Bizarre Assertion: Letters are an Image of God?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Then I suppose comparing standard Westminster views of the second commandment to a Muslim bomber and Wahabbi terrorism isn’t serious, either.
I'm sorry I assumed you would be familiar with the Bamiyan Buddhas and the Taliban. That wasn't an act of terrorism. The Taliban controlled Bamiyan and Mullah Omar issued a lawful governmental order to his military to shell those public idols, under your same theory. "Muslims should be proud of smashing idols. It has given praise to Allah that we have destroyed them."

My point is to take a step away from this disingenuity in defending the standard. You did agree that it is "odd why so many people are so into images of Christ and God" and that "Nobody loses anything by dispensing with images." You aren't blind; you can see the objective beauty and significance of art including "sacred art," and the history and utility of their use outside of the Reformed context. It is disingenuous to find this incomprehensible, and it is unworkable and unserious to advocate for the actual destruction and erasure of all historic art, not to mention divisive, nor do I find this to be required by the Westminster Standards. That's a far step removed from making or using images of God, approving of or worshipping them.
 
My point is to take a step away from this disingenuity in defending the standard. You did agree that it is "odd why so many people are so into images of Christ and God" and that "Nobody loses anything by dispensing with images." You aren't blind; you can see the objective beauty and significance of art including "sacred art," and the history and utility of their use outside of the Reformed context. It is disingenuous to find this incomprehensible, and it is unworkable and unserious to advocate for the actual destruction and erasure of all historic art, not to mention divisive, nor do I find this to be required by the Westminster Standards. That's a far step removed from making or using images of God, approving of or worshipping them.
You seem to like the word “disingenuous.” I’m not sure you know what it means, though. I have said nothing in this thread I did not fully mean. And I’m not sure where you get the idea that because I am against images of Christ that therefore I am for the “actual destruction and erasure of all historic art.” You are clearly being controlled by your passions at this point and not by cool-headed biblical or confessional thought.

Regarding the rest of what you said, you are clearly outside the bounds of Westminster. It’s as simple as that.
 
You seem to like the word “disingenuous.” I’m not sure you know what it means, though. I have said nothing in this thread I did not fully mean. And I’m not sure where you get the idea that because I am against images of Christ that therefore I am for the “actual destruction and erasure of all historic art.” You are clearly being controlled by your passions at this point and not by cool-headed biblical or confessional thought.

Regarding the rest of what you said, you are clearly outside the bounds of Westminster. It’s as simple as that.
As I pointed out, Westminster was a real place with real people, who did not take your view on destroying artistic images of Christ. If you want to defend a standard and win someone over, it doesn't help to have an unworkable and idiosyncratic view of that standard (paint over The Last Supper) and a lack of empathy for other perspectives ("odd" why someone would think he "loses anything").

I don't think I have anything further to add to this thread.
 
Which tradition gives me nuance on the First Commandment?
I'm from the land which is probably the last bastion of idol worship. I see it every day. But I want to be able to distinguish between that and the Lutherans or even the RC/EO. That's what I meant by "nuance"; it was a poor choice of word on my part.
 
I don't think I have anything further to add to this thread.
I was going to suggest that perhaps you should take this issue up with your pastor. I don’t know you, nor do I have charge over your soul. So, I have little interest in continuing. But I will say: I am not a little shocked that the things I’ve said here have gotten me compared to Muslims, and by a member of the RPCNA, to boot.
 
Plenty of things were destroyed at the first reformation and as I noted above at least one bit of idolatrous art by Ruben was destroyed under the Long Parliament by a unit charged with rooting it out. The Westminster assembly was called upon to opine on removal of such things as idolatrous images and deliberated and granted exceptions for scholarly valuable books not generally seen and coats of arms.
 
I may be wrong here, but is Taylor really suggesting we form roving bands of idol smashers? I thought all he was suggesting is that if he personally was in the position of authority to remove an image, he would.
 
While I firmly believe that any and all images of Jesus are second-commandment violations, even the so-called "educational" versions (the Word is not sufficient to teach us about Jesus??), I do not believe that we have to destroy art to make the point. Give it away or relocate it to Catholic sites.
 
I may be wrong here, but is Taylor really suggesting we form roving bands of idol smashers? I thought all he was suggesting is that if he personally was in the position of authority to remove an image, he would.
Yes, that’s all I am saying.
 
I'm from the land which is probably the last bastion of idol worship. I see it every day. But I want to be able to distinguish between that and the Lutherans or even the RC/EO. That's what I meant by "nuance"; it was a poor choice of word on my part.

No worries. Of course we can recognise the good in a tradition like Lutheranism whilst recognising the bad, and one wouldn't want to include them amongst pagans. But if something is contrary to the Word of God is has to be confronted: in other churches and in our own.
 
