Andrew Meredith’s Reviews > Institutes of the Christian Religion (text only) Revised edition by J. Calvin,H. Beveridge > Status Update

(1) "We must hold it as a first principle that as often as any form is assigned to God, His glory is corrupted by an impious lie." The second commandment is as clear as it is firm. "God makes no comparison between images, as if one were more, and another less befitting; He rejects without exception all shapes and pictures and other symbols by which the superstitious imagine they can bring Him near them." All images made by human hands to represent Him do nothing but insult and thereby enrage Him.

(2) The Catholic objection that this prohibition against icons was given to the Jews because they were especially prone to superstition falls apart under even the slightest scrutiny. Does not natural reason itself show that any finite image necessarily insults God's majesty? Who is Paul addressing when he refuted the error of giving any bodily shape to God (Acts 17:29)? Not Jews, but Athenians.

But (3) what about the smoke, the cloud, the flame, the dove, or any other of the manifestations God used to reveal Himself such that men could be said to be face to face with Him? And what about the cherubim woven onto the veil or those formed from gold on the ark to guard the mercy seat? The first class of God's self-chosen physical representations were obviously symbolic, as when God calls Himself a shepherd or a warrior. They are meant to draw our minds to reflect upon particular aspects of God's Person and not God showing forth to us the embodied essence of what He is.

The second class (the cherubim) were, first, purposely placed out of public sight, hidden away as they were where only the priests were allowed entrance. The common Levite would never glimpse the cherubim, much less any Israelite, giving no occasion to use them as objects of adoration. Second, the very stance of the cherubim on the ark was such that their wings purposely shielded the sight of the mercy seat. Far from being a license to create idols at will, they rather discouraged such practices.

(4) Furthermore, the prophets could not be clearer on this matter. Whether Isaiah (2:8, 31; 7:57; 44:16), Hosea (14:4), Micah (5:13), Jeremiah (10:8), Habakkuk (2:18), or the psalmists (115:4, 8; 135:15) the Spirit uses them to relentlessly thunder against any form of idol worship. Especially to be heeded in this matter is Ps 115:8, "They that make them are like unto them, so is everyone that trusted in them." That is, those who worship idols when the very light of nature proves the act abhorrent are dumb, blind, mute, lame, and stupid.

We now must attend to the much quoted assertion of Gregory the Great, (5) "Images are the books of the unlearned." But, "had Gregory got his lesson in this matter in the Spirit's school, he never would have spoken as he did." The general doctrine given above by the prophets is plainly "that every thing respecting God which is learned from images is futile and false." "The prophets contrast images with the true God, as if the two were of an opposite nature and never could be made to agree." If all the unlearned had access to were images (thank God it is not so!), then all they could know "are false and wicked fictions."

(6) And let them heed the very words of their own fathers on the subject! Lactantius, Eusebius, and Augustine, to name just a few, all thunder against the utilization of images in worship, and they say nothing more than the councils before them! "There must be no pictures used in churches: Let nothing which is adored or worshipped be painted on walls" (Council of Elvira, Canon 36; circa. AD 300).

(7) Even if we were to foolishly grant the papists futile and easily refuted plea of images being books of the unlearned, it would still not excuse the "exhibitions of the most shameless luxury or obscenity to which they append the names of saints. Were any one to dress himself after their model, he would deserve the pillory. Indeed, brothels exhibit their inmates more chastely and modestly dressed than churches do images intended to represent virgins and martyrs!" What piety are the unlearned to glean from these licentious displays?

Very different from these follies is how God commanded His doctrine to be set forth for learning - in the public reading and preaching of the Word, and in the administration of the Sacraments, "a doctrine to which little heed can be given by those whose eyes are carried to and from gazing at idols." When the papists point to the stupid, untrained masses to justify their wanton idolatry they fail to mention that it is they who have left their people in such a sorry state by defrauding them of the only doctrine fit to instruct them. If they would but preach Christ crucified, "the people would learn more than from a thousand crosses of wood, stone, gold, or silver."

