looking at images of God and for much the same reason. Our minds are always on record and we often have little control over when certain scenes are replayed. They are often replayed out of the clear blue. Who has not had the experience of seeing a picture of Jesus (outside the context of Sunday Worship) and then picturing that image during personal devotions or Sunday Worship? I have. Quote: |
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.
| Yes, but if images of God outside of worship cause us to inwardly remember images of God inside of worship (whether Sabbath day, family, or personal), then the Westminster Divines were right to acknowledge that all making of images of God are prohibited by the second commandment. Quote: |
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.
| Let me guess. The making of images inwardly in our mind? |
Hello Jamie,
It looks like you have some definite opinions, and yet I think that you did not interact with the substance of what I was saying. It is possible that I did not make myself as clear as I should have so I will make a few comments here.
First, it should be understood that in the opening post I was speaking of religious images more broadly than explicitly Theo-centric art. Included in my question was the thought of depicting angels, well-known saints, crosses, Gospel scenes and the like, whether in the media of painting, sculpture, engravings, etc. I realize that, strictly speaking, the second commandment is a commandment directed between God and images in worship, and yet so often the creation of religiously themed art outside of the worship service has been condemned by invoking the second commandment. That is why I linked the two together. I think that an understanding of this will help overcome some of your rather direct connections between religious art, and say, pornography. I meant this to be a discussion of a wider category than just images of Christ.
Second, I do not accept the argument that images must be banned even outside of worship upon the mere possibility that one could have a “relapse”, so to speak, during worship. That is again invoking a “weaker brother bars all” kind of argumentation. If it is problem for you, but not for the town mayor, should that forbid him from having a painting of the last supper in his home? Even more so, I think that one must make a distinction between a temptation that enters the mind and is rejected (and therefore was merely a temptation), and a temptation that enters into the mind and which is entertained and meditated upon (in which case it becomes a sin).
Third, although I usually try not to reply to questions made in insincerity, I think that more theologians really should readdress the issue of mental images and the second commandment. I think that the way the second commandment is expounded in WLC 109 really is without ground on that particular point. If we were to follow their understanding that even mental imagery was to be considered sin, then God himself would be guilty of tempting us to sin as he has provided plenteous example in Scripture whereby we may be tripped up. God gives us mental pictures of himself as a faithful husband, a good shepherd, a mighty warrior, a strong arm, a mothering eagle, and many more. These are concrete mental images invoked by God himself for the sake of his people’s understanding. If it is a sin to attempt to picture him in anyway in our mind, then that would rule out even these images so abundantly found in Scripture. Obviously that becomes a problem.
As I was doing some reading on the issue this evening, I found that my position regarding religious themes in art is not too far off the mark by the standard of past Reformed theologians. In particular, Francis Turretin, whom I am sure you would not consider to have been a softy on things theological, upheld the position that religious images are indeed permitted outside the service of public worship. He recognized that the position of the Jews and some Christians was a total rejection of these things, yet he did not see their position as being theologically supportable (particularly, as Andrew has noted, in light of the structure of the temple and tabernacle). He agrees with the Romanist theologians that the essence of God of course cannot be represented (it is impossible), but that the issue really comes down to whether or not holy art should be found in the sacred places (places of corporate worship) or not. The Lutherans held the former, while he believed that the Reformed should reject it.
So he did not reject religious art in the home, nor the civic arena, but only in the church. He did see the sculpting of even Scripturally based metaphors of God himself to be forbidden outside of worship, but he was certain in defending the propriety of the mental image as a necessity (which would transgress the position of WLC 109 as I understand it).
If you would further like to study his thoughts on this issue, you can find them in his
Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol.2, the 11th topic, 12th question (pp.62-65 in the P&R edition).
And for anyone who may have the recently issued fourth volume of Bavink – does he have a discussion of this integrated into the topic of the Church? I couldn’t actually find any detailed discussion of the Decalogue in his first three volumes.