I may be wrong here, but is Taylor really suggesting we form roving bands of idol smashers? I thought all he was suggesting is that if he personally was in the position of authority to remove an image, he would.

Surely we can assert that it is wrong to make images of God without also requiring that we actively go round the country smashing all such depictions. I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea but it's not the case that one must do such a thing in order to be opposed to depictions of God.
 
Plenty of things were destroyed at the first reformation and as I noted above at least one bit of idolatrous art by Ruben was destroyed under the Long Parliament by a unit charged with rooting it out. The Westminster assembly was called upon to opine on removal of such things as idolatrous images and deliberated and granted exceptions for scholarly valuable books not generally seen and coats of arms.
I'm going to truly stay out of this thread after this, and have no further reply to Taylor, but since you are correcting me on facts I do want to address this statement.

Rubens (not Ruben) was a contemporary artist, not a historic artist, he was commissioned to fashion pieces for papists who were living in England at the time of the Civil War. I can't find any source for your statement that "at least one bit of idolatrous art by Ruben was destroyed under the Long Parliament by a unit charged with rooting it out," though that is far removed from iconoclasm being the public policy of the Commonwealth; do you have one?

The only Rubens I have found allegedly destroyed by Parliamentarians is Crucifixion with Mary, St John and Mary Magdalen, and note that Wikipedia is wrong concerning it. It was made in 1622 commissioned by Calvert, was only 20 years old at the outbreak of the civil war, and it is pure speculation how it ended up unaccounted for in the collection of its last owner by 1650. Loomie, A. "A Lost Crucifixion by Rubens", The Burlington Magazine Vol. 138, No. 1124 (November 1996), https://www.jstor.org/stable/887212 (images present in the article).

Further, public removal is not the same thing as destruction, and the exceptions you cite show a much broader view than you or Taylor are taking.
 
I'm going to truly stay out of this thread after this, and have no further reply to Taylor, but since you are correcting me on facts I do want to address this statement.

Rubens (not Ruben) was a contemporary artist, not a historic artist, he was commissioned to fashion pieces for papists who were living in England at the time of the Civil War. I can't find any source for your statement that "at least one bit of idolatrous art by Ruben was destroyed under the Long Parliament by a unit charged with rooting it out," though that is far removed from iconoclasm being the public policy of the Commonwealth; do you have one?

The only Rubens I have found allegedly destroyed by Parliamentarians is Crucifixion with Mary, St John and Mary Magdalen, and note that Wikipedia is wrong concerning it. It was made in 1622 commissioned by Calvert, was only 20 years old at the outbreak of the civil war, and it is pure speculation how it ended up unaccounted for in the collection of its last owner by 1650. Loomie, A. "A Lost Crucifixion by Rubens", The Burlington Magazine Vol. 138, No. 1124 (November 1996), https://www.jstor.org/stable/887212 (images present in the article).

Further, public removal is not the same thing as destruction, and the exceptions you cite show a much broader view than you or Taylor are taking.
Spelling issues aside, I footnote the source in the link I gave. All I'm saying is that proper authorities, as in keeping with the Westminster standards' teaching, did take various actions to remove idolatry, including destruction.
 
Spelling issues aside, I footnote the source in the link I gave.
Thanks, the link was broken but I do now find the cite to the follow-up article by the same author in the same journal in 1998 ("The Destruction of Rubens's 'Crucifixion' in the Queen's Chapel, Somerset House"). I'll refrain from quibbling on its significance and honor my word to bow out.
 
Thanks, the link was broken but I do now find the cite to the follow-up article by the same author in the same journal in 1998 ("The Destruction of Rubens's 'Crucifixion' in the Queen's Chapel, Somerset House"). I'll refrain from quibbling on its significance and honor my word to bow out.
That's fine; the follow up article confirmed with sources the destruction of the painting in question.
 
I read through this paper Puritan Iconoclasm in England 1640-1660 a few years ago. It's a pretty comprehensive review of the matter, and documents how numerous religious articles, some dating from medieval times, were indeed destroyed in places like St. Paul's and Westminster Abbey (see pages 93ff.)
 
I read through this paper Puritan Iconoclasm in England 1640-1660 a few years ago. It's a pretty comprehensive review of the matter, and documents how numerous religious articles, some dating from medieval times, were indeed destroyed in places like St. Paul's and Westminster Abbey (see pages 93ff.)
If it is the same, I cite the 2003 published form or a refined form (Puritan Iconoclasm during the English Civil War [Woodbridge, U.K.: The Boydell Press, 2003]) in the article I linked to above on the Intent of LC 109 (published as a short piece originally published in The Confessional Presbyterian 5 [2009]). A useful source.
 