Where did the utilization of these idols come from? (8) Those who believe they developed to honor the dead saints do not go back far enough. They have been a common and pervasive vice enslaving mankind from the earliest days (Gen 31:19). Indeed it cannot be denied that "the human mind is, so to speak, a perpetual forge of idols." Within the lifetime of faithful Noah, his descendents Terah and Nachor were already worshipers of false gods by means of idolatry (Josh 24:2). At its heart, idolatry is always indicative of a lack of faith, holding as it does "that God is not present with them unless His presence is carnally exhibited" (cf. Exod 32:1).

(9) It is claimed that images and idols used in worship are not themselves accounted as God, only representations of Him. However, it matters not that you actually believe them to be God, but that you believe the power of Divinity somehow or other resides in them. "Were the Jews so utterly thoughtless as not to remember that there was a God whose hand led them out of Egypt before they made the calf"? They clearly showed by their words that "they wished to retain Yahweh their deliverer, provided they saw Him going before them in the calf." Were they excused for this? Their prescribed slaughter indicates otherwise.

(10) If the image is really nothing but an indirect help, as they claim, why do they turn towards them when they pray, nay even pray to them as if it had ears to hear? "Why fatigue themselves with votive pilgrimages to images while they have many similar ones at home?" And all this activity from the best of the papists! What shall we say about those who, with the full approval of Rome, fall down prostrate before them? How can they possibly escape the charges we bring?

(11) Yet, escape it they attempt to do through subtlety, drawing a wispy thin line between "douleia" (reverence, service, honor) and "latria" (worship). Douleia, they claim, may, without insult to God, be paid to statues and pictures, latria is for God alone, "as if it were not a lighter matter to worship than to serve." What does Paul constantly refer to himself as if not a doulos of Christ? Does he mean by this that he serves Christ but wishes it to be known that he does not worship Him? The papists write impressive treatises indeed to prove the two terms are vastly different, "but how eloquent soever they may be, they will never prove by their eloquence that one and the same thing makes two."

Calvin is (12) "not, however, so superstitious as to think that all visible representations of every kind are unlawful. But as sculpture and paintings are gifts of God, both shall be used purely and lawfully, not preposterously abused, no, perverted to our destruction." If the papists really wanted pictures for the unlearned, they could lawfully have visible representations of historical events commissioned for aid in instruction and admonition. But what they have instead is "merely bodily shapes and figures," often near nude at that, which "could not be of any utility in teaching," but rather are present only to be gazed at, prayed to, and adored.

Regardless if they be historical or pictorial, (13) should any images be placed before the eyes of the church on the Lord's Day? The testimony of the early church unanimously says no. For almost 500 years the early church did not allow images of any kind in the sanctuary. The practice began to grow in popularity during Augustine's day, and we can see by his many warnings and invectives against it that the novelty did not sit well with him. Worse even then the potential harm they might cause by attracting worship to themselves is the inevitable denigration they do by their very presence to God's chosen symbols, baptism and the Lord's Supper.

(14) Calvin is aware that the Second Council of Nicea (AD 787) declared icons acceptable, but there is no end to the fanciful interpretations they give unrelated passages to prove their stupid doctrine. Some examples: "No man, when He has lighted a candle, putteth it under a bushel," means, of course, that images are to be placed on altars. "As we have heard, so also we have seen," therefore clearly God is known not merely by the hearing of the Word, but also by the seeing of images. "God created man in His image," therefore it obviously follows that we should make images too. "Their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them."

(15) The arguments of this council being a fallacious mess, how could the finale not be all the more absurd? "Theodosius of Mira confirms the proprietary of worshiping icons by the dreams of his archdeacon, which he adduces with as much gravity as if he were in possession of a response from heaven."

In utilizing this farce of a council to bolster their claims, the papists catch themselves in a bind and so reveal their duplicity. For, (16) on the one hand, they want to use the Councils Iconic rulings as an example of Church Tradition, given weight by both its earlier time and ecumenical nature. But, on the other hand, they would like for us all to conveniently forget what abominable canons the council actually produced, canons the papists themselves want no part in.