Lot of attention on this thread, and having gone through the first 30 posts I'll briefly say ... for the first 20+ years of my salvation I had no idea that the paintings, illustrations in books, were a violation of the 2nd commandment. Not that I hadn't read the 10 commandments a time or two, but if the subject was ever preached in a sermon where I was in attendance I must have been daydreaming.

When I came to the PB, and shortly after left (painfully) my Arminian Baptist congregation to begin my journey with the OPC, I first became aware of the 2nd commandment as applicable in my life. At first it was very difficult for me not to see an image of Christ walking on the water, and so forth, when I read the Gospels. That has improved over 11 years. As for Leonardo's Last Supper, It, and all things on this old earth, will be burned to ashes when we see the appearance of the new heaven and earth where righteousness dwells.
 
Matthew 6:19-21
New King James Version
“Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

The painting of the last supper is of no value to the pilgrim and its destruction no consequence. If someone is offended because of monetary value does it not show it was an idol (money > 2nd commandment of the Lord)? If someone is offended because of some religious significance does it not further prove it was an idol? Moses didn't keep the golden calf around because of its high value, historical or religious significance. Seems pretty straight forward to me.
 
Matthew 6:19-21
New King James Version
“Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

The painting of the last supper is of no value to the pilgrim and its destruction no consequence. If someone is offended because of monetary value does it not show it was an idol (money > 2nd commandment of the Lord)? If someone is offended because of some religious significance does it not further prove it was an idol? Moses didn't keep the golden calf around because of its high value, historical or religious significance. Seems pretty straight forward to me.
Hezekiah had the bronze serpent destroyed even though it had been commanded by God to be made, when it was idolatrously used (hence the principle of removing such things addressed by such as Calvin, Gillespie and several of the Reformed Confessions).
 
Dr. Hendrick Krabbendam has been noted for asserting, "the heart of the matter is a matter of the heart". Written language has often developed from pictorial forms. Presbyterians and Reformed often have unique characteristics surrounding images. Worship too carries unique distinctives. When we look at the commandments and try to discern what our Creator would have us do, I find it is our heart that carries the most weight in what discernment we attribute to divine authority. The word God cannot be entirely disambiguated from image, but neither does it necessitate nor even lend an unqualified suspicion of violation of divine ordinance.
Still, I have witnessed folk who sometimes make an idol of even the Scriptures in their veneration of a book or tome. Crosses too, are sometimes erroneously thought to imbue magical properties of protection. And sure, there are reasons for differences between Protestant and Roman Catholic crosses. There are reasons certain Protestants removed crosses from worship areas entirely. There are reasons certain Jewish or Messianic groups frown on spelling some words out. Most of these are hedges, in my opinion, to safeguard commandment violation. Often, the closer one gets to something recognisable as an object of worship in possibility of distracting from the Almighty, the closer the matter of the heart comes to being compromised.
I guess it's not unlike eating shrimp - OK, though not exactly for everyone.
 
Last edited:
It is not OK to produce an image of God for any reason. When I write the words God, LORD, Jehovah, Father, Christ, Jesus, Holy Ghost, etc. these letters are not making an image of any Person of God, but are markers of sounds. If our written language was pictographic and there was an attempt to use miniature pictures to represent God or the Persons of God, the system of writing itself would need to reform and evolve.
 
When it comes to pagan idols or pagan temples, in my opinion, we are in a different category from depictions of the true God. The latter are expressly, in all times, forbidden. The former are not depictions of the true God and therefore do not come under the same absolute prohibition. Context governs how they should be treated. A buddha is an idol, but I see nothing wrong with appreciating one in a museum, or in location in an Oriental temple. I wouldn't have one in my house however. A former pagan temple is just a building (and there are many beautiful examples of such buildings). And therefore I see it as no contradiction to approve the destruction of any image of the Godhead but greatly regret the destruction of ancient buildings by Muslims. Obviously where any idol becomes a snare for a Christian it should be cast away*. Depictions of demons should also be destroyed as, at their root, they are representations of the evil one and are intended to channel dark spirits. Such statues give me chills even thinking about them. We must remember there is spiritual evil around us and whilst it is no match for Christ, we are no match for it without Christ and even if we are in Christ we must always be vigilant.

In answer to the original point. Words are not images as has been said but they are revelation and they are the medium of revelation used by God to reveal Himself to us: the Word inscripturated and the Word incarnate. So they certainly can't be counted along with images as images are forbidden by the Second Commandment. It also reminds us that words have great power. Through them God communicates to our very souls by the power of His Spirit blessing the Word to us. God spoke the Creation into existence and He speaks the recreation of His image in our souls. No image could ever contain the majesty, the transcendence, the incomprehensibility of such a God. So we shouldn't even make the attempt.

*I can also see why a Christian may take an absolutist approach to any and all idols, no matter the context they appear. I fully understand such a position. Personally I would have no problem going to view a statue of Apollo in a museum, however.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top