For whereas the papists put forth their images and icons as no more than optional helps, useful tools for teaching, the council declared anathema on anyone who refused to utilize icons during worship, and attributed all of the calamities of the East to the crime of not having worshiped them. Whereas the papists desire to uphold their precarious douleia/latria distinction, the council decreed that one must "pay icons the respect which is due to the ever blessed Trinity: every person refusing to do the same thing is anathematized and classed with Marcionites and Manichees." The council concluded its proceedings thusly, "Rejoice and exult, ye who, having the image of Christ, offer sacrifice to it!" "Where is now the distinction of latria and douleia with which they would throw dust in all eyes?"

My thoughts: This was a fun chapter to read. When Calvin gets going, he really gets going and can spit fire with the best of them (I quoted his idols of saints vs. whores in a brothel clothing comparison at length because I love it so much). Reading Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, and the rest clearly indicates just how poisoned with decorum and false niceties our soft, weak, effeminate popular theologians and pastors have become today. The same theologians and pastors that hold forth these men as their spiritual forefathers and fully recommend their writings will tut-tut anyone who dares speak like them.

"Oh," it is said, "that just shows how our modern ministers' hearts have been filled with the love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control of the Spirit." Really? Is that why so many in their circles keep getting caught in adultery? Is that why they all, almost to a man, either fell for or remained silent during the Covid nonsense and the BLM/CRT farce (the culturally popular views) at the time? Is that why they have virtually nothing to say (but perhaps a few "whispers") on the LGBTQIA+ blasphemies, the mutilation of children, and the millions of babies murdered each year by their heartless mothers? No. Our popular theologians and pastors are spineless men who hold firmly at all costs to the Eleventh Commandment: "Thou shalt be nice." (After all, the Eleventh Commandment is how you can be winsome, retain your job opportunities, and keep the church-lady schoolmarms who actually run your church from bullying you.) If you can't draw holy fire out of a preacher on these issues, he should do the congregation a favor and voluntarily stay seated in the pews.

Representantive of my point, the PCA believes itself to most purely carry on the legacy of the founder of Presbyterianism, John Knox. Go ahead, read his most famous book, "The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women" (1558), and then tell me if any of those who claim his theological lineage today sound like him or would even begin to tolerate his leadership in their church.

If the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to wish out loud that his theological opponents would cut their own genitals off (Gal 5:12), be careful you are not being nicer than God.

Screed aside, to the topic at hand, consider me an iconoclast.* There's quite a few reasons for this:

When I type the name, "Frodo Baggins," whose face popped into your head? Once an image is associated with something, it is virtually impossible to mentally unassociate it. So, more importantly, when I type, "Jesus Christ," if a rather handsome, tall, white, anglo-saxon man with brown feathered hair immediately comes to mind, or when I simply type, "God," if a white-bearded old man sitting on some clouds is what you see in your mind's eye, how can these representations not negatively impact your worship of the Holy Trinity?

It is true that this is a pet doctrine of mine, but I think it's crucial here. Mankind, male and female, are the appointed images of God, collectively and individually. We are all living images of the Living God, and we represent Him with everything we think, say, and do. This is the very basis of mankind's eternal condemnation because through our thoughts, words, and deeds we all are constantly bearing false witness about who He is. Idols, then, don't just denigrate God's glory (though they absolutely do), they denigrate our glory as well.

Jesus, the perfect image of God, came and represented the Father perfectly by obeying the Law perfectly (for the purpose of the Law is to instruct us on how to properly image our Creator). When we are joined by baptism to His resurrected, Spirit-ual Body, the Church, the Spirit removes the veil that lies over our hearts, so that we may truly behold the glory of Christ in the Law, and beholding this Image steadily, we are transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another (2 Cor 3:15-18). Idols, icons, images, and the like distract from true worship by drawing the eyes and the heart away from beholding Jesus Christ, the perfect Image, as He is presented to us in the Word.

*I appreciate the Cross along with the Chi Rho, the Ichthys, the Triquetra, etc., as time-honored symbols of the Christian faith. I tolerate, but personally do not prefer, their use in the Lord's Day service. I am quite open to being convinced otherwise by a good argument or two.